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.
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet 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.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
It doesn't work that way. It is not enough to find some citations from journalists. Just because one or two journalists wrote articles and made statements doesn't mean that we now have an **established fact** that we can present as such in a WP article.
No matter the topic or the opinion, you will always find a citation for it and **also a citation for the opposite**. What a WP article needs in order to present something as fact is a general concensus among society and/or science. ʘχ (talk) 09:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC) corrected spelling ʘχ (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is that not kind of how it works? The verifiability policy is just that contentious material needs to be cited to a reliable source, and news articles can be that. If we needed enough sources to establish a definite global consensus for everything, I can't imagine we'd ever get much done. Though in this case we'd probably want more than just a couple articles from the same outlet: surprising or "exceptional" claims do demand a higher bar for sourcing. twotwos (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find the inclusion of X on this list problematic. It is a case of "one of these is not like the others" and to assert otherwise, I find irresponsible. Bgregz (talk) 02:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User Mstf221 apparently decided that a reputable newspaper and the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism were unreliable sources and removed X from the list. Does that indicate that this might be something that requires a vote or escalation? I'm not super familiar with WP policies.
165.23.205.95 (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speculation by Wikipedia editors (indicated by the word "possibly") has no place in any article. Unless you can find a reliable source that documents alt-right usage of the Hyperbola Linux distribution for this purpose, there isn't a reason to mention it in this article. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is any software being demonized? The article doesn't even mention Hyperbola. The original question asked whether a speculative sentence belonged in the article. It does not. Your followup question is a non-sequitur. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
