Talk:Controversial Reddit communities/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

/r/braincels banned

Banned as of one hour ago. Needs to be moved sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:161F:625F:4445:8CCB:FB4:781D (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Categories

User:Rathfelder believes the article is overcategorized and removed categories that describe it. They have been reverted thrice now, but want a talk page discussion. Here it is. Other than "overcategorization", are there reasons to remove these categories?--Jorm (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• There are 28 areas of controversy listed, and clearly more may arise. We do not categorise list articles by all the issues dealt with in the list. Categorisation works on the defining features of the article. Rathfelder (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: there are only 13 visible categories. --Nessie (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)The article does not seem particularly overcategorized. There's only 13 categories, which is not particularly much for an article of this size. Furthermore, the specific categories being removed seem central to the narrative of the article. A non-trivial amount of the article's text deals with racism, child pornography, sexism/violence against women and the like. It's not like those categories are things mentioned in passing, or not elaborated on. A person clicking on this article in those categories as a navigational aid would have little trouble finding copious text in this article elaborating on racism, or child pornography, or violence against women, etc. It is appropriately categorized with those categories. --Jayron32 18:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

  There is no numerical limit on categories. But categories are supposed to relate to defining characteristics of the article, not to everything mentioned in it. WP:OVERCAT Rathfelder (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

  The categories you removed aren't "everything in it". They were the most important things. --Jayron32 01:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

  That is your opinion. But they dont define the article. If the individual sections were articles then it might well be appropriate to categorise them like that. But not this sort of article. Rathfelder (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

  Not really, as I have establised in my explanation above, those subjects make up the bulk of the text here in the article. There are other types of controversies listed, but those are only a minor amount of the text here. The larger parts of the text here is about racism, child pornography, and the like. This is a quantitative truth that can be checked by looking at the text itself. My feelings on the matter don't make those words go away. --Jayron32 12:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - Just to make sure I officially voted not to remove the categories. --Nessie (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• Quantity is not the point. Rathfelder (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

  Let's be very clear: You, Rathfelder, did a drive-by removal of categories from a page that you don't watch or edit. When actual editors and watchers of that page reverted you, you started a mini-edit war. When those same editors told you, "These categories are the point of the article, you indicate concerns about the number of categories, and again are told that the article needs them. Am I clear that this is what is happening here, or would you characterize it as something else?--Jorm (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, but you don't seem to be understanding something very basic, Rathfelder. The primary topics of an article, those topics which are defining or central to the main point of the article, are supposed to be listed. If you read this article, you can see that the primary topics central to the controversies are the ones you removed. These are not incidental; if (for example) I removed all of the text related to the categories you removed, I would be drastically changing the text of this article to the point where it would be completely different; we would have removed all of the main controversies associated with Reddit, and would have left some rather minor issues behind. Since removing text associated with those categories would drastically change this article, it stands to reason that those categories must be central to that text. The text is primarily about child pornography, sexism, racism and the like, with minor points on other issues. That is why those categories belong. And this is not opinion based, as you stated. It is not based on how we feel. It is based on the actual, objective analysis of the actual words that are written in this article. Those words are primarily about the categories you removed. --Jayron32 17:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• I spend most of my time categorising articles that I have neither created nor edited. Your attitude appears to ignore the fundamental policies of categorisation, and you dont appear willing to address them. WP:OVERCAT: "One of the central goals of the categorization system is to categorize articles by their defining characteristics"Rathfelder (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

  I'm willing to address them; you're just wrong. You're very clearly wrong here, and don't seem to grasp that. I don't care how much time you spend categorizing articles. Regardless, in this case, Ignore All Rules would apply. --Jorm (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, but I've explained to you three times, repetitively but with increasing levels of detail, why the categories you removed are defining characteristics. You've never refuted any of that, except to say "but they're not" I have provided evidence why they are. What is your evidence that they are not? What about the article text says that these are not defining characteristics? You have to actually make an argument, not just merely insist on your own rightness. --Jayron32 18:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• I dont see how this small list of issues can be defining for an article which lists more than 20 areas of controversy. This is an article about Reddit, not an article about any of the controversial areas. Rathfelder (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay clearly we are into WP:IDHT territory. Does anyone besides Rathfelder think the categories should be removed? If not, we can just close this section and move on.--Jorm (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

/r/BPT

If the no-whites-allowed rule described here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPeopleTwitter/comments/bfqeee/bpt_country_club_threads/

Doesn't make this sub controversial, then I don't know what will. 71.197.186.255 (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Are there reputable sources discussing it's controversial nature? Koncorde (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

https://www.thedailybeast.com/reddits-blackpeopletwitter-forum-wants-to-know-if-its-users-are-actually-white 71.197.186.255 (talk) 10:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

So it was done on April Fools day? And that article doesn't seem to discuss it in a controversial way, although it appears it did attract some attention from people criticising it. Koncorde (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Here is nytimes discussing this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/08/reader-center/08insider-reddit-race-black-people-twitter-reporting.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xzpx (talk • contribs) 02:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

18 October 2019

Thread retitled from "Glaringly obvious bias".

The political bias of this page is glaringly obvious to me at least. /r/theredpill is listed as a "misogynistic" page. I disagree with that characterization, but have you ever gone to /r/gendercritical, a page self-described as reddit's most active feminist subreddit? Feminists do not pull any punches there with their language or characterization of men and trans women. Many participants claim to "hate men" etc., but their subreddit is not quarantined or threatened with a ban, which happened to /r/theredpill in Oct 2019 "by accident." Nor has /r/femaledatingstrategy been quarantined even though it is almost a carbon copy of /r/theredpill, using the same kind of language, the same gender realism, and so forth. When women are gender realists, it's okay. When men are gender realists, it's misogyny. /r/theredpill is about as level headed as you can find in the manosphere. There are no memes. It contains thoughtful long form content. Not everyone is cool, but neither is everyone cool in the subs I have mentioned. But it is officially a "controversial" sub.

This whole page is written as left wing triumphalism, completely ignoring the controversial qualities of left subs, like /r/gendercritical, /r/femaledatingstrategy, /r/chapotraphouse etc etc. I would delete the whole page if some balance cannot be maintained. 203.217.147.166 (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Do any of those reddits have reliable sources criticising them for being controversial? If so, they can be included. Koncorde (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I would not describe femaledatingstrategy as leftist. It's pretty thoroughly criticized by every leftist I've seen, and it's espousing the exact same beliefs as theredpill. Honestly, it's claims are pretty horrifyingly misogynist (alongside the more blatant misandry) as well.50.194.115.156 (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

"Controversial" is an observation that something has generated meaningful controversy. Do you have sources indicating similar controversy for femaledatingstrategy and so on? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Is this why this page is nominated for a neutrality checkup? With a lack of sources indicating femaledatingstrategy etc are controversial, i think this page remains neutral.--Disoff (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

/r/FemaleDatingAdvice has been added since "The verge" wrote an article on it. Rmoostet (talk) 06:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

"ForeverAlone" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ForeverAlone. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 3#ForeverAlone until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

"R/ForeverAlone" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect R/ForeverAlone. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 3#R/ForeverAlone until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

GenderCritical

should be listed under controversial. Thoughts? 172.58.228.198 (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Reliable source? GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I looked, but I didn't see anything in sources that we can use. "Controversial" means "has generated controversy," people! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Ironically, the fact that it has been banned might provide the reliable sourcing needed to list it here, although there wouldn't be much to say. In a quick search, news sources just seem to be mentioning it in passing as one of the subs that was banned. --Aquillion (talk) 06:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

And now it's banned, but a group of feminist wikipedia editors wouldn't dare let liberal hate subs get listed lmao 67.170.135.201 (talk) 05:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

From what I understand, Reddit banned around 2,000 subreddits yesterday. Obviously, we do not list every single one of them here. The decision whether to list a subreddit in this page has nothing to do with the subreddit's political slant (for example, we include r/ChapoTrapHouse, a leftist subreddit), but rather depends on the coverage the subreddit has received in independent, reliable sources. I'm also not sure where you're getting that r/GenderCritical is liberal; I don't tend to think of TERFs as liberal, but I also didn't exactly spend a lot of time hanging out on that subreddit either so maybe I've missed something. Anyway, from what I've seen, Aquillion is correct that it appears only to be mentioned in passing in news coverage of some of the higher-profile subreddits that were removed, and has not itself been the subject of much coverage. However, if you know of more in-depth coverage of the r/GenderCritical subreddit, feel free to present it here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

That sub wasn't really liberal. And as with all the other examples of so called bias on this page, supply a reliable source.★Trekker (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Some links describing it as transphobic, a TERF forum, putting "feminist" in quotes, etc... [1] [2] [3] [4] - I'd say it's a solid candidate for inclusion. Artw (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

sub related to r/watchpeopledie

the sub r/WatchKidsDie was also taken around the same time, i feel it should be noted but i am unable to edit the page (yes the sub was exactly what you think it is) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.28.142.235 (talk) 06:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

We need a reliable source to support the inclusion of the subreddit. Koncorde (talk) 08:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2020

Request that the subreddit known as R/Frenworld is added to the list of banned subreddits, a controversial subreddit that was banned for being a notable racism bait reddit. See "https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/c2znoq/what_is_rfrenworld_and_why_did_it_get_banned/" for details 103.208.5.239 (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. A Reddit thread doesn't meet our standards; if something happened but it is unsourced, then it cannot be included on Wikipedia. - Axisixa T C 00:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

r/WallStreetBets on this page

The community r/wallstreetbets has gained a lot of controversy regarding its recent activity in the GameStop short squeeze, but is it worth putting on here? Let me know; I'm curious on your opinion

InvadingInvader (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

NoNewNormal

this section was added without any sources. from my understanding people should not just be including unsubstantiated claims here. it is clear this is also not coming from a NPOV looking at this post here: https://i.redd.it/shucq7ael9g61.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.140.90.178 (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

should r/underagejuul be added to this page?

