Misplaced Pages

Talk:List of controversies - 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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vortex3427 (talk | contribs) at 08:31, 8 August 2022 (→If the 'recession' dispute meets the definition of a controversy.: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 08:31, 8 August 2022 by Vortex3427 (talk | contribs) (→If the 'recession' dispute meets the definition of a controversy.: Reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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.


Merge Misplaced Pages Star Trek Into Darkness controversy to List of Misplaced Pages controversies

NO CONSENSUS In this merge proposal, editor discussed whether or not to merge Misplaced Pages Star Trek Into Darkness controversy into this article. This merge proposal follows a discussion at Articles for Deletion which resulted in the article being kept and further discussion on a merge being encouraged by the closer.

Those in favor of the merge advance two main sorts of arguments. The first sort of argument is that the article subject does not have enough coverage to be notable. Some users along this line specify that they believe it not to be a notable event, saying that the article subject has received very little followup coverage from reliable sources, that the article constitutes navel-gazing, and/or that the that the coverage of the event was routine fluff. while The second sort of argument in favor of a merge either hold that notability is borderline or fully concede that the article is notable under WP:GNG, but argue that notability does not guarantee the topic be covered in a standalone article. Instead of making a standalone article, they argue that the topic could be more appropriately covered in a paragraph in this list article.

Those in opposition to the merge advance several sorts of arguments. The first sort is that AfD would be a better venue for this, since the article already has a listing in the merge target. The second sort is that the article should not be merged because the AfD discussion was closed as "keep" rather than "merge" and the AfD was recently closed. Another sort is that the article is both notable and satisfies WP:PAGEDECIDE, with proponents arguing that the full article provides needed context that could not be cogently given in the merge target. Some users say that giving proper context to the controversy in the merge target would also be likely to run afoul of due weight in the list article and others note coverage by multiple articles in at least one source that are a month apart. Yet another sort of argument is that the merge target is too big and that a merge make that problem worse (although at least one such editor indicated conditional support for a merge if the merge target were broken into smaller pieces). Multiple editors suggested splitting the merge target throughout the discussion.

Overall, the discussion is fairly even with respect to the quantity of editors who support a merge and the quantity of editors who oppose a merge. However, Consensus is not ascertained by a majority , but is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Misplaced Pages policy. And, through that lens, there is no rough consensus to merge.

