Misplaced Pages

Talk:Controversial Reddit communities: Difference between revisions

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 19:04, 16 May 2017 editKoncorde (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,340 edits →RfC Including SRS as a Controversial Reddit Community← Previous edit Revision as of 20:09, 16 May 2017 edit undoCecil B Pimento (talk | contribs)7 edits Undid revision 780712111 by Koncorde (talk) rv; persistent faggotry (TW)Next edit →
Line 160: Line 160:
::::::: I'm not sure canvasing a user known to be a contributor to at least one controversial subreddit (albiet one not covered here) strengthens the case that you are making good faith arguments. ] (]) 17:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC) ::::::: I'm not sure canvasing a user known to be a contributor to at least one controversial subreddit (albiet one not covered here) strengthens the case that you are making good faith arguments. ] (]) 17:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
::::::::] ] (]) 17:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC) ::::::::] ] (]) 17:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::You were attempting to subvert the RFC process to suit your own agenda. I am making a stand against your obvious intent to force a non neutral pov.
:::::::::I'll take being judged harshly by a few well established editors for a breach of protocol when this RFC is a sham to start with. ] (]) 19:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:09, 16 May 2017

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Controversial Reddit communities 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
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.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 24 June 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.
WikiProject iconInternet culture List‑class 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
ListThis article has been rated as List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
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:
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Violentacrez was copied or moved into Controversial Reddit Communities with this edit on December 20, 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Defining a Controversial Subreddit

check-markThis help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Not sure if this is the appropriate place to use this template, but as you can see above, there is a disagreement as to whether SRS should be included under the list of "Controversial Reddit Communities". If you look at the edits I have made, I have multiple, recent, reliable sources stating verbatim "SRS is one of the most controversial reddit communities". The argument I am hearing from other editors here is that SRS does not belong in the list, because it is not controversial for it's subject matter. I would disagree. Can someone take a look at the sources I included and let me know if you feel SRS falls under the category of "controversial"? I am not interested ni edit wars, or battling anyone, but I genuinely feel that the article is making a huge omission by not including SRS. Forgive me if I am using this template incorrectly!69.63.86.114 (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

It sounds more like you want a Third Opinion. Primefac (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Third opinion is not appropriate, because there are already more than two people involved in the discussion. A Request for comment, perhaps? Scolaire (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I was the third opinion, he just doesn't like it. Koncorde (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

pizzagate

Why hasn't the sub pizzagate been added?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Controversial Reddit communities. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Inquisitr source removed

Removed Inquisitr source as I don't think it passes WP:RS. Sagecandor (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Any objection to merging Violentacrez here?

There's been some small discussion on Talk:Violentacrez about possibly merging that content here (it would have to be severely reduced). Personally, I think that maintaining that article separately violates BLP1E, but I won't attempt a merge if it would be reverted or otherwise objected to here. Is there any editor here who sees a reason to keep them separate? 64.105.98.115 (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Notice

Posting as a courtesy that I created a related RfC here.That man from Nantucket (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Political bias too obvious

Mentions r/the_Donald which merely supports President Trump but not r/EnoughTrumpSpam which is openly anti-Trump or r/politics which, despite having a facade of neutrality, is also obviously far-left leaning (much like Misplaced Pages) 86.130.122.75 (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Do reliable sources indicate that the latter was the subject of controversy? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
The subreddit's support of Donald Trump is not the controversy; the controversy seemed to be one about harassment/vote manipulation, and that is sourced reliably. If the anti-Trump subreddit were involved in an actual controversy (not just WP:JDL) it would be fine to post here. Breadblade (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The Redpill - sourcing, neutrality

I have removed the recent addition for now. To be perfectly clear: the community might be a valid addition in this list - an uninvolved topic expert should look into this more closely. But all statements in such a controversial topic need to be clearly sourced and neutrally phrased. And such a section should contain no personal analysis or commentary whatsoever. GermanJoe (talk) 12:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, hopefully shouldn't be too hard owing to the availability of good sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
It's surprisingly difficult to find good sources that are themselves neutral on the subject. I will continue to look; this subreddit certainly should be in this article. Henry Hedgehog (talk) 03:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
The sources don't need to be neutral about the subject. There are several Guardian and Telegraph articles from UK press alone. Koncorde (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC Including SRS as a Controversial Reddit Community

