The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No Consensus. If concerns that this article is solely POV are not met, the issue should be revisited. CitiCat ^♫ 18:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Delete original essay. A regular, nonspecific phrase the author wants to assign some special meaning. `'Míkka 00:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it is original research. Oysterguitarist 00:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Looks like original research to me. As for having an article on "artificial controversy", I've know I've heard the term before, it might be worth keeping the article if there's any salvageable content in it now or potential stuff to add to it later. Iotha 01:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have heard many word combinations. This does not mean we have encyclopedic articles for all of them. Like, looking even at this very page, we don't have articles for special meaning, encyclopedic article, word combination, free encycloopedia, although each of them is quite meaningful. `'Míkka 01:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. We have articles on some word combinations but not others. Each stands or falls on its own merits. Dhaluza 14:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's just a phrase. People manufacture artificial controversies. The term should be transparent to any native speaker of English. --Haemo 01:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The article itself is an example of creating an artificial controversy out of nothing, ironically. wikipediatrix 01:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article, explaining a certain propaganda technique mostly associated with Creationism, has come under attack by an unrelated propagandist, leading to Mikkalai nominating it for deletion for no reason other than his approval of that propagandist's position. Digwuren 01:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is high time for you to understand that wikipedia is not the place for your original essays fuelled by nationalistic hartred. `'Míkka 03:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• ??? Exactly how does this article relate to nationalistic hatred? Martintg 11:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepStrong Keep. I see numerous instances of this term in Google Books: [1]. This suggests there is additional reference material that can be incorporated, and is not unique to this author. Dhaluza 02:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC) With the additional references added to the article, the nomination is no longer operative. Dhaluza 23:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google Books aslo has numerous instances of the term "classic stupidity". So what? Are you ready to write a wikipedia article here as well?`'Míkka 03:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I could find any number of other trivial combinations. I can also find a large number of non-trivial combinations. So your counter-point is pointless. Dhaluza 03:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the contrary. My counter-point shows that your "Google Book" search in pointless here. `'Míkka 03:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, citing a trivial example does not prove anything (nor does citing a non-trivial one). The devil is in the details, and you need to look into the hits to see what's there. Dhaluza 03:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • My point exactly. So, which books discuss this deep philosophical collocation in encyclopedic way and which convinced you to vote "keep"? `'Míkka 04:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I added a cite with quote for this one: [2] Dhaluza 04:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Exactly, the point is that you can find many, many phrases in Google Books. Why is this one special? --Haemo 05:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • For instance, the phrase "artificial literature" gets even more hits; but that's because it's just a phrase. Ascribing encyclopedic purpose to what are essentially two English words which, together, have some semantic meaning is silly. --Haemo 05:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is not just a phrase but an actual propaganda technique. --Leocomix 11:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be, but no valid references for the definitiuon presented. `'Míkka 16:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Artificial/manufactured controversy is a technique as old as propaganda itself. Here is an archetypal book studying the use of manufactured controversy as propaganda tool in the 18th Century: "Political Controversy: A Study in Eighteenth-Century Propaganda" [3] Martintg 12:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statemenmt is false. This term is not used in the book. `'Míkka 15:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're being ridiculous. Since this book studies propaganda that was new two hundred years ago, it would *of course* prefer phraseology of the era -- yet, one of the phenomenons it studies is clearly that of this article's topic. Should I remind you that the Constitution of United States does not have the term "separation of church and state" in it even once? Digwuren 17:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is your opinion based on wrong logic. Your example is false analogy. Modern books about the Constitution use the term "separation". Since you apparently have problems with logic, I once again strongly suggest you not to write original essays, but rather take a book and describe what it defines and says. `'Míkka 17:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. No evidence that this is a special term for classification used in special literature. The article is a trivial unreferenced definition: "controversy wich is made-up", with a couple of examples. Mukadderat 15:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:STUB is how Wikipedia articles are born. When enough data is added, this temporary state will pass. Digwuren 17:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You cannot start a stub with your own speculations. You must take the basic definition from a WP:RS reliable source, not out of your creativity. `'Míkka 17:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There are plenty of primary sources here [4], [5], [6]. What specifically about the definition is speculation above and beyond the common meaning of the term? Or are you suggesting that there is no common definition at all? If there is no common definition, then it should be easy to suggest an alternative definition. Martintg 21:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Iceage77 18:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 20:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are plenty of "Artificial xxxxx" articles in Wikipedia [7], using a phrase that identifies a concept is not uncommon. The combination of "artificial" with "controversy" isn't just some regular, nonspecific phrase the author wants to assign some special meaning as the nominator claims. It describes a specific and notable concept. The whole premise of this nomination is wrong headed, what special meaning is the author intending to assign above and beyond the concept that is in common usage and meaning, e.g. artificial controversy [8], manufactured controversy [9] or fake controversy [10]. At the very least it is a useful search term and the article also serves a purpose in listing those controversies that have been identified as artificial or manufactured. Martintg 20:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And there even more "Artificial XXXX" that don't have and many will never have wikipedia articles: artifical power, artifical logic, artificial obstacle, fake reasoning, artificial sex. Many of them look quite smartassy: artificial opposition, artificial authority,.... `'Míkka 22:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same falacious straw man argument as above. No one is suggesting that all two word combinations of "artificial" and anything are encyclopedic, just that this particular combination is. Dhaluza 22:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the roughly 300 pages at Special:Prefixindex/Artificial, it's clearly visible that almost all are either:

• Related to artificial intelligence (artificial grammar learning, artificial neuron, artificial society)
• Proper names (e.g. Artificial Hallucination, Artificial Soldier)
• Prostheses and implants (artificial uterus, [[artificial )
• Synthetic replacements for real materials (artificial sugar, artificial leather, artificial turf)
• Chemical simulations of phenomena from the natural world (artificial photosynthesis, artificial digestion)

In fact, I can only find one "artificial" article which does not fall into the above categories: artificial scarcity, an economics concept. cab 23:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure what you are pointing out here, your findings could be used to support either keep or delete--that's why WP:OTHERSTUFF cautions us against drawing conclusions from comparisons with other articles. Dhaluza 00:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the top part is a dicdef for a and the bottom part is a textbook example of WP:OR: three examples of an allegedly notable phenomenon, cherry-picked from the political scene of a single country, supported only by sources which discuss the specific examples given, and not sources which discuss the actual phenomenon as a whole. cab 22:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All you are saying is that there is a lack of secondary sources that discusses the phenomenon. This article is not doing any analysis, interpretation or evaluation of the phenomenon, merely providing a description. This is permitted under Wikipedia:No original research, which states: Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources. An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions. This is what this article is attempting to do. Martintg 23:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that the list of three examples have limited scope is reason for expansion, not deletion. Dhaluza 00:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep - When I read the article at first I thought dictionary and delete. After reading the discussion here, I now think that there is likely enough secondary material for an article. 'I don't like it' or 'the article sucks' isn't a reason to delete. --Rocksanddirt 22:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP. The article satisfies Wikipedia guidelines and violates none that I can find. It has several verifiable references which makes it both notable and verifiable. Although some may not like the article, it has a legitimate right to exist. And, like many Wikipedia articles, its future life can (and should) involve improvements. Truthanado 23:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above, and as a good article that can be improved. I am not sure why this was nominated. I might not like it, but it seems valid, notable, and well-sourced. Bearian 18:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article is itself a manufactured artificial excuse for POV. If kept, it can of course be edited, to indicate that it is used in a purely dismissive way, without any regard for the facts of the matter one way or another. The first step will be removing all the examples, as they are all individual exercises of POINT. To improve the article, i will now edit it appropriately, and let's see if it will stand. DGG (talk) 03:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That the term can be used dismissively is no reason to dismiss the article. Also, your suggestion that it is always used in this way is demonstrably false. The term was used in U.S. Federal Court documents in conjunction with the "teach the controversy" example, and the courts do not usually operate "without any regard for the facts of the matter one way or another." The Holocaust and Tobacco examples are also well documented long-term historical examples. As for the individual points, I have edited the references to clearly attribute them to their sources, and added more diverse examples for additional balance. Dhaluza 10:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom., there is no need for this article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 09:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the nomination justification is no longer operative. The article has been edited by multiple editors to show that the related terms are in widespread use in the U.S., as well as in the U.K., Australia, Canada and India, citing multiple specific usage references. Dhaluza 10:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• On balance, I think I have to say keep at this point, as the article appears to be well sourced and extensive, demonstrating the general use of both the technique and the (various equivalent) terms. SamBC 02:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The problem is that while the terms (and tactic) are clearly widely used, there is a lack of "overarching" references discussing the topic for itself. Circeus 14:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, this article is not doing any analysis, interpretation or evaluation of the phenomenon, merely providing a description. This is permitted under Wikipedia:No original research, which states: Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources. An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Martintg 18:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also the Humbach reference does discuss the topic for itself in great detail specific to the ethical practice of law, but an article narrowly focused on this topic would be less useful. Dhaluza 03:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, I can see very good reasons for keeping. Also see potential major POV issues, but in the end this is not a reason for deletion. Mathmo ^Talk 23:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment After several days discussion, those w supporting on the article have shown themselves totally unwilling to remove the WP:COATRACK of examples, or even provide NPOV references to them. Nor does it adequately discuss that calling things an AC is used as a way to sidetrack good arguments as well as bad--there is one sentence only saying that, and i wrote it. I conclude that the purpose of the article is possibly those very examples. this is not just a possible place for POV to accumulate--this is a place where POV will accumulate and has already. I'm not going to try to figure out which one or ones might be the point of it. An article on the subject is possible, but not based on this one. If kept, of course, I'll try to bring it to NPOV as best I can.DGG (talk) 10:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - Keep, and make edits to things you don't like. Nominating an article for deletion is the wrong way to go about editing it (or prompting people to edit it) for POV issues. --David Shankbone 15:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The entire article flunks WP:SYN. Once the WP:NOR violations are scrubbed, nothing is left. Perhaps an entirely different article can be written that complies with Wikipedia policy, but I haven't seen anyone make a case for it. Where's the reliable source that systematically describes and defines artificial controversy qua artifical controversy? There isn't one cited in the article as it currently stands, and WP:NOT a dictionary. THF 16:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.