Talk:Artificial controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (core areas): Ethics

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 August 2007. The result of the discussion was No Consensus..

Artificial or manufactured controversy is a very vague, or rather in itself a controversial concept. If someone takes to create or "manufacture" a controversy (or rather claim that one exists when someone else says it doesn't), there has to be some kind of underlying controversy as a motivation. If someone sas there is a controversy and someone who says it's artificial, isn't it then a controversy? What is artificial about the controversy between the creationists and the evolutionists? The question about the motives of the parties involved is a different issue altogether. Also, what is a general classification for controversies? I find such concept highly artificial. In what way is Van Dommelen's article relevant to the issue and has the one who submitted it, at all read the article? This article is quite clearly a POV spin-off of the Rein Lang birthday controversy argument. AdaHeidelberg 10:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You're suffering from wishful thinking. Try googling "artificial controversy" and "manufactured controversy". Do you really think the tens of thousands of pages, and a number of American court documents, were all created by an Estonian minister, to cover up a recent propaganda campaign? Digwuren 15:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that pages referring to manufactured controversies were created by an Estonian minister, but I am quite sure that you have created this article with the sole intention to imply that the Lang incident was a controversy as artificial as those manufactured by holocaust deniers or creation "scientists". I agree that Russian media reaction was opportunistic and unfair (controversial, still), but immidiate Estonian reaction, where Lang was blamed for making bad publicity for Estonia was definitely quite genuine. Why deny it? Trying to make your country and its people look better is a noble cause, but not in an encyclopedia.

As for this article - what is the general classification of controversies? Which major social scientist has written about this and mentioned artificial controversies as one item? Where are any relevant reputable sources at all? Also, are you claiming that there is no "genuine difference of opinion" between the holocaust deniers and reputable historians? Or between creationists and evolutionists? And, once again, have you read the Van Dommelen article? At the moment this article qualifies as "very poor original research" at best. And please don't call adding the appropriate tag vandalism AdaHeidelberg 19:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The whole controversy was surely artificial. It came from the media representation. BTW do we have good article about collective mind control through media? Especially by the tone of the article. I remember the old example: "Tom kicked Brian in the face." which is the first sentence in the paragraph telling long story how much pain Brian recieved. Then last chapter makes clear that the kick was a knockout hit in kickboxing match.

Although the article doesn't tell anything wrong, and the situation was completely legal, the emotions reader has after reading the whole article are mostly compiled by the first paragraph. So they feel that Tom is bad and was really unfair to Brian. If the article has started with "Tom won the match" the emotions of people would be different.

The same thing applies to the current controversy. Estonian media doesn't have much to write about, and controversies are always cool. Estonian politicians are also a good target for media. So estonian articles had similar tone to russian ones to create a controversy. If the articles first sentence would have been: "Estonian Minister had Anti-Faschist play on his birthday." There wouldn't have been any controversy. Suva 21:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

So you mean if someone's controversial action becomes public through media coverage, the controversy is artificial? The minister should have known better how the media works. And I am NOT a member of Rahvaliit. AdaHeidelberg 09:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's try a gedanken experiment.

Suppose that an American politician goes to a cinema, to watch a movie highly critical of 19th century racism in USA. The movie visually depicts the plight of black slaves, and includes a few scenes of brutal massas. The movie concludes with credits explaining that despite the United States Civil War, racism didn't end for more than a century, necessitating the African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968), and inviting the watchers back for a sequel dealing with the topics of Jim Crow laws.

Having watched the movie, the politician goes home and writes a glowing review of the movie, calling it "eye-opening" and a "brilliant movie". The review is printed in, say, New York Times' movie pages, and doesn't get much other attention.

On the next day, Washington Times prints an article titled "American politician calls whipping black slaves brilliant". Fox News picks up the article and reiterates it for a few days, until the story becomes the story.

Which part of the politician's actions was controversial? Digwuren 22:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 example list 2 examples 3 ad its been kept 4 NPOV, summary of my view 5 follow up

[edit] example list

This list of examples is way too long. The length hinges on the misguided idea that every synonym for "artificial controversy" should have an example. This is wrong, and more to the point, confusing. If "contrived", "engineered", "fabricated", "manufactured" are all synonyms (which they are) then what's the point of breaking them out into different lists without explaining what the difference is?

Collapsed and truncated the list to the most recent/famous ones. 202.106.111.34 (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you wait until some consensus is reached on this before you start cutting. Reversed your edits.  Channel ®    10:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] examples

The examples are all uncritical, and demonstrate strong POV. Calling something a manufactured controversy does not make it one. Every one of the examples is hotly contested, and the article here gives no indication ofthat, relying instead on a partisan one-sided quotation in each case. They should each be discussed where the issues are discussed-- I removed them all, as a WP:Coatrack, and as explained a little further in the AfD on the article. DGG (talk) 03:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think WP:COATRACK is applicable in the way you say. That this term can be used in a partisan way does not mean we should not cover it in WP, but your concerns are valid to the extent that caution is required. The coatrack essay deals with articles that go off on tangents only nominally related to the subject. Ironically, it actually supports this article by describing manufactured controversies within it's scope: "An article might have a disproportionately large "criticism" section, giving the impression that the nominal subject is hotly contested by most people, when in fact the criticism is merely selected opinions and the section is larger than any real controversy." Dhaluza 08:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It is funny to note that when you say that every one of those examples are hotly contested. As a matter of fact ALL artificial controversies seem very controversial to some of the people. Otherwise it wouldn't have been called "artificial controversy", it would be called "failed experiment to create artifical controversy". Suva 16:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Suva is not entirely correct: controversies' artificiality is not inevitably controversial. However, it is true that very often, charges of a controversy's artificiality are primarily denied by those who prefer it to remain a controversy.

Similarly, DGG's point is somewhat dull, but still cuts something. Specifically, the article should explain how, in the court of public opinion, charges of a controversy's artificiality are sometimes used as a counteroffensive, thus amounting to a propaganda technique. Unfortunately, I haven't yet found a good Wikipedia-suitable source for that, yet, but hopefully, somebody will find one. Digwuren 22:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This is what I pointed out. In public opinion -- great mass which wants the controversy, sees the controversy. If there is not great mass that sees the controversy then the "artifificial controversy" has failed to populate. You cannot create a controversy if you don't have believers.

On other hand. Wikipedia really lacks on the topics about propaganda, social engineering, mind control and mass hypnosis topics, yet we see those every day. Why is that so? Suva 22:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I've expanded the scope of the examples to counter any perceived bias in the selection, including references from throughout the english speaking world, and in many diverse fields. I've also incorporated some info from [this ref] which discusses the topic in detail in relation to the practice of law. Dhaluza 20:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

getting there. But: First, the neutral usage example without individual cases should be separated. There is no problem there. As for the other examples, they all give only one source, for the side that says the controversy was "manufactured." It really needs two, for example, in 2.3, the congress party may have said it was manufactured to distract from its work, but the opponents of the dam may think that a deliberately misleading denial of a very real controversy. As worded, the party has the view unopposed. In 2.5 Walmart in many peoples eyes was not exactly telling straight---the objections were very real. And so for every one of the examples, no matter who may be right in the end. Unless this can be done right, the examples must go. DGG (talk) 06:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously there are two sides to each story. But I disagree that both sides are relevant in this context. The comments are attributed to their source and referenced, so the reader can judge for themselves what POV each represents, and whether the controversy was real or not. It is not necessary to present a full dissertation on each in the context of the use of the term, only that it was used in a particular way. Most examples also have links to either the issue and/or the writer, and further background is given there. Dhaluza 10:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV wording would be: "Examples of controversies, claimed to be artificial". It is not up to wikipedia to decide whether they were artificial or not. But there are claims that they were, so the examples are appropriate. Suva 14:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That is a somewhat long title, and incorporates the article title which is discouraged by the MoS. I have added an introduction to the list to disclose possible source bias instead. Dhaluza 22:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that is anywhere near sufficient. the section will need to be removed. One sided statements, even if clearly attributed, in a controversial matter, do not fulfill NPOV. This section is a place for NPOV to accumulate, and could be used as what has been sometimes called a WP:COATRACK. I fully understand that was not your intention, but this sort of section is inevitably used that way. I'm sorry, but this is really very clear. Please reorganize the hypothetical examples, so the rest can be removed.DGG (talk) 03:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I still think you are looking for problems where they do not exist. No doubt you have had bad experiences with NPOV, so I respect your experience. But just because something could be misused does not mean that it should not exist. As stated before, WP:COATRACK deals with articles that use the nominal subject for going off on tangents. It does not say that controversial topics cannot be mentioned. Context is relevant. In a biographical article, it would be appropriate to discuss quotes and positions on issues taken by the subject, and it is neither necessary nor desirable to find counter-points for each one. The reader knows that these are the subject's positions, and if they want to know about opposing positions, they need to do further research. The same concept applies here. The usage examples are attributed to their source, and they are relevant in the context of this subject. The counter-points are not. Removing the examples does the reader a disservice. Dhaluza 03:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Dhaluza, to be practical, do you want the article kept? DGG (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ad its been kept

I have removed all the discussion of particular controversies, which is inherently divisive and detracts from the significance of the actual notable contents of the article by using it as a coatrack from all sorts of things. I've left in the most obvious one as an illustration.

as for problems where they dont exist, well that's the topic of the article. Every one of the examples given, including the ones which I most agree with, would have to be expanded to be meaningful and fair, and many of them have long and extensive sections debating the issue raised here, as for ID and global warming. I am open to including examples where the views on each side can be concisely presented or where there is no real case. (Tobacco comes to mind)

But in fact I think the examples here many of them counter the argument of the article. To take a simple case, the Hydro one for example, is quite reasonably seen as the false claims of the power companies to pretend there was no honest grassroots opposition. But the argument that as long as the source is provided the article is neutral, is in direct opposition to WP:NPOV, which calls for both sides to be actually presented. I am prepared to compromise in any direction on many things, such as the definition of N, and even how far one can stretch RS, or whether an article will be a trap for poor content. I am not prepared to compromise over NPOV, nor, if you think about it , should you. Without it we are not respectable. Much better to maintain the principle throughout WP, regardless of feelings over a particular issue. But I invite you to write a suitable brief section for one of the controversies presented, and go on from there if you can. I think it's a mistake, but I'll compromise over that if you can do it. I dont want to insist on my view of the article, which neither of us OWN. But I will revert any attempt to add unbalanced POV sections to any article. DGG (talk) 08:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to reply. You argued for deletion in the AfD, while arguing over content here, then deleted most of the content after the AfD. The one example you did keep was the only one without a citation (which I fixed today). Above you said the article would not be kept if you did not get your way, and now you say you want to compromise, but won't if your POV is that its POV. So franky, I'm at a loss.

I still think you are carrying NPOV too far. The policy states NPOV does not mean "No point of view." And the requirement for balance is in the context of discussing the controversy itself, which is not the context here. It specifically allows POV statements as long as they are attributed to credible sources. And it further states that "Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia; they are not re-enacted." So I don't think that your contention that every mention of a POV must be countered with an opposite POV is completely supported by WP:NPOV, and especially not by WP:FIVE. Clearly the article is more informative, and provides a better understanding of the subject with the examples, than without. WP is supposed to be edited for the readers benefit, not for the editors'. And we don't have to assume that the readers are too dumb to understand the difference between an opinion and fact. As long as opinion is presented as opinion, and in a way directly relevant to the topic, it should not be an actual problem. We don't edit (or worse censor) articles to avoid potential problems. For example, we don't delete the list of mass murderers because someone might try to add George Bush.

As to the specific example you cite as problematic, it's probably the most benign. The controversy in Ontario is addressed in a historical perspective, and since it occurred before WWII, there probably are no parties to the dispute alive to continue it. If any of the specific examples are especially problematic, I'm open to replacing them with better examples. For example if a topic is especially controversial, or if the source is not credible. I did screen the examples for this before adding them, but I may have missed something. Dhaluza 02:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV, summary of my view

I argued for deletion on the basis that the people OWNing this article refused to remove the POV material. It was kept, with the notation that the POV problem must be addressed. It instead is being denied. I suppose unless you start sourcing, the next course is to start questioning each individual point in turn. I'm not sure even showing both sides will be a good way of doing, but let's see what you can do. Yes, WP:NPOV does require that all sides of controversy be supported, and the very point of the article is claiming that these are controversies or were asserted to be controversies. I do not see how you can possibly make the assertions you do, which are biased assertions that the controversy was not real. There are two possible course: delete the historical examples or source them. All controversial subjects needs both sides presented, and the very point of listing it is that it was controversial. Look, why don't you simply add the sources and make it stronger? DGG (talk) 10:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

First, deleting an entire article because some content is disputed is improper--that is what I was pointing out. The AfD closer did refer to the POV problem, and tagged the article, but without elaborating, so it is difficult to address that specifically. It is not being denied, but your characterization of it is being challenged. Each example is sourced with a full citation and quote. I agree that showing both (or more properly all non-tiny-minority) POV is not a solution because it would clutter the article with irrelevant details in the context of the subject of the article.

Your statement that I am making assertions in the article is incorrect, and your statements above are self-contradictory. First you correctly characterize the examples as things that "are controversies or were asserted to be controversies" then you say that their presentations "are biased assertions that the controversy was not real." Actually the examples are not presented as fact, only opinion. It is left to the reader to decide whether the controversy was genuine or contrived.

You continue to assert that all controversial subjects need both sides presented as an absolute statement. This is only one way to deal with controversial material, not the only way. For example, the second of the five pillars lists this as one way to maintain NPOV, and prefaces all of them with with "sometimes":

• || Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises as to which version is the most neutral, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed; hammer out details on the talk page and follow dispute resolution.

The basis of the NPOV policy is that WP is not to be used for advocacy, and articles must not present the editor's opinions as fact or give them more favorable treatment. The presentation of the examples in this article meets the requirements listed above by presenting each accurately, in context, and with a citation. It does not present any example as truth, and prsensting multiple points of view in each example is not relevant to the article.

As to WP:OWNership, I had no involvement in this article prior to the AfD, and actually began editing it to address the concerns raised by yourself and others, to the extent they were valid.Dhaluza 11:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] follow up

I see the tags have been removed, by another editor. But the discussion is not settled and I have reinserted at least one. The argument above amounts to saying that partial statements without a balanced presentations are acceptable if there is a fuller presentation elsewhere in WP. I think this is altogether wrong, and I think that the community will support me in this.

Unfortunately I have too many other issues pending at the moment, to follow this up in as much detail as it deserves. As I have time, I'm going to a/ reinsert that final paragraph with a source. b/ add counterbalancing statements paragraph by paragraph to the individual bald POV-ridden assertions. If I cannot get the article and each part of it to an objective state, I will delete once more the entire section of examples and pursue DR.

It really puzzles me that those working on the article do not see that it is easy for entrenched interests, when challenged, to claim that the controversy that occurs is not real, merely invented for the occasion by those who wish to do it in. I think this is in fact the case for most of the examples here. DGG (talk) 01:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

(undent) On the contrary, it is obvious that people may create artificial controversy to further their own goals, or label an actual controversy as artificial for the same reason. In the real world, it is difficult to distinguish the two, except in a historical context (e.g. tobacco, holocaust, etc.). I agreed with your point and added the unsourced statement to that effect because I thought it was an obvious conclusion, supported by the examples. But others object to it as OR, and I could not find a source for it. I still disagree with your interpretation that every POV must be countered regardless of context. I don't think the counter POV's you propose to add would be relevant in the context of the subject of this article. The POV statements are presented as such, and attributed to their source without elaboration. They provide additional insight into this subject, and the counter POV's would not. Dhaluza 10:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You assume that from the source the reader will know the POV. This may be true in some very obvious cases, but not generally. Each WP article should stand on its own, and enable its reader to judge the subject. To present POV statements in an article and say it doesn't matter because the reader can go to another article to check them, is not the way to provide a useful encyclopedia, but a maze. And a trap, because it offers the opportunity to present in an article like this totally biased statements in favor of a particular position in the hope of influencing those who might come here and not go further. DGG (talk) 02:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

and I really dislike removing the NPOV disputed tag. If it can be reasonably argued that the matter is disputed, it obviously remains disputed. I don;t want to spend my life here on this article, but at the very least, it should not be made to appear that the discussion has been settled. DGG (talk) 02:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)