Misplaced Pages

Talk:List of controversies: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:19, 10 October 2022 editAoidh (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators58,034 edits →Bruce McMahan: Reply← Previous edit Revision as of 17:09, 10 October 2022 edit undoRiffraff913 (talk | contribs)82 editsNo edit summaryTags: Mobile edit Mobile web editNext edit →
Line 147: Line 147:
::I believe Misplaced Pages also has policies aimed toward passive aggression, incivility, and assuming good faith. I don't know where you are getting "personal crusade" and "forum-shopping", but I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from such claims. I'm only here because I wanted to help the page. That's why I used the talk page, instead of single-handedly adding a section about it. I wanted a conversation. ] (]) 23:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC) ::I believe Misplaced Pages also has policies aimed toward passive aggression, incivility, and assuming good faith. I don't know where you are getting "personal crusade" and "forum-shopping", but I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from such claims. I'm only here because I wanted to help the page. That's why I used the talk page, instead of single-handedly adding a section about it. I wanted a conversation. ] (]) 23:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
:::The two papers being owned by the same larger company doesn't concern me, unless there's a more specific thing that can be shown that causes that to be a concern but ''prima facie'' that's not the issue with the source. The issue I have is that this ''Broward-Palm Beach New Times'' source is very clearly an opinion piece based on its wording, and per ] is questionable as a source, at best. For one it's not attributed to any author as far as I can tell, but only says "As told to Edmund Newton". Given the lengths it goes to in describing ''Broward-Palm Beach New Times'''s involvement in this event I can't say this is independent of any controversy that might exist; if anything they seem to be competing with ''Village Voice'' with how involved in the situation they are. What I was hoping for was a reliable source that discussed a Misplaced Pages controversy from a disinterested third-party viewpoint; an opinion piece unhappy with their representation in a now-deleted Misplaced Pages article is a far cry from meeting that standard. For an example look at the November 2008 entry that involves ''The New York Times'', the references for that section are not ''The New York Times'' themselves but uninvolved third-party reliable sources reporting on it from a disinterested perspective. The June 2009 entry that involves ''Wired'' has sources that aren't ''Wired''. The sources in these two examples aren't themselves part of the controversy. That's the kind of source I was hoping to discuss, because without that kind of source I don't think this event rises to the level of something that can be included. - ] (]) 03:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC) :::The two papers being owned by the same larger company doesn't concern me, unless there's a more specific thing that can be shown that causes that to be a concern but ''prima facie'' that's not the issue with the source. The issue I have is that this ''Broward-Palm Beach New Times'' source is very clearly an opinion piece based on its wording, and per ] is questionable as a source, at best. For one it's not attributed to any author as far as I can tell, but only says "As told to Edmund Newton". Given the lengths it goes to in describing ''Broward-Palm Beach New Times'''s involvement in this event I can't say this is independent of any controversy that might exist; if anything they seem to be competing with ''Village Voice'' with how involved in the situation they are. What I was hoping for was a reliable source that discussed a Misplaced Pages controversy from a disinterested third-party viewpoint; an opinion piece unhappy with their representation in a now-deleted Misplaced Pages article is a far cry from meeting that standard. For an example look at the November 2008 entry that involves ''The New York Times'', the references for that section are not ''The New York Times'' themselves but uninvolved third-party reliable sources reporting on it from a disinterested perspective. The June 2009 entry that involves ''Wired'' has sources that aren't ''Wired''. The sources in these two examples aren't themselves part of the controversy. That's the kind of source I was hoping to discuss, because without that kind of source I don't think this event rises to the level of something that can be included. - ] (]) 03:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

::::{{re|Aoidh}} Understood. I'll bring the topic back up if I feel I've found sources which can fulfill those criteria. Thanks again for you help! :)
] (]) 17:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:09, 10 October 2022

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of Misplaced Pages controversies article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
  • Keep, 16 April 2013, see discussion.
  • No Consensus to endorse the close, but a rough consensus exists that relisting would not be helpful or necessary, 23 April 2013, see DRV.
Fram controversy was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 30 June 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into List of Misplaced Pages controversies. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconInternet culture Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconWebsites: Computing Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconMisplaced Pages Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Misplaced Pages.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconLists Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:
Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
This article's edit history is not complete. Some of the article text's edit history exists at a different location due to copying and pasting between articles. This may be a violation of the CC BY-SA and/or GFDL if proper attribution was not made in an edit summary or on the talk page. Please see Misplaced Pages:Merge and Misplaced Pages:How to break up a page for details of when such copying and pasting is acceptable and when it is not, and how to correctly attribute using links in the edit summaries. You can also read the "copying within Misplaced Pages" guideline for an overview of the issues involved.


Citation & Wikilink overkill

There's heavy citation and wikilink overkill in the August 2007 section of the article. I'm not sure how to fix it without screwing it up, so I'm just posting it here.

Washing Machine (alt) (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

What is Neelix?

Neelix is a former Wikipedian user. It was created on 2006, then retired on 2018, then created in 2020 called Wiki2008time and have blocked indefinitely in 2020 for abusing multiple accounts. Following Wiki2008time and Micericky have blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts in 2020, Neelix have been blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts in 2021. 125.160.38.64 (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

If the 'recession' dispute meets the definition of a controversy.

@EEng Even if many of the reports are, so to say, misguided, off-base or exaggerated, the fact that the 'Recession' edit dispute did get a lot of critical comments about it makes it meet the definition of controversy, which did get mentioned by several reliable sources as well. — VORTEX (Talk!) 13:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

AFAICT, what sources say is that editing got heated so the article was protected for a while. That's extremely common and not a "controversy". EEng 14:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC) P.S. Your opening text (After U.S. President Joe Biden rejected claims that the current situation in the United States was a recession, which contradicted the generally accepted definition) seems a bit loaded.
But they also mention a fair amount of debate surrounding the incident, though, even if it is trivial in terms of Misplaced Pages. As for the opening sentence, I probably could've phrased that better. I don't live in America, and I have never heard anything about the recession thing until now, and I was just parroting off the Washington Post article (which was stupid). — VORTEX (Talk!) 14:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
If it's really a controversy, there should be some sustained coverage. Time will tell. EEng 15:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
@EEng Someone else added it to the page. — VORTEX (Talk!) 08:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Bruce McMahan

I propose this is added to the page. The article's creation, alleged PR-scrubbing, and deletion were notable at the time, and still are. Note that WP:BLP no longer applies, as he died in 2017. Riffraff913 (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Relevant external links:

▪https://www.villagevoice.com/2006/09/26/daddys-girl/

▪https://www.villagevoice.com/2007/06/12/daddys-dog/

▪https://www.villagevoice.com/2010/10/07/memo-to-bruce-mcmahan-daughter-seducer-updated/

Relevant internal links:

▪https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_84

▪https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive644

It's worth noting that (from what I can tell) the original Wiki article was created around the time of the first VV article's publication, and soon gained an AfD nom (which resulted in the nomination being withdrawn), followed by another AfD nom again just one month later (resulting in "keep"). From what I can gather, the article was allegedly scrubbed by a PR firm (speculated to be with at least indirect assistance from Jimbo, at threat of legal action), and made into a puff piece, removing all mentions of his incestuous relationship with his daughter. A third AfD nom in 2009 ended up finally deleting it, because at that point it resembled nothing but self-promotion.

It really wasn't until 2010 (when Ortega's article came out) that the wider internet became aware. Riffraff913 (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, this is a copy of the WP page shortly before it was deleted:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090320125845/http://en.wikipedia.org/Bruce_McMahan Riffraff913 (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Only if we have an article List of Misplaced Pages controversies no one's ever heard of or cares about. DeCausa (talk) 22:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Hardy har har. Did you ever consider that there are things occurring in this world that you may not be aware of? Riffraff913 (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
So the Village Voice seems to have been the one that broke the initial story and did all the follow up reporting including the back-and-forth about the subjec'ts Misplaced Pages page. Their involvement in this is pretty central to any potential listing here, so are there any other publications that went into any details about a Misplaced Pages controversy surrounding this individuals Misplaced Pages page? A single source making a couple of mentions of a Misplaced Pages page being deleted under circumstances that ended up being fortuitous for the subject doesn't suggest much of a controversy surrounding anything involving Misplaced Pages itself, especially when the source entangled itself into the story so much that it's not really independent of any resulting controversy. Can you provide any independent sources that covered this, or that shows that "the wider internet became aware" of any such Misplaced Pages controversy? To be clear, I'm asking about sources showing that this is specifically a "Misplaced Pages controversy" and not just sources that discuss the controversy about the article's subject, which is potentially related but not sufficient to list here as that's not a Misplaced Pages controversy. - Aoidh (talk) 03:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not sure if I have anything that might satisfy your conditions. From my research, it seems when the story was first reported in the Village Voice, it sort of made the rounds in some small newspapers and internet blogs. It wasn't until 2010, when Tony Ortega mentioned the Misplaced Pages aspect in his piece, that it seems others began to cover that angle (and by others, I again mean a few small papers and blogs).

