Category talk:Wikipedia controversial topics

purpose?[edit]

This category is pretty vague. Almost any topic is controversial to someone. Even teddy bears. What purpose is it serving, exactly?

Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 21:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear whether we it is marking articles that cover real-world controversial topics, or articles that have become controversies in Wikipedia itself (e.g. disputed, POV, etc.). ⇔ ChristTrekker 16:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how does one "dispute" a topic, request to have it removed, flag it as controversial, or add notations such as "citation needed""unclear""disputed" etc. in the body of the article itself? Howaboutyouthinkaboutit (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference of pages listed in this category, and pages listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_controversial_articles? Is the list in this category dynamic and changes overtime (contains only pages currently having "controversial" template) compared to the other page that lists past controversial issues? Or, is it because that pages listed in the other URL are those that can be added if the page has other dispute templates such as "disputed", and this category only contains those with "controversial" temple? Can someone clarify, what's the difference of these two lists, and what's the purpose of this category?

Archives in categories[edit]

Would someone remove all the archives in this category and leave only the current talk page? Skinnyweed 09:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

subcategorization suggestion[edit]

This category is huge! I think it would be smart to subcategorize. ⇔ ChristTrekker 16:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links to Debatepedia[edit]

There have been some links to Debatepedia as a non-NPOV wiki site for controversial issues. Is this relevant to this category, and are these links appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.199.82.172 (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those links fail our guidelines. They are not reliable sources and they do not meet our external links guidelines. -- SiobhanHansa 02:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines are not static and are there to aid building the encyclopedia. They are designed with edit processes in mind not to be arbitrary applied to topics not thought of at the time. That said, I don't think external site should serve as a debating platform. The failure of Wikipedia to properly address controversial topics is one thing, just giving up is quite another. 84.104.135.104 (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overwhelming amount of religious topics[edit]

I went through the list of controversial topics and found that religion-related topics were often included in the list, with the Roman Catholic Church having a high number of affiliated controversies. However, I find that this is a bit unfair, since what is maybe controversial for Jews, Homosexuals and Atheists may not necessarily be controversial for Catholics and other Christians. There is a widespread tendency among many social movements to regard opposite views as merely controversial, without taking the time to debate or examine them, and in fact this is at the very heart of political correctness. ADM (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without taking a position on any possible internal issues here, it only makes sense that there would be an "Overwhelming amount of religious topics" in this category. What is more controversial than religion? Not much else. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need religion and politics subcategories. 84.104.135.104 (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear subject[edit]

The box on the top says the articles in this list are under dispute. Is there presence in the list disputed, or is the article content disputed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MutantPlatypus (talk • contribs) 10:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]