Talk:Controversial Reddit communities
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Controversial Reddit communities article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
| The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, use the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
| /r/incels was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 28 November 2017 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Controversial Reddit communities. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
| This article was nominated for deletion on 24 June 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Text and/or other creative content from this version of Violentacrez was copied or moved into Controversial Reddit Communities with this edit on December 20, 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
The following are reference ideas for Controversial Reddit communities. Click [show] for details. The following reference(s) may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- wait, it's there. JustToBeClearIAmNotJoeBiden (talk) 16:58, 13 June 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)