It's definitely banned, and I would think quite controversial to many people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.13.247.244 (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

It needs significant coverage in reliable sources. Koncorde (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

r/LoveForLandlords

Do you think this should be included? It has a reliable source. https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjp9ab/where-landchads-let-loose-and-make-fun-of-rentoids — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.216.200.217 (talk) 13:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:RSP#Vice: "There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice Media publications." I also think a single source probably isn't sufficient for inclusion here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree about singular sources. Reddit is so large nowadays that there's lots of articles by some publication or another covering some unusual subreddit that could provoke controversy; this doesn't mean that all of them are notable. The list should be limited to those which cause notoriety. - Novov T C 03:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The issue is this article is like a decade old and was created with a very specific series of communities that received a huge wave of attention both before and after their banning. Since then there has been the occasional addition, but the article itself hasn't had a clearly defined rationale for what should be included and under what criteria. Koncorde (talk) 00:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2021

Can you add DarkHumorAndMemes as it was a popular subreddit banned a long time ago Proof can be that it no longer exists on reddit. Penurywiki (talk) 07:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: This article is not intended to be a comprehensive list of subreddits that have been banned; it would certainly be a lot longer if it was. It is meant to describe Reddit communities, banned or otherwise, that have been controversial (as shown in coverage in reliable sources). If you think DarkHumorAndMemes should be added, please find reliable sources that discuss it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

r/IncelsWithoutHate got banned

Do you think we should add it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:B011:4000:3EB1:18B9:1781:84B9:13BC (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

See my reply to the above commenter. Feel free to provide some reliable sources that describe the subreddit and any controversy, and it can be added. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

It was one of the largest incel communities as of mid-2020. It had taken the shape of Braincels in recent months in regards to the content. The community was banned on March 11, 2021 for "violating Reddit’s rule against promoting hate." It was strictly moderated than r/Braincels and r/Incels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.168.219.252 (talk) 06:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Add MGTOW

This list needs the MGTOW subreddit added, which is currently quarantined.

Also, it would be better to have quarantined subreddits as its own list item.

So you'd have Banned, Quarantined, and Active lists.

• https://www.thefocus.news/culture/mgtow-banned/%3famp
• https://www.dailydot.com/debug/mgtow-subreddit-banned/

Is this enough coverage? --Trade (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

That's not quite right—r/MGTOW was quarantined from January 2020–August 2021, but was recently banned entirely. A small section on the MGTOW subreddit could probably be added by this point, with the Daily Dot source and some additional sourcing taken from the standalone page. Feel free to suggest some wording, or I'll try to come back to it when I get a little more time. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done. I've added MGTOW as an entry, but not made any changes to the organization. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Plz add r/detrans

This subreddit, which is a support forum for detrasitioners, is controversial due to extreme transphobia, following the Gender Critical ideology, TERFism and misinformation. It has been accused multiple times by r/AgainstHateSubreddits and the transgender community. Would that make place on this article? Bhp99 (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bhp99: As with any addition to this page, it would require coverage in reliable sources that establishes that it's controversial and noteworthy to include. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

There are multiple sources that criticize this subreddit:  ::https://mobile.twitter.com/lacroicsz/status/1288947379689881608

https://www.reddit.com/r/ask_transgender/comments/c35swq/is_rdetrans_transphobic/?utm_source=amp&utm_medium=

https://www.reddit.com/r/GenderCynical/comments/d4sn1q/rdetrans_were_not_a_terf_sub_also_rdetrans_anyone/

https://ovarit.com/o/GenderCritical/7681/r-againsthatesubreddits-is-claiming-r-detrans-is-a-hate-sub-and-they-are-trying

https://amp.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/hoy5eq/so_rdetrans_was_banned_for_a_couple_of_hours_for/

https://www.saidit.net/s/censorship/comments/5tbk/important_thread_on_reddit_censorship_from_an/

That's all I could find. Pick good sources. Bhp99 (talk) 10:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think any of these sources are reliable; they all appear to be user-generated. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 11:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are no reliable sources that r/detrans is a transphobic subreddit. Maybe you should look somewhere better? I'm not that good at Google-fu as other people are here. Bhp99 (talk) 11:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Addition: what about this? https://rareddit.com/r/AgainstHateSubreddits/comments/kgnce5/catalogue_of_all_remaining_major_transphobic/ Bhp99 (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

That is just as unreliable as any of the things you linked to before. We need news articles, not social media posts. I already linked to WP:UGC before, but if you need a frame of reference, look at the sources that are already used in the page: articles from The Guardian, The New York Times, etc. That's what we need, and if such articles don't exist, then this subreddit isn't notable enough for inclusion, based on Wikipedia's fundamental policy on verifiability. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 11:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately the subreddit hasn't made the news yet, so what's remaining? Bhp99 (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Nothing; it shouldn't go into the article unless/until we have enough reliable sources to write verifiably about it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bhp99, Writ Keeper, and GorillaWarfare: This article from LGBTQ Nation popped up in my google news search, as well as a less reliable-looking one which claimed that r/detrans was briefly purged during the 2020 banwave before being reinstated. Seems to be a growing story. Bhp99, please check WP:RS for future reference about what kinds of sources are acceptable to use on Wikipedia. Online forums, including reddit, tend not to be considered reliable. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Even that article doesn't really say it's controversial, just that its subscriber count doesn't mean much in the context it was being used. @Bhp99:, what I would suggest doing if you think it's controversial but there doesn't seem to be any coverage in WP:RSes is to add a Google News alert or the like to see if anything pops up in the future (and, yes, familiarize yourself with the requirements of WP:RS in the process - not even everything on Google News is usable! WP:RSP has a non-exhaustive list of ratings for various sources that might also help get an idea of the types of sources that are useful here.) --Aquillion (talk) 09:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't seem to rise to the same level as existing entries in the list at current state. That said, this isn't the first time I've heard of this particular subreddit in the past few months (can't recall where exactly; probably I saw it mentioned in passing during the recent JKR flare-up) so I suspect it will gain more mainstream attention over time. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2021

Can you move r/NoNewNormal from "Active subreddits" section to "Banned subreddits" section? r/NoNewNormal has been banned now for "violation of Reddit’s content policy against promoting community interference" after a few weeks being quarantined: https://www.reddit.com/r/NoNewNormal/ 2A02:C7E:E37:E100:D45D:9AF5:EFD:39F9 (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Probably best to wait for a reliable secondary source. I imagine it won't be long, given the fairly substantial coverage of the protests of the subreddit among other Reddit communities. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I guess that why. Looking for a hour ago on Google does not show any recent reliable news about this subreddit being banned yet. I wonder how long the news taken to report r/The_Donald ban? 2A02:C7E:E37:E100:D45D:9AF5:EFD:39F9 (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/sep/01/reddit-communities-go-dark-in-protest-over-covid-misinformation tgeorgescu (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done by The Young Skeptic. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - The Guardian (a British newspaper) has reported it now. 2A02:C7E:E37:E100:B49E:DC3F:300:5537 (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Skippy2520 edits

@Skippy2520: Can you explain why you undid my edits? The edit summary "fix" is unfortunately not giving me much to go on. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

NoNewNormal completely banned

I think we should post here about the NoNewNormal and other subreddit bannings, as it is actually completely banned (see https://ibb.co/WcLW8Lx), and it is an interest theme among redditors and even The WAN Show talked about it.FireyAndIcey (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@FireyAndIcey: What is not mentioned in Controversial Reddit communities#NoNewNormal that you think needs to be added? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Oh, I maybe didn't pay atention and didn't saw that. Thanks for pointing it out to me! FireyAndIcey (talk) 00:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Date format

@GorillaWarfare: About this edit, shouldn't date format be based on WP:ENGVAR? Non-military United States-related topics should use the American date format, and Reddit is based in the United States. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Dates,_months,_and_years show that either US or UK date formats can be acceptable. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

My edit was per MOS:RETAIN. Reddit is used globally, and I don't think the company being based in the US establishes "strong national ties". It's not a particularly strongly-held opinion, though. Honestly, I just noticed that there was inconsistent date usage in the article and that there was already a {{use dmy dates}} template. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree the ties are not that strong. Dmy is fine. If someone digs through the history and finds mdy was established first, I’d happily change my mind. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: The first edits seem to be from a person who attended university in the United States (see article history). There the article body uses the American-style "October 12", even though the citations below used UK-style DMY for the dates. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Cool. Any objections to mdy? It'll be nice to match with the American English ENGVAR, not tagged, but clearly established. (FYI, WhisperToMe, your ping didn't work). Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

None from me. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Hm.. not sure why it didn't work. Anyway I can change it to MDY if you wish. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it. It's an easy change back if anyone has a good reason for it. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

r/transpets

You forgot to mention a subreddit named r/transpets although I’m unsure when it was banned I do know it used to exist Wikilover126 (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2021

Subreddit r/vaccinelonghaulers is quarantined by Reddit. I would like to add it to this list. 2A01:4B00:8810:400:FC42:DED3:105F:F3E8 (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2021

As it matches the capitalization of the URL in the Reddit API, r/TIFU should be changed to r/tifu. 207.81.187.41 (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done Signed, I Am Chaos (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Xhosa

Hi 41.116.23.19 (talk) 10:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

r/AgainstHateSubreddits

it should probably be listed in the "active subreddits" section (it isn't down yet), it's frequently brigaded and blamed as a source of brigades by other subreddits — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.28.142.235 (talk) 06:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

We need a reliable source to support the inclusion of the subreddit. Koncorde (talk) 08:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The brigading done by them is viewable right on their subreddit's own faq where they state they "Organize users to report, to the admins, items (posts / comments) in those subreddits which violate the Reddit Content Policies." They also go on to note in the same FAQ, that speech that they disagree with is quote "not protected under the principle of freedom of speech." 2601:681:5000:1440:E98B:5B91:131:1B6C (talk) 11:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Should the fact that r/whalewatching was banned be added to the fatpeoplehate section?

It was banned by reddit moderators thinking it was an crude wordplay on fat people, but it was actually about whale watching. Cleverjoseph (talk) 11:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

/r/MensRights antifeminism

Multiple scholarly sources call /r/MensRights antifeminist, such as Jack LaViolette & Bernie Hogan: "/r/MensRights, an anti-feminist group" (2019 p. 323); Luc Coisineau: "/r/MensRights and /r/TheRedPill provide good case studies for the exploration of the spread of men's rights content ... They share deeply anti-feminist values" (2021, p. 133); and Debbie Ging, who cites the "extreme misogyny and proclivity for personal attacks" of subreddits such as /r/MensRights as "the most striking features of the new antifeminist politics" (2019 pp. 645–6). See also "'"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" by Karen Lumsden, who examines "Men’s Rights Activists’ (MRA) discussions of trolling and gendered violence ... This includes the denigration and abuse aimed at feminists and social justice warriors (SJWs)" on /r/MensRights specifically. In fact I just visited the subreddit and the top posts include complaints about "lying" women (linking to this NY Post story), "stupid feminist talking points", and the flaws of "feminist patriarchy theory". --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC) edited 23:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Re: The subreddit itself is explicitly not anti-feminist (per their sidebar’s FAQ). See WP:MANDY. We have plenty of independent, reliable sources labeling the forum antifeminist. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Good job expanding the section. I wish there was a more specific term than “anti feminism”. r/MensRights is not some wholesale anti-women subreddit, but it is I suppose anti fourth-wave feminism and is quick to harshly criticize recent trends. But yeah, good job expanding it. Hard to really argue against it haha Bluedude588 (talk) 10:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

GamersRiseUp

I removed the recent addition of r/GamersRiseUp because it had no reliable sources attesting controversy etc. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Herman Cain Award as own article

• Herman Cain Award

I just split the Herman Cain Award section into its own article. See talk page there for details. Bluerasberry (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

IMO the article (or section) should make it clearer that this satirical "award" exists solely on Internet forums (not unlike the early Darwin Awards). There is no actual (physical and/or monetary) award. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, I agree. Also -

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herman Cain Award

Bluerasberry (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

/r/GenZedong

Wish I could find sites that would be acceptable to cite about this one (of course, because major news websites and full-of-themself journalists being paid by political parties to shut up about certain things) are the only real option for citing but this subreddit is known for spreading CCP propaganda (it's possible to be banned for simply mentioning "Uyghur") as well as displaying the worrying trend of literal communists in the younger generation... 2A00:23C6:E782:EA01:B11F:5DE0:F653:65CA (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree, however, the only source I can find is this Time article which only briefly mentions it.𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 01:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Should /r/Russia be added?

• Reddit quarantines r/Russia due to ‘high volume’ of misinformation
• Reddit restricts access to r/Russia subreddit due to misinformation
• Reddit hides r/Russia from search and recommendations due to misinformation
• Reddit puts Russia subreddit under quarantine for misinformation
• Reddit puts r/Russia into quarantine over Ukraine misinformation

I would say yes --Trade (talk) 00:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion

Would it make more sense to reorder the subreddits to the ones that were banned first, instead of alphabetical order? SK2242 (talk) 05:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

/r/GenZedong needs more specificity

While linking a Time article may be the only scholarly source, it seems like GZD is under-described as compared to its counterparts (albeit, it has a more recent history). Including notes like the fact that 'GZD was a far-Left Marxist subreddit that was generally antagonistic towards mainstream narratives (resulting in their ban)' is necessary towards archiving it properly. Otherwise, it's much too vague. Unless there's a plan to further detail the subreddit, its placement on the list should be consistent with others' placements in verbosity and descriptiveness. 71.212.104.164 (talk) 06:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

r/drama should be added to the list

r/drama is a subreddit dedicated to create drama. It is full of bad faith actors. It is on the Masstagger's list. It is has been featured on AHS, that is a subreddit to track and document hateful communities on Reddit. The subreddit is now is in "self quarantine" via limiting posting only to emoji characters. The users are known for operating multiple accounts and engaging with other Reddit's communities in bad faith with the only scope of generating drama.

The users have migrated to an offsite Reddit clone known as rdrama.net.

The community has been at the center of a controversy during the r/place April fool's event, when Reddit administrators were caught erasing rdrama's mascot and URL from the canvas by allegedly abusing their moderation tools.

Examples of bad faith actions

• r/TXBountyHunters subreddit was a hoax created by a group called "rDrama"
• r/transparenttranskid subreddit, which originated several screenshot who were spread across the right-wing galaxy, was created by r/drama

I think it should be consider as a fine addition to the list. --DrTransmisia (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2022

The entry for r/GenZedong has been maliciously edited by user Totalsecond, who added pro-Chinese and pro-Russian propaganda, similar to the type seen on the subreddit itself. Please change it back to it's original form. XR0 K1LL3R (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

r/WayOfTheBern

"According to AP News and Washington Times in 2019"

The AP is referencing the Washington Times article. There was never two separate articles, and the inclusion of the AP is only done to give more credibility to the less than credible hard-Right Washington Times hit-piece.

"'acts like a foreign trolling operation,' and was criticized for having unusually right-wing topics and policy positions considering its background as an "Sanders fan page"

It was founded by longtime members of Left-wing The Daily Kos, and WotB's founder was a 20 year member there. It's purpose as a "Sanders" sub, a politician who isn't actually a Democratic party member, is to allow for opinions outside the mainstream of the Democratic party. WotB views politics along a Top/Bottom divide rather than a Left/Right divide Because of this it creates overlap between the two parties that Democratic partisans confuse for "right-wing" politics. Criticizing the party is no more like "a foreign operation" than criticizing America is. It's baked into the pie, our 1st Amendment was put there first to establish the importance of being allowed to dissent openly. It wasn't put there to invite "foreign trolling," it was to keep a spotlight on government actors and their actions. This is what WayoftheBern respects and honors.

"Social media analyst Josh Russell considered it "extremely suspicious"

We consider Josh Russell extremely suspicious. In this following link it was shown, point by point, how Josh Russell photo-shopped a fake WotB front page, misrepresented reddit traffic stats, and invented 'facts' to create an entire fictional narrative to smear the subreddit, and then set about shopping his fictional expose to as many media outlets as he could. Only the far-Right Washington Times bit, because they had a vested interest in ending Sanders' campaign. https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/arx6nc/in_case_this_happens_again_a_response_to_the/

FThumbFThumb (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Founding moderator of WayoftheBern

I support removal. Wikipedia, as far as I know, doesn't have a settled, centralized consensus on how to evaluate the reliability of syndicated content, like the Wasington Times piece republished by AP. I'm inclined to acknowledge a little inherited reliability and weight from AP, but generally to classify it as an unreliable Times piece. The WaPo source cited does not verify "has been subject to controversy", including only a passing mention of some critical analysis of the subreddit. The "Network Propaganda" source similarly does not verify the preceding content, tracing only one story's posting on WayOfTheBern. Unless there are more sources out there, the subsection doesn't belong. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

r/Makemycoffin

This was a very controversial and disturbing subreddit. Often filled with graphic images of suicides, murders, and a few other NSFW incidents that involve death. It was deleted off of Reddit sometime in early 2022, and I think it is notable enough to include it on this list. 146.7.15.83 (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

It was similar to r/WatchPeopleDie, however, there are no reliable sources about r/Makemycoffin. 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 23:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Cantelmoism

There’s an article about a Reddit-based “cult” whose founder recently killed himself: [5] 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:2EB0 (talk) 05:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

edit request

under Quarantining, I would change the last word to "appeals" instead of "quarantines." 2600:8804:4808:A600:849A:CE18:41DC:D7CD (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed. Good catch. --Jayron32 12:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Change the status of r/femaledatingstrategy

The subreddit just got banned and I believe they've left reddit to another site voluntarily as well. listed as an active subreddit but that's no longer the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerriene (talk • contribs) 14:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

It isn't banned, it is still active. http://reddit.com/r/femaledatingstrategy 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 18:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2022

In the "Portugueses" section change "Moderators and volunteer moderators, who removed or reported" to "Moderators and volunteer moderators of other communities, who removed or reported" Asantos3 (talk) 00:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 18:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

hindutvawatch and edit to r/chodi

I have added a new sub. Next I edited r/chodi to add more details but since reddit has banned that sub I'm unsure how to back up my edits with proof. I used to be a member of chodi for long and had repeatedly seen and had also posted about their wrongdoings. Will my edit still be accepted? IF there is a way to access the posts even after that ban I can post the links.

SportingFan FC (talk) 09:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)SportingFan FC

Sorry, we will require reliable sources. Posts from Reddit are not considered reliable sources. 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 03:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

r/MensRights

Looking over r/MensRights, I don't see anything controversial. Unless we are being sexist towards men, the subreddit is literally the same as a women's rights subreddit. SPAG checker (talk) 21:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2022

Remove the r/mensrights part. the community is not sexist, and with that logic r/feminism should be added. That community (r/mensrights) is a safe place, and should not be slandered Meperso (talk) 04:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 04:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit request for possible typo

Under the section for aznidentity and AsianMasculinity, the first sentence includes the words "world events from the perspective of the male Asian disapora".

I believe "disapora" to be a typo. I cannot find a definition of the word that makes sense. It may have been intended to say "diaspora", however that generally applies to Jewish people living outside Palestine. Fattredd (talk) 02:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

It's definitely meant to be "diaspora", and I fixed that. Thank you. "Diaspora" does not solely refer to the Jewish people, which you can see in the other definition at that M-W page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

/r/Justice4Darrel

Please add this subreddit to the list.

• How a fake Reddit post tried to derail the Darrell Brooks trial
• BREAKING: Darrell Brooks judge orders investigation into Reddit group 'Justice4Darrell' claiming to be working with a juror to nullify trial
• How a hoax Reddit post claiming to be from a juror nearly disrupted a chaotic murder trial
• Brooks asks for mistrial over 'Justice4Darrell' subreddit post Trade (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

In all of those sources it is the post that is controversial rather than the subreddit or community itself; the only mention of the subreddit is that that's where it was posted, and that the subreddit is now banned. A single post doesn't rise to the level of being a "controversial Reddit community". - Aoidh (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Controversial_Reddit_communities#GunsForSale Needs edit about r/gundeals subreddit

r/gundeals was not banned, it is still up. It has required all Firearms as required by law be sold by FFLs in the USA, this is the primary audience for the subreddit due to it's nature and laws dealing with exporting firearms and even firearm parts due to many Laws and numerous regulations covering import and export. Amongst uncountable numerous sanctions and trade laws. Like ITAR Where a screw is no longer "just a screw", if it belongs or came from firearm and is or was labeled a gun part during its existence. If you look at the subreddit the rules for posting clearly states deals for Any item subject to GCA of 1968 purview are to be through a retail website of a FFL-holding business, firearms or receivers(the serialized part of frame) , and items subject to the 1934 NFA like [[[Suppressor]]s and AOWs, etc are required to to be transferred to local to the buyer's FFL for background checks, taxes and transfer(s) for the background NCIS check is done at the selling FFL place of business. FFL to FFL transfer is going from one FFL logbook to another FFL's Logbook, that is the only way a non local to them FFL may sell a NFA, GCA , FOPA, etc. restricted item is by transfer to their local FFL who then does the NCIS background check. There is, No posting nor offering in the comments of private (person to person) sales for multiple reasons, one reason for that rule is no person to person firearm sales allowed from Reddit Policy. With a 2nd logic as r/gundeals is deals subreddit for people, not a personal sales subreddit (those were banned despite being legal depending on the state and varied by type of firearm in some, due to possible risk in 2018 federal law change for website operators) and there must be a certain amount of the item for sale to be posted as a deal. The only exception is if the item is very rare to allow a limited 1 item posting and still is under the purview of NFA GCA,FOPA, and numerous other federal laws and regulations. Applicable State and even county and city laws are also applied by the retailers. r/gundelas mods also Blacklist Dealers for not following the laws and various other reasons. Furthermore any listed deal from any site that contributes to private sales , even those that even go through FFLs are not allowed such as GunBroker.com . R/gundelas was caught up in massive key word ban of many subreddits but was quickly appealed and allowed to continue. See for self citation of still in existence. Meaning you will not see the message "this subreddit was banned" and the date of such screen or page holder message seen with banned subreddits on Reddit.

