| Revision as of 00:45, 7 June 2014 editIan.thomson (talk | contribs)58,562 edits →The Exclusion of a Participant by WikiConference USA 2014← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 20:04, 9 November 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,291,822 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:List of Misplaced Pages controversies/Archive 4) (bot |
| (785 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Copied multi|collapse=yes|list= |
|
|
* {{Copied multi/Copied|from=Misplaced Pages|from_oldid=549865557|to=List of Misplaced Pages controversies|to_diff=prev|to_oldid=550500485}} |
|
|
* {{Copied multi/Copied|from=Misplaced Pages biography controversy|from_oldid=545866481|to=List of Misplaced Pages controversies|to_diff=prev|to_oldid=550500485}} |
|
|
* {{Copied multi/Copied|from=Essjay controversy|from_oldid=547438676|to=List of Misplaced Pages controversies|to_diff=prev|to_oldid=550500485}} |
|
|
* {{Copied multi/Copied|from=Scott Kildall|from_oldid=513907742|to=List of Misplaced Pages controversies|to_diff=prev|to_oldid=550500485}} |
|
|
* {{Copied multi/Copied|from=Conflict of interest editing on Misplaced Pages|from_oldid=549642938|to=List of Misplaced Pages controversies|to_diff=550753000|to_oldid=550752924}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Copying within Misplaced Pages}} |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{Section sizes}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|
|
|
{{Old XfD multi |
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|
|
| date2 = 16 April 2013 |
|
|counter = 1 |
|
|
|
| result2 = '''Keep''' |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|
|
| page2 = List of Misplaced Pages controversies |
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
|
|
| date = 23 April 2013 |
|
|archive = Talk:List of Misplaced Pages controversies/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
|
| result = '''No Consensus''' to endorse the close, but a rough consensus exists that relisting would not be helpful or necessary |
|
|
| link = https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_April_16 |
|
|
| caption = DRV |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{afd-merged-from|Fram controversy|Fram controversy|30 June 2019}} |
|
{{wpbs|1= |
|
|
{{WP Internet culture|class=list}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=List|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Internet culture|importance=low}} |
|
{{WebsiteNotice|class=list}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Misplaced Pages|class=list|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Websites|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Misplaced Pages reliability|class=list}} |
|
{{WikiProject Misplaced Pages|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Lists|class=list|importance=low}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{oldafdfull| date = 16 April 2013 (UTC) | result = '''keep''' | page = List of Misplaced Pages controversies }} |
|
|
{{olddrvfull |
|
|
| date = 23 April 2013| result = No Consensus to endorse the close, but a rough consensus exists that relisting would not be helpful or necessary.| page = Log/2013 April 16}} |
|
|
{{Press |
|
{{Press |
|
| subject = article |
|
| subject = article |
| Line 35: |
Line 29: |
|
| accessdate = 30 April 2013 |
|
| accessdate = 30 April 2013 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Copied |
|
|
|from1 = Misplaced Pages |
|
|
|from_oldid1 = 549865557 |
|
|
|to1 = List of Misplaced Pages controversies |
|
|
|to_diff1 = prev |
|
|
|to_oldid1 = 550500485 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|from2 = Misplaced Pages biography controversy |
|
== Misogyny at Misplaced Pages and WMF == |
|
|
|
|from_oldid2 = 545866481 |
|
|
|to2 = List of Misplaced Pages controversies |
|
|
|to_diff2 = prev |
|
|
|to_oldid2 = 550500485 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|from3 = Essjay controversy |
|
* {{cite newspaper|url=http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2013/0801/In-UK-rising-chorus-of-outrage-over-online-misogyny|title=In UK, rising chorus of outrage over online misogyny: Recent events in Britain draw more attention to endemic hostility towards women online|first=Dan|last=Murphy|month=1 August|year=2013|accessdate=1 August 2013|ref=harv|newspaper=]|}} |
|
|
|
|from_oldid3 = 547438676 |
|
|
|to3 = List of Misplaced Pages controversies |
|
|
|to_diff3 = prev |
|
|
|to_oldid3 = 550500485 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|from4 = Scott Kildall |
|
== Alleged "outing" == |
|
|
|
|from_oldid4 = 513907742 |
|
|
|to4 = List of Misplaced Pages controversies |
|
|
|to_diff4 = prev |
|
|
|to_oldid4 = 550500485 |
|
|
|
|
|
|from5 = Conflict of interest editing on Misplaced Pages |
|
|
|from_oldid5 = 549642938 |
|
|
|to5 = List of Misplaced Pages controversies |
|
|
|to_diff5 = 550753000 |
|
|
|to_oldid5 = 550752924 |
|
|
|
|
|
|from6 = Rambot |
|
|
|from_oldid6 = 716428299 |
|
|
|to6 = List of Misplaced Pages controversies |
|
|
|to_diff6 = 716429654 |
|
|
|to_oldid6 = 716434913 |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Copying within Misplaced Pages}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|
|counter = 4 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:List of Misplaced Pages controversies/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Broken anchors|links= |
|
|
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Anonymity of editors) has been ] before. <!-- {"title":"Anonymity of editors","appear":{"revid":411081495,"parentid":387743991,"timestamp":"2011-01-31T02:14:08Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":506634272,"parentid":506631871,"timestamp":"2012-08-09T22:32:14Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} --> |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Redisgn == |
|
:''], co-founder of Misplaced Pages, decide to waive Misplaced Pages's strict "outing" policy when he asked other editors to post their suspicions about ]'s activities on Misplaced Pages to Wales' talk page.'' |
|
|
|
{{Hat}} |
|
Sources do not indicate Wales had decided to "waive" any policies; in fact, he was quoted as: |
|
|
|
In early 2023, Misplaced Pages redesigned their site to punish competent professionals who still use desktop computers. The new design completely discards the old format for a new one that destroys the linearity of articles and implements reduced line length. The reduction in line length is intended to cater to those with poor reading comprehension, though they did not beta test the design on simple.wikipedia.org for an unknown reason. |
|
:"I do not seek, and have not sought, any exception of any kind, not at any point" |
|
|
which seems to indicate precisely the opposite. Hopefully is a net improvement, though. ] (]) 21:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I put this in talk so as to not get an IP ban from wikipedia. |
|
== Rand Paul == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Reply from User:FizzleDrunk) first of all, Misplaced Pages has an option built into preferences to revert back its 2010 user interface. Second of all, I have never seen any controversy surrounding the change in design. Third of all, the point you are attempting to make is being done so in a rude and bad faith manner. Fourth of all you should not be complaining about others reading comprehension when you both do not know how to format the talk page and have misspelled “redesign” in your header. Fifth of all, you will not get an IP ban for making such an edit. You will likely have your edit reverted alongside a justification for why. |
|
The Rand Paul affair of October 2013 is not really a Misplaced Pages controversy. ] (]) 08:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{Hab}} |
|
|
== Add target of Virgil Griffith list == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that we should add a list because the share number of targets individually listed looks horrible on small devices like phones. Also it's just inconvenient and an eye sore to have such a big block of blue. ] (]) 18:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Chelsea Manning? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Revert of short description == |
|
Sure the controversy over the ] article needs to be here - the move to Bradley Manning and back again, as well as the aftermath with editors receiving topic bans. ]] (]) 20:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi {{U|Babysharkboss2}}, You reverted a recent edit adding a descriptive and disambiguating short description with the edirt summary ]. Could you clarify what yo mean by this please, as WP:SDNONE is not of itself a reason to remove a suitable short discription. Cheers, · · · ] ]: 14:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
== 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? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
*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 ] issue until it receives more substantial (and more accurate, one would hope) coverage from somewhere other than O'Dwyer. ] (]) 05:40, 6 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 Misplaced Pages and such, so we'll keep an eye out. ] (]) 12:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
*The O'Dwyer article was inane, and I agree that more sources are required. ] (]) 15:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
*'']'' just mentioned it , so we now have our RS. I will readd it. ] (]) 21:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::If we mentioned everything in this article that received a tangential one sentence mention in a RS about Misplaced Pages that was vaguely controversial, this would be an awfully long article. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 21:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Stop ordering us around. Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 21:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: And it smacks of self-censorship and cover up - ] <sup>]</sup> 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. ] (]) 22:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::A modified version of criteria #1 as found ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 22:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::The NYmag piece only gives it one sentence as an alleged event, so there's still a ] issue. ] (]) 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.— ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages-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. ] (]) |
|
|
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. ] (]) 22:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:"none" is preferred when the title is sufficiently descriptive ] <sup>(])</sup> 14:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