(non-admin closure) — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Misplaced Pages Star Trek Into Darkness controversy is not notable for a standalone article and should be merged to this article. ––FormalDude talk 02:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: Merge is a valid result of an AfD discussion—not just keep, delete, and variants thereof. The community chose in that (very recent) discussion to keep, not merge. Thrakkx (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
that’s not exactly an accurate summary of the discussion: the closer explicitly said I do encourage the discussion to continue on the talk page as to whether a merge is preferable. Their keep close was essentially a ‘don’t delete’ close. Eddie891 Work 14:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
The close was Keep not "maybe". Randy Kryn (talk) 06:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support merge, or redirect if there's nothing that can be merged without violating WP:DUE. Per the WP:PAGEDECIDE guideline, meeting GNG is necessary but not always sufficient for a topic to have a standalone article. In this case, it would be better covered as part of the article with a broader scope. It's just too niche. {{u|Sdkb}}  00:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Such a merge is clearly inappropriate as this incident doesn't belong on the page at all. It wasn't a controversy about Misplaced Pages, and not something Misplaced Pages received criticism for. It was simply a long winded discussion that happened on the site. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
The lead says "controversial events and scandals related to Misplaced Pages and its parent organization". That doesn't exclude conflicts within Misplaced Pages that get media coverage. Criticism is at Criticism of Misplaced Pages, and if this page is limited to things Misplaced Pages has received criticism for, it should be rescoped and retitled accordingly. Besides, it did result in criticism of Misplaced Pages ("world class pedantry", "a swirling maelstrom of anal retention", "make the encyclopedia look rather ridiculous", etc.). — Rhododendrites \\ 00:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: The item is simply out of place here. This article doesn't need a retitle or rename to be restricted to the proper scope. This talkpage discussion could be considered a "controversy", should it be listed if it got media coverage? I don't think so. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, sure, you can add "if it got media coverage" to anything that doesn't get media coverage and it'll sounds silly, but ultimately: why not? How are a bunch of RS writing about an on-wiki controversy in the context of how that controversy exposes the pedantry of Wikipedians, to the embarrassment of the project (reading in from "ridiculous" above), substantially different from absolutely every other thing on the list?
This is, of course, kind of tangential to what's being proposed (whether to merge the other article vs. whether to remove the summary here). If I may reinforce the stereotype, I might propose creating a separate section to figure out a clearer set of inclusion criteria. As I've noted elsewhere, most of the many criticism/controversy/bias articles on Misplaced Pages are poorly scoped and overlap in sometimes clumsy ways. — Rhododendrites \\ 01:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I wouldn't be opposed to a mainspace version of WP:LEWs which have received media coverage as a split from this article, and if so I'd be fine merging Misplaced Pages Star Trek Into Darkness controversy to that. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
The article is misnamed, what actually is the controversy, and how does it fit the suggested article? And the close was 'Keep' not 'maybe merge'. The closer mentioned that maybe a merge discussion could take place, but with the 'Keep' decision and past defense of the article the mountain should be a very steep one to even get close to thinking of merging. Many Misplaced Pages editors wanted and want this kept, the Shadow of Keep is all over it, and to want to merge it to a page where it doesn't fit (this isn't a controversy about Misplaced Pages, it was an in-house styling discussion not a controversy) - the misnaming indicates that it would fit into this article, which it doesn't). What was the controversy? Randy Kryn (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Since you nominated the visual centerpiece of the article -- the cartoon describing the discussion and the article for merging -- for deletion, maybe mention this discussion there, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn I nominated it as a clear violation of our non-free files policy. It has nothing to do with the notability of this article. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 04:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose: two Daily Dot articles a month apart and an Independent story are in the article. There's also Slate. A search turns up passing mentions in Slate and Gizmodo but these won't contribute to notability. Notability is borderline, but the AfD seems to indicate it, and in that case a merge would be possible but likely undesirable as a single paragraph to the issue would leave interesting things to say unsaid, and more than a paragraph may fall afoul of due weight. (A radical suggestion: get this merge discussion to 40,000 words in length and then contact the press.) — Bilorv (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
    I think we ought to be able to manage that... Eddie891 Work 15:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
    never underestimate the power of pedants with keyboards. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: there was already an AfD where anyone who wanted it merged had the opportunity to make a case for it, which they did, and it did not close as "merge". I find the arguments made at the time in favor of keeping it to be more persuasive than the arguments made in favor of merging; it's not like this is a shitty microstub article. I think that if we want to relitigate it, someone should ping all of the AfD participants. jp×g 22:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The cartoon is a defining element of public perception of the event. At its deletion discussion it's been suggested that the cartoonist should be asked via e-mail to release the cartoon for Misplaced Pages use, as he has done it before. Let's try that. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Hmm, I'd hold off on that; we shouldn't ask for licensing on an image for an article that might not be around this time next week. Let's wrap up this discussion before approaching Munroe. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Good plan although it can still be used on the list page, but hopefully the article will still exist for many weeks to come. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
If this discussion on the 13th most popular website in the world was so notable, it's hard to believe that an cartoon on the 14,000th most popular website was its defining characteristic. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
I'd written "the visual centerpiece of the article" (it's the only image on the page) and "a defining element of public perception of the event", not, as you paraphrase me, "its defining characteristic". It's nice of the cartoonist to practice freeing up his work for Misplaced Pages, a true Wikipedian trait. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Question. See the section Talk:Misplaced Pages Star Trek Into Darkness controversy#Incorrectly named, what controversy?. Can the nominator or someone please explain here and there why the article's title includes the word "controversy", and why the styling discussion is considered controversial enough to be memory-holed at a page which has nothing to do with this media-notable event detailed in the recently Kept article? Specifically, what controversy. It seems to just be a styling discussion that was noticed outside the in-house talk page. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support merge. Topic is not sufficiently notable enough on its own for a stand-alone article. The purely technical matter of having been an AFD prior is unconvincing; many articles are merged without ever going through AFD. That is irrelevant to the matter at hand. --Jayron32 12:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Incorrect, it has very good sourcing from The Independent and The Christian Science Monitor and others. Easily meets stand-alone page status Randy Kryn (talk) 13:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
  • No, I am not incorrect. That is because I really believe that the current level of coverage does not sufficiently demonstrate notability. Since that is what I really believe, my statement is a correct representation of my belief. It would only be incorrect if I didn't believe that. Not that I believe you're the kind of person who cares, because you don't seem like you're interested in being convinced that people can look at evidence differently than you do and arrive at a different conclusion, but the relevant guidance is at WP:SUSTAINED, which states "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability." The lack of sustained attention to this means it doesn't merit a stand-alone article. Now, you, Randy Kryn, are quite allowed to weight various criteria differently than I do, and vote accordingly. That doesn't make you incorrect. It makes you different, which is not a synonym of incorrect. I, however, feel that this does not demonstrate enough sustained coverage to be notable enough for a stand-alone article. Therefore, because that is what I wrote already, I am correct in representing what I believe in the text I already wrote. --Jayron32 14:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
You are correct that you believe you are correct, even though to do so seems to ignore the reputability of The Independent and The Christian Science Monitor. As for your analysis of me, you may be surprised, and on the chance you haven't heard of him you may enjoy the work of Robert Anton Wilson, who would probably have loved the page under discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
I considered both of those sources. The CSM citation consists of a single mention in a much larger article about a different topic, which is not significant coverage. The Independent article is part of the "Brief bursts of news coverage" that means there is no sustained coverage of the topic. Everything in the article is either sourced to the same brief burst during a single news cycle, or a single-sentence-or-two mention in another work about the larger topic. This topic is NOT covered in depth in sustained coverage, so it doesn't merit a stand-alone article. --Jayron32 17:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I would also support a merge. It was a somewhat noteworthy incident, but hardly justifies a standalone article. Not that this proves anything, but no one writing about the incident ever tried to contact me for an interview or follow-up, even though I played a somewhat significant role in ending it (and was threatened with arbitration and desysopping for my pains). Mackensen (talk) 12:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Has very good sourcing from The Independent and The Christian Science Monitor and others. Easily meets stand-alone page status. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
You know that responding to every single vote doesn't get you extra credit. Your opinion on this matter is already on record. It doesn't become more on record because you repeat it multiple times. --Jayron32 14:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Please realize that the last comments were from a month ago, and this should have been closed long ago as no consensus. Nothing wrong with continuing to add opposing comments while editors have a second bite at the apple, especially when quality sources such as The Independent and The Christian Science Monitor are being treated like a local grocery bulletin. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: I'm not sure what any of these responses have to do with the point I was making, which had to do with lasting importance. The once source that isn't from the time of the controversy is a passing mention in the Christian Science Monitor: "How should they punctuate the movie title “Star Trek Into Darkness”?" That's the entirety of it. That cannot be used to establish standalone notability, grocery bulletin or no. No one's revisiting this after nine years. There's no lasting importance. No big oral history about how an abstruse manual of style discussion lasted months until a rogue admin ignored all the rules and ended the discussion. There are still abstruse manual of style of discussions. That admin wasn't desysopped. Life went on. Mackensen (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-close