How overreaching was this ban? Firearm subreddits were targeted many just gave up and went to places with less headaches despite being perfectly within the new modified rules. Example r/brassswap which traded new empty and or used brass cartridge ,scrap metal under the law, casings. which requiring specialized knowledge, investment of controlled materials and re-manufacturing of reloading to restore them to ammo status, was even banned due to overreach key wording banning...

Since r/gundeals was not banned for less then a day or so, I request that information about r/gundeals be corrected or amended. That length of time was for correction by Reddit's mistake and not on the part r/gundeals.

Proposed added edit R/gundeals was banned in sitewide keyword banning but appealed showing how they were in full compliance with the new Reddit Policies and are not in fact banned. Citing the actually url if needed for proof. 2600:1702:1590:9A30:D9BC:8682:FF2:F24F (talk) 07:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. I have tried to find an article referring to the unbanning of the account but coming up blank. Was there ever such an announcement, or message from Reddit to the effect of what is stated above? I can find a blog post about it and some forum chatter but little else. Koncorde (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay between life issues, I've been searching and that has lead to getting lost in other related rabbits holes.

Only the (green)"Meta" posts about the full details of what they(the subreddit r/gudeals) went through, communication and timeline of communication that I know of, the article you found is a copy of that. The Owners/mods might remember which firearm news source/media team(s) they talked to. The mod who posted the official "we're back" , has deleted that account . The link to that META post is https://www.reddit.com/r/gundeals/comments/88mqu0/were_back_baby/ . Other sources's I'm getting fall into other gun forums & lower end blog than part of better combined media, so not cite-able enough. Most of those just were saying it was back up vary with various degrees of rehashing original source. I've been hunting youtube hoping to find one the gun news channels with more of media site presence but quite few of the respectable ones had content taking done and/or demonetized , so some of the better(non political) gun news creators in turn deleted all their older historical content, and went elsewhere. So striking out on youtube, I know not cite-able but looking for helpful jumping off point to grab a "cite-able" reference source from their other online presence. The news Media was quick to cite the firearm related subreddits were down and gone as were ones related to alcohol and tobacco via this BBC https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-43513105 and then those sources didn't follow up with a correction, or at least none I've found. Much like how Newspapers and news stations will report on arrests and then never give equal time to stating the person was not charged, charges were dropped, found not guilty. I'm going to keep looking and maybe we should try to ask the owner(s)/ moderators, now that the heavy traffic of all the Holidays deals are winding down and they would have time to answer better hopefully. Not sure if Reddit has any advance logs of their debates to dig through, not knowledgeable with other than knowing their ""API"" is shared but for what and how much I'm barely at ignorant on that subject.

Of possible useful note

They created temporary fall back announcement only subreddit that the first post ,there are only 5(comments on them won't yield much help info to noise ratio), has screen caps of their conversation with reddit staff on 03/21/2018 1st post https://www.reddit.com/r/GunDealsAnnouncements/ which is then goes on more about what they were doing and building a clone for in case they didn't get logical reversal decision to basically avoid going to places like Voat , where they may run into the same issue, which was smart as Voat is no more. This was a mention I could find in "Mod Support" https://www.reddit.com/r/ModSupport/comments/gnz8y7/what_are_the_rules_involving_3d_printing_guns/ where a user questions about it and there's explanation, sadly not from a "Reddit Staff" flared user.Still finding all the other mod/owner subbreddits to search. I'm really starting feel like this is like the old philosophy "prove you exist" argument, where seeing yourself isn't enough proof. 2600:1702:1590:9A30:4956:79B3:56A1:D33E (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't worry, Holidays are Holidays so hope you had a good on. Yeah, unfortunately sourcing is a common issue where the corrections never get the same attention (or any). For the moment I have simply removed mention of the two other reddits specified. That means wikipedia remains factually accurate and doesn't require any synth of sources. If any sources are found then we could re-add, and explain their subsequent restoration if it was deemed necessary but at the moment I think leaving the forum out at the moment would be enough. Koncorde (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

References

List

I think it´d be good, if there was a addition or list, for the Deleted subs. Babysharkboss2 (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree, this list does not mention any of the other now-deleted subreddits that were neither hateful nor violent, yet could be considered controversial. I'm thinking of the many drug-related subs that are now gone (which IMO is due to reddit's increasing focus on advertising-friendly content), but certainly other subs as well. How notable a full list would be I don't know however. Human 8482746245 (talk) 02:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to interpret nearly any deleted sub as being controversial, even if it was controversial to reddit administration for reasons of advertising/public perception (or maybe because it was deleted). I recommend keeping to a structured list, with ideally, at most, a one sentence summary, though. The banned subs section is already a bit too text/information dense in some places, IMO. Is there a different style/layout structure, rather than just sub-headings for each entry, that would make for a more efficient use of article space for listing "other deleted subs"? Maybe even just a collapsed table. Llamageddon (talk) 09:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Request to add r/chinesetourists to this page

Most people know this sub propogated racism against chinese people as well as other south asians.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Add r/hapas

Similar to aznidentity but there are some Elliott Roger fanatics in there 104.142.69.97 (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Add r/SMG4

https://twitter.com/lego_man75/status/1661090023322599440?s=46&t=f_1tGVlmAe_aMx66jFhsLQ LegoMan75Alt (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

It's a twitter thread, which isn't very reliable. Signed, MinecraftNerd12341234 07:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

And it's your own account you have provided as evidence. Signed, MinecraftNerd12341234 07:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Thats YOUR own twitter thread. Is there any other place to get more info on it? We could add it, but i scanned through SMG4's channel, and couldn't find any time he directly covered the sub closing. So.... Babysharkboss2 (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, there's not even a thread attached. Signed, MinecraftNerd12341234 21:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

fr. though, i'll re-check the date on the twitter thread later. Maybe it was old and i didn't see the right video. It could have been a mistake. tho, the fact @LegoMan75Althasn't responded yet makes me wonder if this is fake. Babysharkboss2 (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Just look at the subreddit and you’ll understand LegoMan75Alt (talk) 01:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

i did. it looks fine. This is a page for more controversial subreddits. And "heres MY twitter", and "just check the subreddit", aren't really valid sources. Babysharkboss2 (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request: add citation for r/Aznidentity

In the aznidentity section, it reads: r/aznidentity and r/AsianMasculinity, are communities operated by and for Asian-American men, and discuss various topics related to lifestyle, dating, fitness, and world events from the perspective of the male Asian diaspora. Users often focus on the emasculation of Asian men sexually in American culture, and claim that Asian-American women in interracial relationships often play a role in actively perpetuating this.[citation needed]

Please change to:

r/aznidentity and r/AsianMasculinity, are communities operated by and for Asian-American men, and discuss various topics related to lifestyle, dating, fitness, and world events from the perspective of the male Asian diaspora. Users often focus on the emasculation of Asian men sexually in American culture, and claim that Asian-American women in interracial relationships with white men often play a role in actively perpetuating this. Members of the aznidentity sub-reddit have been responsible for the cyber-harrassment of interracial couples involving Asian women and white men, including death threats.

---

Thank you for the help. 131.119.1.21 (talk) 10:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. It doesn't look to me like the source supports the content. The source itself looks high-quality, so I would definitely support adding some content summarizing it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Thanks for responding.

In case anyone is uninitiated, the acronyms are explained below:

WMAF = White Male + Asian Female (interracial relationship)

AF = Asian Female

AM = Asian Male

Page 78 of this book reads:

The subreddit r/AZNidentity -- a Pan Asian community ... "against all forms of anti-Asianism” with tens of thousands of members—is the source of much of this anti-WMAF cyber-bullying.

In a moderator's post from 2016, AZNidentity told its users to mind the distinction between "calling out the wrong kind of AF -- the self hating, white worshipping kind AND hurling ineffective constantly against AF in general." "If you want to critique AF," it went on, "discourage their errant behavior, take a fuller perspective of social dynamics and what can be done about then -- that's perfectly fine ... there are a few individuals however, who keep taking this too far." But the community post said, would not "go out of their way to appease AF. Nor will we self-censor to appease their feelings or anyone else's ... We can critique AF, we can point out their follies. Their succumbing to white brainwashing ... Our vision [is] for a better life for Asians."

There is much that is striking here, not the least the admission that a "Pan Asian" forum is really a forum for Asian men. Also taken for granted is the thesis that Asian women --as enactors of white supremacy-- are in every way the dominant Asian class, and that Asian men are their victims. It is perhaps true that in the white imagination --which is much of the worlds imagination -- Asian men are less than fully men. But that does not stop Asian men, like men of all races, from...

Based on this quote, I suggest this change:

r/aznidentity and r/AsianMasculinity, are communities operated by and for Asian-American men, and discuss various topics related to lifestyle, dating, fitness, and world events from the perspective of the male Asian diaspora. Users often focus on the emasculation of Asian men in American culture, as well as what they view as the lower status of Asian American men relative to to Asian American women. Members of r/AZNidentity have been responsible for much of the cyber-harrassment of interracial couples involving white men and Asian women. In certain areas, users of r/aznidentity are sometimes referred to as "Men's Rights Asians" or "MRAsians", a pun on "men's rights activists".

---

I also believe a paragraph break after this sentence would improve the quality of this section. Please use your own judgment about the wording and thanks if you spot and correct any grammatical errors. Sorry for the inconvenience. 131.119.1.21 (talk) 11:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: I am just pinging again to check if you have read the above content, I figure you might have missed or forgotten about me. Do you agree that my latest proposal fits with the source quoted? Any disagreements about wording or content? Thanks for your input. 64.156.75.253 (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

There's still much of the proposed content that is not supported by the source. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Do you mind explaining for me what that content is? Thank you. Also pinging @Paper9oll: for their opinion on how this could be best resolved.131.119.1.21 (talk) 10:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I also boldfaced the relevant parts of the large talk quote. Please give advice if you think this does not corroborate my proposed cyber-harrassment additions, as well as the emasculation content already in the Wiki. 131.119.1.21 (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

References

reddit /cryptocurrency add request

this one is missing in the list, their mods control the narrative of what is posted, to their advantage. lastest main issue was reddit removing its token, r/cryptocurrency manipulating information on this topic to exit their position before their users. it was so bad reddit admins had to finally step in and remove half of the mods team, which should have been done years sooner on many other topics. reddit admins dont control their communities mods unless they face legal actions. sauce: https://cointelegraph.com/news/reddit-mods-dumped-tokens-hours-before-blockchain-program-termination 62.23.227.10 (talk) 09:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)