Wikipedia talk:List of controversial issues/Archive 1

Northern Irish Paramilitaries
Despite being an extremely hot topic when it comes to controversy, with nearly all related pages being protected, the list seems to lack any mention of ttrouble's related topics such as the Original IRA, IRA 1922-69, Provisional IRA, Official IRA, Real IRA, Continuity IRA, INLA, and the loyalist paramilitaries such as the UDA, UVF, LVF and even the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Should these be mentioned on this page?

They are very controversial, that has resulted in most of them being protected due to excessive republican and loyalist vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quindie (talk • contribs) 15:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

New Section on Scientific Controversies
I was surprised to see that this did not have a separate section on "Science" articles in Wikipedia that may be judged controversial. The article on parapsychology would be good to include here. ACEO 19:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * See also : Utilities

There are several articles in here which do not seem to be particularly controversial. Counties of England is an egregiously normal article. Tenenit is just barely controversial. Is there something about these I don't know, or should I feel free to remove them? Quadell (talk) 14:57, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * English counties have been the subject of controversy on Wikipedia, certainly, as those who prefer traditional counties and those who prefer modern counties took a long time to find ways of accommodating each other. So although that article may have a dull history, others in that topic area do not. I think Warwickshire may be one example.


 * I think it is probably worth keeping for historical reasons if nothing else. Pcb21| Pete 15:11, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Attaching the sentence
I like the idea of attaching the following sentence to the opening parapgraph of hotly-contested pages:
 * This is a controversial issue.

This might be better than flagging or locking such pages.

We are adults. We have to learn how to write about controversial issues from a neutral point of view: e.g., "According to Arafat, all the land west of the Jordan is the rightful property of the Palestinian people" (assuming he really did say that) -- rather than stating flatly that it belongs to them. Ed Poor

Baghdad Airport
I removed this link since it appears that the controversy over this article has been gone for at least 6 months (I can't find any clear sign what the controversy originally was about) & the article itself has been moved to Baghdad International Airport. -- llywrch 21:44, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Controversial category?
Should a category be created for controversial articles? There are already a lot of categories that could fit into that. If such a category was created, it could be added to the template, which would cause all the articles containing the template to eventually be in the category. --ssd 04:20, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Controversial issue custom message?
How about a controversial issue custom message for talk pages? Something like   that can be used on discussion pages only? Sounds like a neat idea! :)

A few Wikipedians are using a similar message for the Puerto Rico discussion page. That way, the first thing that Wikipedians notice is that the article has been a controversial issue, and therefore should research more the information to be submitted, removed, or edited. Just check out how the Puerto Rico controversial issues got resolved, including *future* objections.

I know this is not the correct place for requesting a feature, but I would like to hear other Wikipedians opinions about it.

-- Maio 09:22, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * boo... Jack 10:25, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Why boo? :(


 * The purpose of the custom message would be to:


 * provide a way to automatically track controversial issues, by having a link on the article's Talk page that links to List of controversial issues.
 * by using the "What links here" utility, there will be no need to maintain the list. It is a reverse engineering of what the list is currently: Talk pages will point to the list, instead of the list pointing to articles.
 * give an informal notice to other Wikipedians that the article should be rigorously edited from a NPOV.. which is lacking right now, as the same issues keep rising up since no warnings or explanations are archived


 * Check out what a few Wikipedians did with Puerto Rico's discussion page. They archived all the past controversial issues on Talk:Puerto Rico/Controversial issues, including an easy to access list of past controversial issues (to eliminate the repetitive alterations of the article). And then later put up a warning notice on the Talk's main page pointing to the archive.


 * It is a simple idea, with great possibilities. :)


 * Peace out man,
 * --Maio 09:14, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)

The boilerplate warning is a good thing, but it would probably be a bit more effective if we could have it displayed not just on the Talk pages, but instead on the page displayed after someone clicks "Edit this page". It's somewhat delusional to believe that someone anxious to litter a page would go to see the discussion first. --Shallot 11:10, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Kate told me just now what the problem is: "templates don't expand in edit view - and using subst is a pain". Further help from developers would be appreciated... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   04:06, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I dont' think subst would be that hard..see the Additional Boilerplates section referencing a template I just created for this, I have NOT started using it yet, pending comments from people concered with this project. xaosflux T/C 06:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Corsica
I removed Corsica because there is no evidence of any major controversy surrounding the article. I know the subject is controversial at times, and an edit war could certainly break out, but it hasn't. See Talk:Corsica. Tuf-Kat 08:51, Nov 28, 2003 (UTC)

Creationism: from "Religion" to "Biology/Health"
I move that the Creationism article be moved from the "Religion" section to the "Biology/Health" section. If you want to know my reasons, scroll to the bottom of Talk:Creationism. Revolver 10 Nov 2003

It will be in both now. ajmmii 31 Mar 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 18:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC).

Deaf & Deafness as Controversial words
I've been writing on cultural and medical models of the words "deaf" and "deafness" most of my adult life and there is a constant blaze of conflict surrounding them. The conflict is so pronounced that to list these two terms under "Biology and Health" on this Controversial Issues article would, itself, create argument. The reason is that both "deaf" and "deafness" are terms of personal identity and descriptions of that identity for people who take a cultural view of deafness, and many professionals within the biological and health sciences, and the human services professions, seek to steer parents of deaf children away from adaptations to deafness that involve sign language because sign language is though not to foster a need to focus on learing to speak. In fact, some people who hold to a medical model of deaf or deafness would deny this controvery even exists, so strong is their adherence to the medical model. I should add, that the conflict is not limited to the medical and cultural models of deafness. There is also conflict between the cultural model of deafness and the social model of disability that creates endless heated debate. For people who identify as "deaf" in a cultural sense, the choice of having the listing here under Biology would not be acceptable. It would more likely be listed under "Sociology" or "Social Science" to distance the view from an association with medicine. This view arise from deafness as a language and cultural minority. In a nutshell, people who hold to a medical model of deafness as the only possible truth of the terms would, from the available list of categories, probably choose "Biology - Health", while those who hold to a cultural model of deafness would probably choose "Social Science," a category that is not available on the list. What should I do about this? I, personally, would list "deaf" and "deafness" under both categories. I know. It's a dreadful controversey, but it's one that has existed for over two centuries. Would listing the topic in two categories be an appropriate solution, or would the creation of a category like "Biology -Social Science" be preferable? Any other ideas are greatly appreciated Ray Foster 00:50, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How do you eliminate something from the controversial issues list?
Just wondering, anyone knows the answer?. or better, who do I talk to ?.. Cjrs 79 21:31, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't believe there's a straightforward, generic answer to that question. You can probably remove a page once the history of the article and of the talk page shows a long period of stability &mdash; say a couple of months. Although there are probably some inherently controversial issues which can't be removed even after a long stable period because it may indicate just a stroke of luck in avoiding trouble, not actual lack of controversy. Sometimes an external event related to an article will re-trigger latent controversy, too. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   04:09, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

List of related talk pages
It would be neat if someone could automate a list of talk pages with the most archives. Not to replace the list here, but to supplement it. I would be interested in knowing which subjects have had the most talk -- I think Anti-Semitism wins, with Richard Wagner, List of famous Canadians, List of footballers and some other strange ones coming in close behind. Tuf-Kat


 * Here ya go: Most-edited talk pages --Brion 23:54 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

Media bias
While just one article, Media bias, is referenced herein under Controversial Issues (as of July 2005), there are other articles where problems such as -- POV pushing, political agendas, propogandizing, sope boxing, vandalism, weaseal wording, vanity 'promo-ization' and other matters, often under the heading of What Wikipedia is not,  have come up and likely will in future. Therefore, while just a single article is placed under this new section, Media, my hope is that the article, Media bias (now badly in need of attention itself) might evolve and be eminetly useful as 1) a disambiguation for Media bias related questions and 2) a relatively stable, unquestionably neutral reference for the subject of bias in Media, worldwide. In other words, this is done not to foment controversy but to help the Wikipedia project in dealing with those articles regarding Media, such as in -- advertising, censorship, editorial systems and practices, entertainment, journalism, media economics, media ethics, media law, media ownership, political and social media questions related to  public figures, major news, policy and regulatory issues, press freedom, private sector media, propaganda, public media, public relations, systems of storage, retrieval and delivery. I'm defining Media herein broadly so as to include and encompass all commonly known forms of communication which are standardly known, worldwide, as "Media" and "The Media" in any and all forms, print, electronic or electromechanical in nature. Calicocat 06:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

''Articles with Media bias controvery
 * Media bias
 * Killian_documents
 * Downing Street memo
 * Terri Schiavo
 * Michael Jackson
 * Ward Churchill
 * Karl Rove

Proposal for controversial issues
I wasn't a debater, and I haven't seen one of these things in awhile, but intramural debate topics are set in advance and teams are expected to be able to debate either side of an issue. Each topic comes with a sort of handbook on the topic, stating the main question, rebuttals, responses to rebuttals, all in a fairly standard format.

How about a similar setup for these tough issues with strong feelings, like so:


 * Y, the article, describing the general situation while maintaining NPOV


 * Sidebar: The debate about Y
 * A-side
 * B-side

That way, the A's could state their case and in true wikipedia fashion the B's could dive in on the A-side page and Talk:A-side and debate what the A's *really* stand for, and the same thing could happen on the B-side, with various points and rebuttals appropriately distributed. As a point became clearer and clearer (or time worked its magic) the point could be promoted to the NPOV main article.

Just saying "This is a controversial issue" is kind of a cop out, but some topics may never cool off, but the debate could be fairly presented in a reasonable context. Ortolan88


 * It's like a year and a half after Ortolan wrote the above, but for any future readers interested, something somewhat similar is in place at War on Drugs. Tuf-Kat

Whether this is needed
In theory, not all pages on controversial subjects need attention, and not all pages needing attention are on controversial subjects.

Frankly, for simplicity's sake, I wouldn't have created this page or the "Pages needing attention" page. --LMS

"Some topics" tend to generate a lot of heat and light, most of which seems to be totally incomprehensible to those not directly involved. When those involved get sufficiently annoyed they will not accept a third party writing "what the bare facts are and the areas of dispute" (see, for example, the arguments over what names should be used - Gdansk is a particular case in point). This list is needed for such topics.

Other areas are controversial but people are prepared to accept the ambiguous nature of the of the information - for example what happened to the Princes in the Tower or how exactly Jan Masaryk died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.15.68 (talk)

Editorializing
"David Irving - constant censorship of this article by Zionist elements "

Is that last bit supposed to be there? I'm a Wikipedia newbie, so I'm not sure, but it seems a little...defensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.92.4 (talk)


 * I way agree and added a POV to the top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.161.4.7 (talk)


 * I removed the POV tag (POV applies only to articles) and removed the listing, which was added just last week by an anon. If anyone wants to re-add the listing with a less biased description, feel free.  JYolkowski // talk 12:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Additional Boilerplate
In response to the note that "It should be placed at the top of a controversial article's discussion page. It should not be placed on top of the article itself. Ideally it would be placed on the page displayed after one starts editing the page, but for technical reasons this is not possible, yet.". This is at least mostly possible. I've made a template   to deal with this issue. Please review the Template talk:Controversial-Article and see if this will meet the needs. xaosflux T/C 06:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Tobbaco Smoking
Tobacco smoking is not a very controversial issue and the article dealing with it is not very biased. --GoOdCoNtEnT 03:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The frequency with which the page is edited and the unbalanced link at the top suggest otherwise – Qxz 17:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia
Conservapedia is an inherently Wikipedia controversial topic. Would like to list Conservapedia under the List of Controversial Issues, but Conservapedia fits many Controversial Issue categories and seek input. paradoxos 01:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Topic to consider adding under "Religion"
To an outside observer, the article for the topic "Eckankar" appears fairly biased/unscholarly and might warrant a look by some experienced Wikipedia editors. There are a lot of statements and whole sections of the article that aren't cited. I want to recommend adding this to the list of controversial subjects. Krudd01 (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

American Hunters and Shooters Association
I nominate the AHSA page for inclusion in the controversial issues section; it's subject to numerous edit wars and is associated with a strongly politicized, polarized topic - gun control in the US.--E8 (talk) 21:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Life extension
I'm kind of tempted to move life extension to the heatlh/biology section. But then it occured to me that wheather long life was due to bilogical or philosophical reasons might controversial in and of itself.

