Talk:Controversial Reddit communities

/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.

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Controversial Reddit communities article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 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, come here to 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.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 June 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Internet culture High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Freedom of speech High‑importance

	Freedom of speech portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Websites: Computing Mid‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

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 references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Lumsden, Karen (2019). " '"I Want to Kill You in Front of Your Children" Is Not a Threat. It's an Expression of a Desire': Discourses of Online Abuse, Trolling, and Violence on r/MensRights". In Lumsden, K.; Harmer, E. (eds.). Online Othering: Exploring Digital Violence and Discrimination on the Web. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 91–115. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-12633-9_4. ISBN 978-3-0301-2633-9.
Massanari, Adrienne (2015). "#Gamergate and The Fappening: How Reddit's algorithm, governance, and culture support toxic technocultures". New Media & Society. 19 (3): 329–346. doi:10.1177/1461444815608807. ISSN 1461-4448. S2CID 9236382.
Massanari, Adrienne (2017). "'Damseling For Dollars': Toxic Technocultures and Geek Masculinity". In Lind, R.A. (ed.). Race and Gender in Electronic Media: Content, Context, Culture. New York: Routledge. pp. 312–327. ISBN 978-1-3172-6612-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Plaha, Monika (2022- 08). "Inside the secret world of trading nudes". UK: bbc.com. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Add r/TrueVirgin

I think this subreddit is controversial Ambndms (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ambndms: Are there reliable sources that verify this though? - Aoidh (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoidh I can't find any non-reddit sources to support this yet. The subreddit itself is self-explanatorily controversial (though I know this doesn't help my case). I'll keep this on my radar in case something manifests. Thank you!

- Ambndms (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dont expect that sub to stay up for long. Trade (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welp its gone now Trade (talk) 12:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't able to find a single source for this. I feel there are many more subreddits that are controversial that cant and won't be added because a news site did not mention them Lil Sad Lil Happy (talk) 04:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to document that so badly there are far better suited websites for that. As for Wikipedia it's only going to be a small selection of notable ones for obvious reasons Trade (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Active Subreddit Section

Some of the additions and omissions here are, frankly, ridiculous. BPT shouldn't be here at all and is only considered controversial to racists. Similarly, there's dozens of active hate subreddits with evidence of their hate documented all over the internet (Europe, PoliticalCompassMemes, TrueUnpopularOpinion, and more). r/AgainstHateSubreddits does a really good job at documenting them. This page seems to heavily imply that there's some form of symmetry between the left-wing additions and the right-wing additions. This is not the case. 2603:8000:7F0:B1D0:756C:F143:D90:C5A1 (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, remove the active subreddit section in its entirety. 2603:8000:7F0:B1D0:756C:F143:D90:C5A1 (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Either the intro needs rewriting, or many of the "active" are likely irrelevant to the topic as it is currently framed. Koncorde (talk) 10:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least it needs to be acknowledged that this is not an exhaustive list and the criteria for choosing entries is different than the criteria for other categories. Banned subreddits have at least one nondebatable feature: they were banned. The active list is more subjective because the only commonality is that some people don't like them, which arguably applies to every subreddit of a certain size. And if we somehow made the active list exhaustive with strict criteria, it would still be excessively long.

It should be completely removed, in my opinion. 2603:8000:7F0:B1D0:4FDF:CB3F:4E12:EC60 (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@2603:8000:7F0:B1D0:4FDF:CB3F:4E12:EC60 hard no. just because it's difficult to capture the breadth of information, doesn't mean you should censor it completely. Spinsterella (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then the intro needs to be rewritten to make it clear that the list is not exhaustive and the criteria for additions are very different. Or maybe rename it from "active" to something else because contextually, it reads as if there's a direct relationship active subreddits and banned ones. As if being listed as active is the first step to later being listed as banned when that is not the case. I'm against censorship but I'm also against misleading readers. 2603:8000:7F0:B1D0:F37A:D36B:6FCE:2D0 (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@2603:8000:7F0:B1D0:F37A:D36B:6FCE:2D0

sounds good to "Then the intro needs to be rewritten to make it clear that the list is not exhaustive and the criteria for additions are very different." Spinsterella (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the only commonality is that some people don't like them The only criteria should be, "Have reliable sources categorized the subreddit as controversial". It's not the nebulous requirement you seem to imply... it's not like r/cats is going to suddenly show up on this list, and if it does without a source, out it goes. Marcus Markup (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove r/Whitepeopletwitter, add r/Conservative

Mistaking three satirical posts for real and showcasing them amongst similar genuine posts made by unhinged rightwingers is not a controversy. It's an example on Poe's Law. It'n nowhere near the same level as some of the other very problematic subreddits that are also featured on the list.

The fact that it's on this list, but not r/Conservative, a subreddit that is so notoriously toxic, that other subreddits have no choice but to automatically ban any user that participated in it in order to crack down on their non-stop brigading and trolling, makes one raise an eyebrow. 46.97.170.199 (talk) 09:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The r/WhitePeopleTwitter sourcing and inclusion seems fine. Also, WP:NOTFORUM. Marcus Markup (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the sourcing is fine, and these three incidents have in fact happened. That's not enough to classify the subreddit as controversial, unless the sources themselves call it controversial. 46.97.170.199 (talk) 12:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@46.97.170.199 agreed. Spinsterella (talk) 08:56, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Ethics of outing"

Why is the section simply called "outing" while the See Also Wikipedia article is called "Doxxing"? This feels very inconsistent Trade (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

works cited?

what's what the works cited? ok to delete? Spinsterella (talk) 08:54, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and re-named the section to "General references" WP:GENREF. Not sure who put those references in, or what they were supposed to support... I would not support removing them unless that was determined. Marcus Markup (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]