Should the "ShitRedditSays" subreddit be included on the list of Controversial Reddit Communities? Please read this previous discussion here:. SRS, or ShirRedditSays has been referenced numerous times in multiple reliable sources as a controversial subreddit. Many sources refer to it as the most controversial subreddit. Here are just a few examples (form the previous discussion):

An article from the observer.com

Another from the Daily Dot

Here's one from Ventrue Beat

And finally an article from Vice

I was curious as to some outside opinions as to why or why not SRS should be added. 76.79.205.162 (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Repeating yourself, and arguments, isn't likely to engender any further success. Koncorde (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
@Koncorde:The sources listed do NOT just identify SRS as "toxic" - they specifically identify it as "the MOST controversial subreddit". Yes SRS is toxic because of doxxing, hate speech etc. It is also controversial per the sources. You and PTF are the only two editors who are making the argument that SRS is not controversial. Frankly I am surprised by the opposition to it's inclusion. We have sources labeling SRS as the most controversial subreddit. Genuine question here - why the opposition? Why not err on the side of caution? No one has given any reason as to how including SRS would harm the article in any way. Especially considering the title of the article is "Controversial Reddit Communities" and there are multiple reliable sources identifying SRS as the most controversial community. Thats why I asked for an RFC. 76.79.205.162 (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Read prior comments the last time an anon (if not same) IP tried to include the same information. sources do not indicate it is the most "controversial". It is occasionally referred to as part of a "controversy" at the time of writing, but that controversy is linked to its highlighting of other sub-reddits. Koncorde (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
This is exactly what I am talking about. Please read the articles in question. The Observer article specifically says SRS is one of the most controversial subreddits on the entire site. 76.79.205.162 (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
You just went from "most" to "one of". You said "they", and present a single example. An example that doesn't outline what is "controversial", and specifically states "although difficult to define" and then proceeds not to define it at all (or attempt to). This was covered in the last discussion and the sources have not improved. I even explained last time how SRS could be included, but the current attempt is a fail of Synthesis. Koncorde (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
You do realize that none of the other subreddits listed are specifically referenced by the sources as "controversial"? And you still have not given a reason as to why excluding SRS benefits the article, when at least some sources define the subreddit as controversial. Hence the RFC. Again, this is not a contentious or political article. I still honestly dont understand the hesitance in adding SRS. You personally might not feel it is controversial - but there are reliable sources that define it as such. Moreso than any of the other subreddits listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.205.162 (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Do I need to just cut and paste my old responses into one super-post because it deals with every single argument you are making now in rather clear and exacting detail? Koncorde (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Where? I looked at at the archives and where in any of your posts do you answer the following question: I still honestly don't understand the hesitance in adding SRS. You personally might not feel it is controversial - but there are reliable sources that define it as such. Moreso than any of the other subreddits listed. So why not err on the side of including it? The potential benefits in including outweigh the benefits in excluding 76.79.205.162 (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
The reticence is this is about reddits of controversial subjects matter, or controversial topics. Being a reddit about other controversial reddits isn't a controversial topic or subject matter. There is no benefit, it's just unrelated cruft. There are not "unreliable sources", there is a single reliable source of sorts that kinda says "we don't know what SRS is, but it's controversial" without providing a single element of context. You have persistently then tried to synthesise the "toxic" content with the Observer sentence to create a SYNTHESIS. You are now being obtuse as this is fully outlined previously. Koncorde (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for being offensive while I have remained completely civil during this conversation. Might I remind you NPA. Have a nice day. 76.79.205.162 (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
You might remind me, but I also don't consider suggesting that your intentionally refusal to recognize answers to your questions as "offensive". 6 months apart you have tried the exact same tactic, word for word, with the same SYNTHESIS and OR issues, including re-introduction of the same content after previously being informed that it was not appropriate. I have assumed good faith, but you have exhausted that resource at the moment. Koncorde (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Here is the crux of our argument. You say: "The reticence is this is about reddits of controversial subjects matter, or controversial topics. ". I maintain that the article is about Controversial Reddit Communities just as the title says. It does not qualify WHY they are controversial. That's why I feel all controversial subreddits should be included. 76.79.205.162 (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Again, already answered by both myself and Peter last time around and no new argument is being advanced. We have explained why it fails, and expounded at length what it may qualify for, but your current attempts at inclusion are WP:UNDUE, SYNTHESIS and verging on OR. Koncorde (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree. But every time I've attempted to make the addition Ive been reverted by either PTF or Koncorde. What's frustrating is the article is well-done as it stands, with the exception of the omission of SRS. But the omission is so glaring as to be completely obvious and it's very difficult for me to comprehend why. SRS is well known and well sourced as the most toxic, hateful subreddit - there have been multiple instances of doxxing, hate speech and misogyny. The subreddit is infamous for this type of thing - its addition should not be controversial at all. I wonder if their reputation for dark deeds is what makes people hesitant to add them. If that's the case, I empathize with the fact that people are afraid they will be doxed or outed or whatever. But wikipedia needs to reflect what the reliable sources report. 2602:301:772D:62D0:D187:266:49EB:481 (talk) 02:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