Without deep digging, the best evidence outside Misplaced Pages that it caused a stir is a bevy of highly-upvoted Reddit posts, of which all take the position that Misplaced Pages deliberately covered it up.

The funny thing is that (while I'm not sure this fits the definition for the page, as the internal debates did not seem to make a wide splash in the press) the place where the issue seemed to make the biggest splash is Misplaced Pages itself. Being a deleted article, the talk page for it is unavailable for viewing, but from what I've gathered, it was flaming (in the sense of a flame war). Actually, one of the links I posted goes to an Admin Noticeboard post from 2010 in which Jimbo himself felt the need to step in and address issues to do with libel. Riffraff913 (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

If independent reliable sources don't say that this is a Misplaced Pages controversy, it's not suitable for inclusion in the article. That is the metric that is used because Misplaced Pages cannot and should not be determining what is and is not controversial on Misplaced Pages; we must rely on reliable sources, anything short of that is WP:UNDUE. - Aoidh (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Hence my "sarcastic" response which you didn't seem to get. I quick google tells you all you need to know for the purposes of Misplaced Pages. Nobody knows or cares about this alleged "controversy and that's reflected in nobody writing about it. We only cover what appears in WP:RS. DeCausa (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Aoidh: How big does it have to be? What about this?

https://www.browardpalmbeach.com/news/daddys-little-obfuscator-6309456

At the time, the paper was owned by the same group as the Village Voice (so IDK if it fits your criteria), but it does talk about what was happening on Misplaced Pages in regards to edit warring on the article, as well as arguments on the talk page. It also claims Misplaced Pages general counsel Brad Patrick actually reached out to them to discuss any potential legal liability from having certain court records on the site.

@DeCausa: I understood your response; I just chose not to engage with you any further than acknowledgement. Being an ass isn't conducive to the conversation. Notice how I'm having a conversation with Aoidh, because even if things don't go my way, he took the time to engage with me in a helpful, non-dismissive manner. Try it sometime. Riffraff913 (talk) 22:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your lack of understanding and knowledge of Misplaced Pages, calling another editor an "ass" is something you could get blocked for. See WP:NPA. I suggest you spend more time reading Misplaced Pages policy before launching whatever personal crusade you're on (with forum-shopping thrown in). DeCausa (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I believe Misplaced Pages also has policies aimed toward passive aggression, incivility, and assuming good faith. I don't know where you are getting "personal crusade" and "forum-shopping", but I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from such claims. I'm only here because I wanted to help the page. That's why I used the talk page, instead of single-handedly adding a section about it. I wanted a conversation. Riffraff913 (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
The two papers being owned by the same larger company doesn't concern me, unless there's a more specific thing that can be shown that causes that to be a concern but prima facie that's not the issue with the source. The issue I have is that this Broward-Palm Beach New Times source is very clearly an opinion piece based on its wording, and per WP:RSEDITORIAL is questionable as a source, at best. For one it's not attributed to any author as far as I can tell, but only says "As told to Edmund Newton". Given the lengths it goes to in describing Broward-Palm Beach New Times's involvement in this event I can't say this is independent of any controversy that might exist; if anything they seem to be competing with Village Voice with how involved in the situation they are. What I was hoping for was a reliable source that discussed a Misplaced Pages controversy from a disinterested third-party viewpoint; an opinion piece unhappy with their representation in a now-deleted Misplaced Pages article is a far cry from meeting that standard. For an example look at the November 2008 entry that involves The New York Times, the references for that section are not The New York Times themselves but uninvolved third-party reliable sources reporting on it from a disinterested perspective. The June 2009 entry that involves Wired has sources that aren't Wired. The sources in these two examples aren't themselves part of the controversy. That's the kind of source I was hoping to discuss, because without that kind of source I don't think this event rises to the level of something that can be included. - Aoidh (talk) 03:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
@Aoidh: Understood. I'll bring the topic back up if I feel I've found sources which can fulfill those criteria. Thanks again for you help! :)

Riffraff913 (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Categories: