Wikipedia talk:List of controversial issues

message: 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)
thread_title:  Even the way this list is constructed presents NPOV problems 

message: YouTube will add information from Wikipedia to videos about conspiracies. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible item for ''The Signpost'' 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Offensive spelling 

message: I did some research on the dead linked article, and all that came up where online Paw Patrol games. Was it vandalism, obscure or vanished from the internet entirely? Whatsfordinner77 (talk) 06:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game of Paw Patrol 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Banking in Switzerland 

message: 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)
replies: text: Not really; at this point it's controversial only to nutjobs.Trasz (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smolensk air disaster 

message: 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.  talk 06:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Deprecate and mark historical 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Suggestion to designate topics as controversial 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge psychiatry into "science, biology, and health" category 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nvm - This page needs a full cleanup