This has already been discussed in the past, and I don't see any new points being raised. Even more concerningly, the proposed inclusion is a potential WP:COPYVIO. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I changed the wording so it is no longer a COPYVIO. You can compare the revisions for yourself. May I ask that you discuss here before reverting? Perhaps you can suggest a more elegant way of adding SRS? I don't have a problem with changing the wording again - it is more about making sure SRS is included per RS. ETA - I understand that there may be concerns about retaliatory behavior form SRS, which is why editors may be hesitant to include them on this list. I would hope that's not the case, but if it is, could we at least discuss it???. 2602:301:772D:62D0:E055:B3EF:6113:19F0 (talk) 06:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
We have discussed it. I have no idea why you believe there is any "fear" of a subReddit concerned with the goings on of other subReddits.
Per prior discussion thread where I provided several actual reliable sources discussing the context of the "toxic" content, your cherry picking of sources here does not reflect the weight and balance of the other reddits included here which are controversial for the subject matter (which is what the main reddit article links to this one for, and what this article is about). Koncorde (talk) 08:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Also per prior discussion I completely disagree with your and PTF's "assessment" of the situation - that's why I asked for an RFC. Thus far it appears I was 100% correct - it is self-evident that SRS is controversial and belongs in the article. Moreover, there are multiple sources referring to SRS as the most controversial place on Reddit - VERBATIM. Not "a single reliable source of sorts that kinda says "we don't know what SRS is, but it's controversial". Multiple sources referring to SRS as the most toxic, controversial subreddit. Period. This is a fact. We also have the study at Idbion objectively concluding that SRS is (by far) "the most toxic place on all of Reddit". Their metrics? Personal attacks and bigoted statements
Finally, and most importantly - no where in this article does it qualify what the controversy needs to be about. The article is named "Controversial Reddit Communities". SRS is well-sourced (again) as the most controversial Reddit community. Both for it's content, and for it's methods (attacks and doxing). It not only belongs in the article - it deserves prominent placement. I await the outcome of this RFC and eagerly anticipate the comments of other non-biased, uninvolved users. 2602:301:772D:62D0:A8CA:EA6D:A50F:6C65 (talk) 10:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
You have provided one source that says that it is "controversial" (with no detail) and 3 that briefly mention the same "toxic" comments with no context. I provided 6 that detail the toxic comments with actual discussions with the author that actually counter comprehensively the claim to its controversialist because of its toxicity. That leaves us with the Observer article, which provides absolute no information to use. And yes, this reddit has a definition at the top regarding content / subject matter
You asked for an independent third opinion last time. I gave you that third opinion and you didn't like it. This time you are going for an RFC and astronomy turfing to other users to try and draw them into a topic that you have weighted from the start with you POV intro to the issue.
Now you are trying to devalue two longstanding editors, and several others who have continuously rejected it's needless inclusion on this list, as biased. As amusing as this is, your agenda is clear. Koncorde (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I would hope my agenda is clear. Because my agenda is to get information that belongs in the article into the article. Information that is reliable sourced and follows the rules of Misplaced Pages. That is my agenda. You on the other hand seem hell-bent on keeping information OUT of the article. This is not contentious information, it does not violate BLP in any way shape or form, and it provides the reader with important context and content about the MOST controversial Reddit community and why it is ao controversial. ----
Your additions have only ever synthesised the "toxic" study by cherry picking those articles that provide zero context (or leave out critically important elements) with your own opinion. Meanwhile you repeat "most" and "so" so often without any evidence that I can only assume you rate SRS trolling controversial subreddits as more controversial than the actual subreddits themselves. Koncorde (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Include Given the sources. Some additional sources:
  1. Heat St
  2. Heat St
  3. The Guardian
  4. Daily Dot
James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Heat Streat #1, not controversial. Single reference, not particular context or content..
Heat street #2, not controversial. Two references in passing, but at most is the light jab towards the same "toxic" report.
Guardian, not discussing anything controversial, also states quite clearly why the "Toxic" argument is bullshit (from the man doing the study);
ShitRedditSays, a subreddit which focuses on highlighting bad content around the rest of Reddit (frequently from a social justice viewpoint), comes close to the top. In part, that is because the toxicity is directed outwards, “at the Reddit community at large”, says Bell. “It’s also important to note that a significant portion of their Toxicity score came from conversations between SRS members and other Redditors who come specifically to disagree and pick fights with the community - a trap that many members tend to fall into, and which led to some rather nasty and highly unproductive conversations.”
Daily Dot is evidence that SRS is opposed to the questionable content of the Subreddits in this same article and it should be mentioned as part of the wider section on discussing the banning of jailbait and creepshots.
Nobody is arguing SRS is not notable, but just because it is mentioned somewhere doesn't make it controversial. The only controversial thing I can see is that other subReddits don't like SRS, which is very different to how it is currently being forced into this article. Koncorde (talk) 00:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry I wasn't clearer – I listed these sources as supplemental. "Controversial" doesn't imply good or bad. Abolition was controversial. The Guardian article quite clearly describes SRS as controversial. That is what's relevant here. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Guardian article specifically does not call it controversial, and in fact provides feedback from Bell as to why SRS is not controversial in any way shape or form (uncivil arguments between users of Reddit is far from notable, or controversial). Koncorde (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
As I've informed you in the past, Heat Street is not a reliable source. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Heat Street is fine for covering internet slap fights. I wouldn't wait for piece in The Economist. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Even if it was fine, it doesn't have any relevant content. Guardian article would trump pretty much any other source and it refutes the very marginal claims with the actual words of the creator of the study being used as reason for inclusion. Koncorde (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Sure, that's reasonable. I was commenting in general if for example someone finds a Heat St source that covers a reddit community in more detail. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Koncorde If you actually read the Guardian article, it clearly shows that SRS is the subreddit most guilty of ad-hominem attacks and bigoted behavior. Where it is directed it unimportant - the subreddit is notable for the fact that is toxic. This is all part of the controversy surrounding the subreddit. This is not a marginal claim, nor is it SYNTH or OR as other sources support this with clear wording. 23.114.214.45 (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
It is a marginal claim when the originator of the study states, and I have quoted this three times at this point:
"ShitRedditSays, a subreddit which focuses on highlighting bad content around the rest of Reddit (frequently from a social justice viewpoint), comes close to the top. In part, that is because the toxicity is directed outwards, “at the Reddit community at large”, says Bell. “It’s also important to note that a significant portion of their Toxicity score came from conversations between SRS members and other Redditors who come specifically to disagree and pick fights with the community - a trap that many members tend to fall into, and which led to some rather nasty and highly unproductive conversations."
That isn't controversial, that's contradicting your argument entirely - and that's the man who created the study saying so.
It is synthesis to take a study about toxicity, which in passing references SRS but then states it's actually not toxic for content, but for the antagonism of other subreddits, and to use another article such as the Observer which makes no connection to the Toxic study to create a narrative "controversy". It is Original Research for you to create such a link, and continue to declare that it is the "most" controversial (amongst whatever else you've claimed so far).
A bun fight in a forum is not controversial. Koncorde (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
This is not a "vote" on who wins, there is weight to the arguments, of which there is no weight from the include side.
The continued misrepresentation of sources and cherry picking of quotes still means the current version is not appropriate in any way, shape or form even if the argument to include stacked up. The argument presented is absolute synthesis to create something "controversial". Koncorde (talk) 05:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Please AGF and don't edit war. Consensus clearly says to include. "Plainly obvious" and "a no-brainer" according to editors. It's not synthesis, and the vast majority agree with this. Please drop the stick. 14:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.205.162 (talk)
An RFC is not binding, it is a request for comment, it is not an agreement to your version of events. I refuse to have a SPA render a loaded RFC that defies the accepted convention for an RFC, then canvass for votes across wikipedia under a number of IP addresses, and still push the same content. This is an attempted abuse of process, and subverting of wikipedia policies.
The existing content has been rejected in its current form by several editors over a period of months citing the same concerns which have not been dealt with. One SPA bouncing from IP to IP with an obvious POV and introducing a non-neutral entry to an article is not running roughshod over.
The notability for inclusion, even if accepted, still requires the article to be written in a neutral style and reflecting the weight of reliable sources - not your opinion and POV laden synthesis. Koncorde (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

It is not at all clear whether SRS is controversial in itself, or whether it merely aggregates and publicizes controversies from other sources. Either way, is it notable? Is its controversiality notable? Why would anyone care? Other subreddits are notable as breeding grounds for neo-Nazi movements and white nationalism, or as meeting places for harassment or apparently criminal activity on which various media report, but that’s not (as I understand it) what SRS is about. I question whether the page belongs in Misplaced Pages at all, but it case for including SRS is thin at best, and suspiciously tinged with POV and COI. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


I thought MarkBernstein is supposed to stay away from articles like this. 76.79.205.162 (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
What a well-informed fellow you turn out to be, 76/.79! I'm not aware that SRS specifically concerns Gamergate; you write below that it's "a hate group filled with harassers and trolls," but there may be more than one of those. Now, it's possible that SRS could be a gender-related controversy, in the sense that anything might be a gender-related controversy; if it is, I don’t know that, nor do other writers here. If you're unsure, you could inquire at ARCA. But I think you'd actually have to log in to do that, which (for some reason) you seem reluctant to do. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment Oppose inclusion The status of SRS as a magnet for controversy may qualify it for this list, though it is mainly controversy that exists within Reddit itself. Putting it in the company of the various hategroups, harassers and trolls listed here - all of whom are controversial in the outside world - may be doing it a disservice, so we should handle it carefully if at all. Artw (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Artw Thank you for a thoughtful and well-reasoned reply. Please note though, SRS is fairly well-documented as a hategroup filled with harassers and trolls. If you read the sources I initially posted, SRS is actually considered the most bigoted subreddit. Additionally, they have been guilty of doxing and harassment - moreso than any other subreddit. 76.79.205.162 (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
That does not seem to be particularly true - the links you have provided don't do much to make the case for it. Artw (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Artw SRS was responsible for death/murder (or at the very least violence) threats especially during the Trump election. They have doxxed multiple people, threatened redditors with violence, and participated in wholesale misogyny - this is all well documented. I am honestly baffled by the opposition to the inclusion of this subreddit. How can it not be controversial to threaten to come to someone's workplace and assault them? How can it not be controversial when an objective scientific study clearly identifies SRS as the MOST toxic AND bigoted subreddit? How is this not controversial?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.205.162 (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
The first batch of links you posted revolve around that silly soft news toxicity study and now you've worked your way up to them being murderers? This seems like weird axe grinding and a spillover of internal Reddit drama TBH means I have to vote for a hard pass on including SRS and all other subreddits not controversial outside of reddit. Get a real news source and a real contrevrsey or it shouldn't be on the list. Artw (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Artw They have been guilty of threats. Why is this hard to believe? 76.79.205.162 (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Inclusion- It appears to me that SRS is only "controversial" to the people it pokes fun at, and it's very insular. I don't even think it's encyclopedic.--Jorm (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Interesting that I contacted ONE person (Wordsmith) while Koncorde has blatantly canvassed all his friends.76.79.205.162 (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
That would be a cool story except that I didn't get canvassed. You may want to retract that.--Jorm (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Not just a cool story, but a true one! 76.79.205.162 (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't see my name in that there contribs list so again: Maybe you should stop saying that I was canvassed. --Jorm (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure canvasing a user known to be a contributor to at least one controversial subreddit (albiet one not covered here) strengthens the case that you are making good faith arguments. Artw (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, canvassing is bad. No question about it 76.79.205.162 (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Categories: