This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Maybe not the earliest usage of the term, but much earlier citations that are found with a quick Google search. On the commentary track of Fight Club, with the two lead actors and director, one of them uses the term in reference to reviewers, including Roger Ebert, of accusing the film of being pro-fascist. I'd time-stamp it myself, but I don't currently have the blu-ray to hunt down the mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:281:203:4716:51B1:F7FF:6C37:F13D ( talk) 00:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Removing the "criticism" section for lack of WP:RELIABLE. This section has two paras, each with one citation, both are opinion pieces. Per wikipedia guidelines, opinion pieces are unacceptable especially for something as contentious as "criticism". Further more,
Please feel free to re-add criticism provided it is not based on "opinion" pieces, and must be based on uncontentious, reliable, verifiable, secondary sources. Thank you. 58.182.176.169 ( talk) 11:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
My apologies dear RandomCanadian, I will have to revert/remove it, because the issue is not just the BIAS/NEUTRALITY alone, but the bigger issue is WP:RELIABILITY, Wikipedia:NOTOPINION and WP:ONUS for disputed content. That consensus on unreliablity of these sources have been achieved by a much larger consensus process at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. There is no policy which exempts political onion piece from both "reliability and neutrality" requirements. A very low threshold may be acceptable only in case of undisputed content on uncontentious article. Also per WP:BIAS "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering." This source does not even meet the requirements of policy you cited. Opinion piece, from biased and unreliable source, there no many strikes against this section. If you are still keen, please find some reliable, unbiased, neutral sources to make the edits future-proof, otherwise sooner or later such edits are likely to be removed by someone. Avoid opinion pieces too. If you can not find now, do not worry, something will come up from reliable source in few months/years. I am sorry for making you do bit more to find the source. 58.182.176.169 ( talk) 19:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I came across the following two preexisting unsourced passages in the "usage" section of the article. These are potentially contentious on a topic like this. Hence, could be disputed and removed in future.
Following two source to be applied to support the text,