I'm still moving it to health/biology because the scientific concensus is that life span is due to biological factors (or so I've heard). --129.49.7.125 (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Page needs to treat controversy sections
Someone please stub Wikipedia talk:List of controversial issues. I can do it myself, but I just rewrote much of WP:CRITS, Criticism sections (essay), and WP:WTA, and I don't quite feel up to it. -Stevertigo 00:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment,Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the  parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left atWikipedia talk:Article alerts. (I manually copied this from another page.) --Elvey (talk) 06:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Freud and Jung were not philosophers
Freud and Jung were not philosophers, and do not belong under "philosophy." They should be shifted to psychology or psychiatry. Born Gay (talk) 04:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Lists of controversial people
I'm not sure it's appropriate to draw up a list a list of controversial people like what is presently in the page. It looks a bit like a hit-list, a list of people that are collectively deemed controversial because they all have something in common, such as opposition to the ideology of Zionism for example. It also appears that the term controversial is commonly used by activists to smear people they don't agree with, a term which can be applied to almost any particular view or situation. ADM (talk) 04:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I can see the point of putting in historical figures that might inspire controversy, although I still think that the bar ought to be rather high. I would think that the person should either be notable for creating controversy within their lifetime (Karl Marx, perhaps) or else there should be some sort of controversy over their identity (Jack the Ripper) or perhaps their death (DB Cooper) or other details of their life.


 * Bur I think that living persons ought to be removed from this list. Regardless of whether the person inspires controversy, regardless of whether the person is currently involved in some major controversy, I feel very uncomfortable about putting a page about a living person onto a list like this, even people who I might personally dislike or whose actions or views I might personally find distasteful.  In addition to the problem that it might imply something unpleasant about the person by association (would you want to be on a list with Hitler, Pol Pot, Josef Stalin, and Pablo Escobar?), I would worry that it might unintentionally encourage people to treat those pages differently from other pages on living persons, implying that because that person is "controversial," that some level of controversial editing is acceptable on their page.


 * Even among the historical figures on this list, a lot of them make very little sense. Teddy Roosevelt?  Babe Ruth? Rock Hudson?  Woodrow Wilson?  Woody Guthrie?  But then again, plenty of other pages on this list don't strike me as controversial:  D-Day?  Hodgkin's Disease?  Birth Defects?  Ebola?  Lupus?  Cesarean Section?  Mental Illness?  Tay-Sachs Disease?  Women?  The Universe?  The Universe is apparently controversial...that strikes me as creating a bit of an existential crisis, no? ~ Hyperion35 (talk) 10:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Reasons why would a certain famous person or celebrity ends up in the "hit list" for certain things in life to make them controversial figures to a minority (or majority) of people to write articles about their persona on Wikipedia.
 * Theodore Roosevelt - As president, he encouraged the U.S. to act like a colonial/imperialist country despite the U.S. early opposition of intimating a cruel, tyrannical European world empire and that's the legacy of Theo. Roosevelt. He also dispatched the U.S. army to smash the Filipino Insurrection by armed Filipinos fighting for promised independence in the then U.S. territorial Philippines (1900-03). Roosevelt had divided the American public over his decision to destroy the insurgency, a relic of what's known as the "white man's burden" to made America control a new "world colonial empire".
 * Babe Ruth - An excellent baseball player on record, but the news press gone after him as he doesn't act much of a professional sportsman. Involved in drinking, gambling, a womanizer, rude approaches to baseball fans, and was thought to be an unhappy depressed man in personal life. Ruth's records were broken twice (Season home run records by Roger Maris and Mark McGwire), and Career home run records by Hank Aaron and Barry Bonds) after his death anyway, both were highly opposed by purists in baseball.
 * Rock Hudson - The movie actor prides himself a masculine character in many of his movies, but his death in 1985 of AIDS and discovery of homosexuality known only among his closest celebrity friends (i.e. Elizabeth Taylor) began the intense media coverage of the AIDS pandemic ever since.
 * Woodrow Wilson - Three issues he got involved in made him a somewhat controversial figure among historians: The sudden change in his stance for isolationism turned into full-blown support for U.S. entry into World War I in 1917; also a turn-of-the century progressive or somewhat would say his presidency implanted a left-wing police state to suspend habeas corpus and the mass employment of "minutemen" to make fierce patriotic speeches including the violent harrassment of German-Americans for alledged loyality to the enemy German Empire; and finally, his staunch racism coupled with Confederate nostalagia embedded in his civil war-era childhood in Virginia, and he mandated racial segregation of the US armed forces, the federal government and the District of Columbia.
 * Woody Guthrie - During the Great Depression, the country folk singer became interested in radical left-wing or socialist politics and sang about the "common man" a victim of corporate greed and abuse of workers (i.e. labor unions and workers' rights), later he was supportive of the patriotic cause during World War II. But they came the McCarthy era when Woody Guthrie became a persona non grata as a "communist", many radio stations banned his songs from playing on air and his famed career came to an abrupt end, but was revived later in the 1960s. + 71.102.11.193 (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Conspicuous in his absence: Noam Chomskey.  I read through this list twice, and roflmao that Kid Rock and Tim Tebow generated "controversy," but not Mr. Chomskey. Hmm.  I wonder how he would parse that..? (Sorry for this, but fellow linguists will likely find this jocular comment very amusing, so I could not resist...) Gst.steven (talk) 06:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Scientific Method
Can someone explain to me how the scientific method is viewed as controversial by anyone? I don't think it's been viewed as controversial since the height of the Enlightenment ... I'll remove it soon if there aren't any objections. Seelum (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The scientific method has been the target of controversy on several fronts:
 * whether real scientists actually use it (as opposed to some other more 'biased' process)
 * whether it produces results which are objectively true as opposed to results that reflect the personal biases, preferences, and power structure of the scientists
 * whether the pretense of a 'method' for doing science obfuscates political and moral choices that underlie our current scientific understanding
 * whether scientific knowledge is even possible, and if not, why the notion of of a scientific method could be a kind of science propaganda.


 * see: Thomas Kuhn, Karl Popper, Relativism, Post-Modernism, Objectivity
 * 71.224.206.164 (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Bias in sources
Is there an agreed procedure for flagging that a 'text elsewhere' is biased/likely to cause offence? (The book in question is one of Arthur Cherep-Spiridovich's). Jackiespeel (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Duplication
Hi all, I've removed some of the duplication of items listed in multiple categories (or multiple times in the same category)! This should help people more clearly figure out in what category a new item should go. I tried to leave the one in the category that I though it fit better - e. g. the EU under politics rather than history. UFOs was the only one that maybe should have stayed under tech instead of history, but it was more elaborated under history. If you're adding one, it'd be nice of you to do a quick page search to see if it's already there!

WBTtheFROG (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Psychiatry section
For the record, I have removed six of the eight names in the Psychiatry section. Neither Bruno Bettelheim nor Hans Asperger was a psychiatrist, and neither are Laura Schlessinger or Ruth Westheimer. Marc Emery isn't one either. I've moved all of the above into the People/public figures/infamous persons section (which really needs to be renamed and divided up), except for those who already had entries there. Joseph J. Caruso was redlinked, so he's just out of here, whoever he is or was. Rivertorch (talk) 05:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Pit bulls: suggested inclusion
All articles related to the pit bull breed type or dog bite fatalities are very controversial within the subset of pets. There are several very entrenched interest groups. I would suggest this be included in the list here as it must be unrivaled among common household pets (of which there are a few) in terms of controversy.

Men's Rights
I nominate Men's Rights for inclusion the politics section of the lists here. CSDarrow (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I second that!

Sports
I really can't believe that it is only those three articles that are controversial issues in sports. Sports is one of the most divisive subjects, especially in competitions between national teams and controversial players. NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk 18:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Controversial
Many of these, like Blu-Ray Disc and Scientific method are not controversial at all! 108.71.123.212 (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The scientific method is controversial because of those religious nutjobs that believe in intelligent design and think science is the devil in 'nerd form'. As for the blu-ray disks i don't have a clue as to why. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Controversies vs. active discussions
Hello. I am working on a research proposal to compare discussions on social media to the way we discuss on wikipedia (in the discussion pages of articles about controversial issues). I am looking for one or more articles with strong discussions, but articles which are not about a controversial issue. Do you have any suggestion? I was thinking of something related to sports which has an active community and strong discussions. Thanks for your help --Iopensa (talk) 10:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)