Talk:Controversial Reddit communities

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information WikiProject Internet culture To-do: ...
Close

r/atheism

I am surprised that r/atheism is not on this list. 69.128.89.60 (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Why should it be? JustToBeClearIAmNotJoeBiden (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
wait, it's there. JustToBeClearIAmNotJoeBiden (talk) 16:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
The section is based on two personal opinion pieces rather than WP:RS. If WP:DUE (i.e. notable author?), those could remain, but be attributed, with the text more closely representing the criticism. There also is confusion between the lack of belief and belief (atheism isn't a belief in the lack of deities, it's the lack of belief in deities, for lacking evidence). 206.248.143.75 (talk) 02:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
They should remain. r/Atheism has spread into many communities just to spread hate such r/Judaism and r/Islam
They harrass and attack people online, Reddit is a leftist-extremist site and needs to be criticized far more than it already is.
See: My Talk Post on "Antisemitism on Reddit" LilPeepers99 (talk) 13:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • The medium piece isn't a WP:RS (and the author has no relevant expertise), so we definitely can't use it. And the Vice piece isn't really usable, either - Vice isn't a great source to begin with; and it's an opinion piece by a non-expert who only mentions the subreddit in passing. The purpose of citing an opinion piece is to show that this person holds this opinion; if there's no reason the author's personal opinions matter, then it's not really useful as a source. If we're going to have a section on it we need better sources than this. --Aquillion (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
    Is VICE not one of Wikipedia's sources? NYPost is and their article is very similar, as with ADL's report to TIME Magazine LilPeepers99 (talk) 13:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Per WP:NYPOST the New York Post is not generally considered a reliable source (Vice is yellow, meaning there's no clear consensus, but an opinion piece by a non-expert there really isn't great - "here's a random person expressing their opinion that atheists are annoying and should shut up" isn't meaningful as a source.) Using the ADL as a source depends on its context; per WP:ADLAS they're sometimes reliable on antisemitism when Israel isn't concerned, but if it focuses on Israel then it generally can't be used directly... that only matters when citing them directly, though. When citing them indirectly via another source we have to pay attention to how the other source covers them and usually attribute it if the other source does. If you're talking about the piece you added here, for instance, Time itself is a reliable source and can be used to say that the Post and the ADL said XYZ, but that one doesn't mention r/atheism at all - my comment was just about the bit about r/atheism. You have to be careful when attributing things, though - see WP:SAY. "Reveals" implies that what they're saying is definitely true. (Also a bigger problem, now that I read the piece in depth, is that it barely mentions anti-semitism at all - are you sure you cited the right piece? I'm not sure I understand which source you're talking about.) --Aquillion (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for dealing with the section. As for this late addition, I'm sure that Reddit forums are also the target of agitation trolling, but it's important to not misconstrue the rightful criticism of a regime and its war crimes as "antisemitism", which has been a trope used to misrepresent critics and justify military support. Then when I see general accusations of far-leftism on WP, it sounds like trying to shift the Overton window, to claim that non-partisan views and centrism, and even center-right views, are somehow "far-left"... 206.248.143.75 (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
We have a separate article for that. Reddit and Antisemitism. LilPeepers99 (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm neutral, if this was a voting situation. I was just trying to understand if VICE is considered a concrete source.
The article Reddit and Antisemitism is a different article, and I use sources that have sources. The ADL for example, I don't use any antisemitic articles that mention Israel, since thats not the topic of the page, but Reddit and antisemitism is. LilPeepers99 (talk) 01:44, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
The problem with the Vice article was that it was a personal opinion piece. Newspapers and news sites commonly feature all of independent reporting, press releases, editorials (opinion pieces of the staff) and independent personal opinion. The first category is best (especially when it's a secondary source that itself cites the analysis of experts), but sometimes attributed opinion can also be due (WP:DUE, WP:ATTRIBUTE), if there's a convincing reason, i.e. an expert or notable person relevant to the topic. Then if it's an opinion about someone, the policy on biographies of living people is relevant, it may still be acceptable for WP:ABOUTSELF. 206.248.143.75 (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
Agree the sourcing didn't support inclusion FWIW. There are a couple others out there, but not to the extent of others on the list (at least not based on a quick google). It wouldn't surprise me if sources exist, though. Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:22, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

"It was banned on September 12, 2025 for inciting violence after the Assassination of Charlie Kirk towards the streamer Asmongold"

Someone tell me how the assassination of Charlie Kirk somehow incited violence towards Asmongold Trade (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

the assassination did not incite violence, violence was incited after the assassination by [it] OMGer2 (talk) 09:15, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Request to restore "anti-Chinese sentiment" on r/ChongLangTV

Request to add "anti-Chinese racial slurs" to r/ChonglangTV

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2026

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI