Wikipedia talk:List of controversial issues

Even the way this list is constructed presents NPOV problems

I'm rather disturbed by the way little descriptions are tacked on to 1/3 or so of the listed articles. I feel like editors added them to give an idea as to what the dispute was about, but it seems to prevent some NPOV problems or unnecessary information. Under the listing for "Africaans" it doesn't need a detailing of who speaks the language or where they speak it, that's why there's a link to the article. Things should be listed here for maintenance, not dictionary definitions! And the identification of Jackie Kennedy only through her marriages is a little biased. The identification of Nelson and Winnie Mandela through their times in prison is also leaning towards UNDUE, though this just seems like a botched attempt to describe the dispute. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Possible item for The Signpost

YouTube will add information from Wikipedia to videos about conspiracies. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Origin of designating something controversial

I could not find anything on this page or the archive of this page that discusses the origin behind creating a "controversial issues" page. Was there a sole editor that made this decision? Did it come from an admin? I am asking in part because I am a social sciences researcher and I am curious how this came about. Many thanks. --Nwyant (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, here's something I wrote 16 years ago, when there were maybe less than 1,000 editors here:

I like the idea of attaching the following sentence to the opening parapgraph of hotly-contested pages:

This is a controversial issue.

This might be better than flagging or locking such pages.

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

I hope this helps. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Offensive spelling

This article presents two spellings of Mecca and labels it controversial due to offensive spelling with no clarification on which spelling is offensive. Primal Groudon (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Banking in Switzerland

Is this entry referring to 'Banking in Switzerland' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banking_in_Switzerland), or two separate articles 'Banking' and 'Switzerland' as it currently is?

How are controversial articles determined? Is it by some metrics or use of the NPOV tag?

Spidana (talk) 12:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Smolensk air disaster

It's also really contorversial topic and should be added here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Didur (talk • contribs) 17:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Not really; at this point it's controversial only to nutjobs.Trasz (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Deprecate and mark historical

This sprawling list, created in 2001, appears to have a massive scope with no clear criteria for listing. It doesn't appear to support any distinct purpose in the maintenance of the encyclopedia, so I submit that it is not worth the effort to maintain. Therefore, I propose that it be marked historical and that links to it from pages like WP:Administrators' reading list be removed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Never-ending, years-long edit wars on an article is a good indication that it is controversial. This article goes along with; supplements Wikipedia:Controversial articles and others. i.e. Reliability of Wikipedia, Criticism of Wikipedia as well as the Category:Wikipedia controversial topics. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support. The real argument for deletion is Sdkb's "no clear criteria for listing", which is contrary to WP:LISTCRITERIA, which says: "Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." Hardly the case here. Mathglot (talk) 02:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support, but redirect it to Wikipedia:Controversial_articles. There are plenty of talk pages that still use it, and it would still be helpful to put up a notice for how to deal with controversial articles. Game2Winter (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion to designate topics as controversial

I'm suggesting to designate the following articles under the List of Controversial Topics

Political:

- January 6th Capitol Incident

- 2020 United States Presidential Election - Donald Trump (include him here for him being a prominent political figure and a former President) - Nazism (rather if it was Socialist or Fascist)

Science - Anti-vaccine / Vaccine-skepticism - Altaic Language Family - Theoretical links between Indo-European and Uralic

Sex/Sexuality - LGBTQ+ & Related (regardless of position, it is well known the subject is controversial.)

People - Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (Claims about vaccines and medicine, alleged 'anti-semitic' remarks) 170.10.48.211 (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Merge psychiatry into "science, biology, and health" category

The "psychiatry" category only has four entries, and the "science, biology, and health" category already contains a few items pertaining to mental health and psychology. I suggest the two be merged. If no one opposes it, I will do it in a month. Game2Winter (talk) 03:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Nvm - This page needs a full cleanup

Disregard my above topic. There are many items that are listed in the wrong categories (just take a look for yourself). I originally planned a merge for the "psychiatry" category into "science, biology, and health", but I realized that most of the categories (especially "politics and economics" and "history") have items that are assigned with no logic to them.

For instance, there are historical events that are listed under "politics and economics", and political topics (that still have relevance today) that are listed under "history". The most irregular part about this is that there are both people who are put in the "people" category (even if they have relevance related to other categories), and people who are put into other categories, seemingly at random.

I'm planning to go forward with a cleanup, but I want approval from other editors before doing this. Please discuss. Game2Winter (talk) 01:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)