First close undone

Eh. A new user closing a discussion that isn't clear-cut, and closing it with no explanation whatsoever, is not great. Don't know what the likelihood of a different outcome is, but it should at least be an experienced editor and/or take account of the arguments. — Rhododendrites \\ 12:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Thus the "Misplaced Pages Misplaced Pages Star Trek Into Darkness controversy controversy"? EEng 16:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
The closing seems fair, each side has its point of view acknowledged, however quietly and concisely. The closer has almost 500 whole edits, probably around long enough to put an obvious and lingering no consensus out to pasture. Now can we ask the cartoonist for permission to use his deleted cartoon strip (apparently he's done it for Misplaced Pages before)? Someone from Wikimedia or anyone here volunteer (I don't know the legal release requirements). Randy Kryn (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
p.s. although maybe not, a panel has been added to the page and looks really good. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Less than 500 edits and 6 weeks of tenure hardly meets the "highly experienced" requirement of WP:RMNAC, and the editor certainly isn't "highly experienced with RMs" as required, as they have only participated in one requested move discussion and only closed one other move discussion that I could find. In any case, experienced or not, contentious well-participated discussions should never be closed without explanation beyond the boilerplate, to show that the strength of the arguments was considered. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
May have been more experienced than he looked. Blocked as sock. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 23:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

This closure was taken to MRV where the review was procedurally closed, because this is a merge, not a move, discussion. The correct venue used to review merge-discussion closures is WP:AN per WP:CLOSE. Please be cautioned that sufficient time should be given to the closer to respond to a discussion with them about their closure before any kind of review. Thank ya'll for your awesome presence! P.I. Ellsworth - ed.  06:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: The closer has responded by ignoring the request and archiving the comment. diff ––FormalDude talk 07:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
from personal experience—bad idea. ;) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
To editor FormalDude: (already was aware of that.) Objective about the rights and wrongs of this and about the reasonableness of the closure. "If at first you don't succeed..."(?) "Spoonful of sugar..."(?) Congratulations btw on the anniversary of your long tenure. Best of luck at AN! P.I. Ellsworth - ed.  09:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard § Closure review: Merge Misplaced Pages Star Trek Into Darkness controversy to List of Misplaced Pages controversies ––FormalDude talk 09:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Abbreviation of FBI & CIA

In the section for August of 2007, why is the Central Intelligence Agency abbreviated to CIA while the Federal Bureau of Investigation isn't abbreviated to FBI? I don't have an opinion on one option being better, but I do think it should be consistent. IndigoGollum (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

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)
Categories: