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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

• Support as proposer. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]