Talk:Polemic

Administrator assistance had been requested to restore the prematurely closed AfD discussion.

KSci ^(talk) 21:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The following was written but could not be saved because the AfD discussion was prematurely closed without allowing sufficient time for all input (at least a week).

@Chiswick Chap and @Safiel, I think we must base any rationales for noteworthiness one the WP Rules and Guidelines. The word "potential" does not, for example, qualify as a noteworthiness criteria, the word is not found in WP:GNG. Also, the number of sources mentioning a subject is specifically excluded as a criteria. A vast number of sources can be found on the topic of bathroom wallpaper, but I think we will agree that bathroom wallpaper is not a noteworthy WP topic. That fact that authors have characterized the positions of others as polemic does not establish polemic as a noteworthy topic in its own right. To establish polemic as warranting an article we need second and third party sources stating that plemic is a subject of note in its own right. I do not believe it is not enough to find sources that use the term to characterize the positions of others, particularly if it is used as a pejorative word to stigmatize views whom one disagrees. WP:GNG states:

- "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail." - We need sources specifically addressing the subject matter of 'polemic', which is a very different test from finding examples where the word is an adjective.

- "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline." - We need reliable sources describing a topic 'polemic' as an independent topic, and again this is more than finding people using the term as an adjective.

- "Sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." - The sources *should be independent*, that is not tied to an issue or position, showing that polemic is more than just a common pejorative adjective.

I believe we need more than just the use of the use of the adjective in published works to justify a stand-alone article — otherwise we are in violation of the rule stating that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. A collection of people writing that one thing or another is polemic doesn't do this. The term to a great extent is subjective, so a history is not defined by examples alone. We need sources describing the subject of the article 'polemic' as a topic of note in its own right.

Additionally, based on WP:MERGREASON reason #3: Text: If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. The years this article failed to develop and sustained very poor quality provide the best available indicator of its likelihood of being expanded into a full article in a reasonable period of time in the future. This lack of interest is also a valid measure of the topic's notability.

If the topic grows sufficiently to warrant an independent article, a separate article on 'polemic' can then be reasonably reinstated.

KSci ^(talk) 21:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Afd discussions can be closed early, like all deletion discussions on Wikipedia. In this case, I think the early close was a bit rash. Nevertheless, realistically speaking, the likelihood of the end-result being something else than a "keep" is small, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

AfD reopened

I have reopened the AfD discussion in light of the objection. Be advised that AfD is NOT a discussion forum for pursuing a merge and if support for deletion does not appear, most likely another editor will again procedurally close the discussion. Safiel (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Safiel, I once again closed the AfD (I think). I didn't expect opposition, and have no interest in precipitating controversy. I think it would have been more appropriate to permit sufficient time for all interested parties to weigh in on the topic - and give me time to respond to the more recent posts (the abrupt closure prevented me from saving a response I was writing, which was pretty darned frustrating (just FYI).

Thank you for your efforts! I consider this subject resolved.

KSci ^(talk) 22:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Well thank you for updating me. Bebe Jazzy (talk) 07:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

About the examples of controversial emojis

I would like to understand why did you consider that my contribution was not right for this page. I think that the examples I gave are relevant recent and original examples that illustrate what is a polemic. Emojis are a sociological and serious subject today since they contribute to build the online (digital) identity.

I'm looking forward to hear about your arguments Thanks you AnasBARAKAT TPT (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I have refactored the above to remove the name of the editor who reverted the edit because that is not the purpose of an article talk page. The question here concerns whether a section on emojis should be included.

Articles would expand forever if everything remotely connected with the subject was included, and that would make it hard for readers to find useful and properly sourced text. What secondary reliable source has described the emojis issue as a significant example of a polemic? The added text (diff) is not suitable for this article, and it may not be suitable for any article as it appears to be an attempt to turn a passing fuss into something warranting encyclopedic attention. Johnuniq (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I mentioned articles from CNN tech and the Independent talking about "controversies" and "controversy" is a synonym of "polemic". I wanted to add an original example of polemic. I can agree with you when you say that the example is a little bit "remotely connected with the subject". However, I don't agree with you when you say that "it may not be suitable for any article". The usage of emoji is a reality today and it's directly related to the very sociological subject of the online/digital identity construction. My contribution can be totally relevant to show something more interesting and polemic than a neutral presentation of different existing emojis in the page "emoji" for instance. AnasBARAKAT TPT (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

That is not correct. Please consult a better dictionary. You do not seem to understand at all what "polemic" means, or what the purpose of an encyclopedia is. Drmies (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I hope you can explain me what is a polemic better than oxford dictionary: "A strong verbal or written attack on someone or something." and "(usually polemics) The practice of engaging in controversial debate or dispute." So I didn't invented the link with the word controversy which I maintain is a synonym. I am open to debate but with relevant arguments. Besides, an encyclopaedia is about knowledge as you can find it in the Cambridge Dictionary. So if the purpose of an encyclopaedia is to share knowledge, I think that giving examples is relevant to explain notions and illustrate them. You find examples in all the encyclopaedias. I can understand that you find these examples a kind of "light" examples of controversies. However, pretending that I don't know what is the purpose of an encyclopaedia and what is a polemic, is something else. I don't think you are right.AnasBARAKAT TPT (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The same editor has addressed the same issue with much the same text over at Emoji, where it belongs. John Nagle (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

It was removed without any explanation AnasBARAKAT TPT (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

If it belongs anywhere, that is. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I can agree with you to say that this is not the most relevant example of polemic to add to the "polemic" page but removing my contribution from the "Emoji" page is absurd for me, except if someone have a problem with controversial emojis. This is a subject to considerate about them. I didn't invent it and as I said it before it relates to the subject of online identity construction.AnasBARAKAT TPT (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Is 'Animal Farm' a Polemic?

I thought polemic had to be controversial. Unorthodox. To me Animal Farm is a satire, and orthodoxy, not a polemic, or controversial, and reflects the prevailing orthodoxy with regard to the Soviet Union and totalitarianism, though I concede opinion of the Soviet Union, and by extension communism, was then at a post-war zenith. But opinion very rapidly reverted to the pre-war antagonism; the orthodoxy reflected in Orwell's work. More categorical examples of polemic abound, surely.

Aside: Poor Eric Blair; to have your work so consistently mis-understood! Reminds me of the often expressed notion 1984 is about totalitarianism. Well, yes, in a sense. Exclusively. Ah, no. It is equally relevant to the understanding of all forms of government, especially the evolution of forms of government; it is about the pervasive tendency toward authoritarianism, evident throughout human history [ref. Roman Empire], a tendency no less evident today in 'democracies', rather than being just a denunciation of modern totalitarianism as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.210.84 (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)