:{{ec}}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: "{{xt| hostile interactions between Misplaced Pages 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 {{u|Ktr101}} is barely believable: "{{xt|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 "{{xt|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.— ] (]) 22:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::That is not what it says, and not what it means. Something that ] actually does say, though, is that the short description is part of the content, and can be edited at any time to improve its usefulness to the reader, which I suggest the new short description does, since it informs the reader that the article is about controversies about Misplaced Pages, rather than about controversial topics covered by Misplaced Pages. Cheers, · · · ] ]: 14:53, 11 September 2024 (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. ] (]) 6:35 pm, Today (UTC−4) |
|
|
|
:::your right, because I wasnt quoting from WP:SDNONE, I was qouting the hidden tab located next to the short desc of this page explaining why we don't need one. ] <sup>(])</sup> 15:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::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. ] (]) 22:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::What hidden tab? |
|
:{{ec}}{{ping|Ian.thomson}} 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.— ] (]) 22:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::] (]) 16:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::That makes more sense, but was not obvious, as short descriptions are commonly edited with the gadget which does not show the comment. Anyway, that explains some of the confusion. Back to the point. I suggested that the short description added was better than none, so should stay. It is now a matter of finding consensus for the page. Cheers, · · · ] ]: 16:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::It is a comment in the wikitext. It should also be visible in VisualEditor. · · · ] ] |
|
|
:::::::Unfortunately, the practical issue here is that short descriptions can't be seen or edited in the visual editor. Most editors use the gadget but, as you say, that doesn't show the hidden text, making the addition of such text of limited use. ] (]) 18:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::The text is still useful in annotated links, also just because visual editor still has shortcomings does not mean things should not be done by those who can do them. Cheers, · · · ] ]: 05:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:The title is sufficiently explanatory, and an additional explanation would not be helpful. The proposal was also overlong. ] (] / ]) 18:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{tq| overlong}} what does overlong mean? ] <sup>(])</sup> 01:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Too long. See ]. ] (] / ]) 02:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::''Not'' "too long" ''Read'' ]. · · · ] ]: 05:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Clearly we differ on this point. If you see a link to the article in a 'see also' section, you are left wondering whether it is about "Controversies about Misplaced Pages, its communities, and the Wikimedia Foundation", or controversies covered by articles in Misplaced Pages. In my opinion the short description clarifies that point. · · · ] ]: 05:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::A short description is part of the content of an article, if it can be improved, it should be improved. It is a service to the readers and a convenience to the editors. · · · ] ]: 05:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Too long == |
|
*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 ] 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 ] 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!" ] (]) 22:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This page is very long. The best split would seem to be by decade. Would that be OK? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 15:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:{{ec}}{{ping|Ian.thomson}} 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.— ] (]) 6:39 pm, Today (UTC−4) |
|
|
::Wow, "for shame," really? Such ]. 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 Misplaced Pages movement, free speech is, as John Scalzi put it, the ability to be a dick in every possible circumstance." ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages would be ashamed of doing.— ] (]) 22:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Ok, let me put it this way: treating an editor you disagree with about policy like a ] by telling them to revert themselves instead of ]) makes it look like you have some kind of ]-ish ] (which would be an indication you need to ] for ]). Also, it's ], not "WP:Bold-Revert-Revert-Discuss." In other words, material is added, reverted (''removed''), discussed, and then added back in ''after'' the discussion. ] (]) 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?— ] (]) 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 ], further evidence of ]. ] (]) 00:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{ec}}@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 Misplaced Pages's "{{xt|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?— ] (]) 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 ]//], as I've previously linked (not to mention the ] 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. ] (]) 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 "{{xt|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 Misplaced Pages 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.— ] (]) 00:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
I think that we should add a list because the share number of targets individually listed looks horrible on small devices like phones. Also it's just inconvenient and an eye sore to have such a big block of blue. 91.223.100.28 (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
.svg){kind=icon}
