1. K.D. Lang (or k.d. lang)
If the iPod can have a Wikipedia entry that respects Apple's quirky capitalization, why can't Canadian chanteuse k.d. lang get the same consideration? "Proper English spelling takes precedence over stylistic interpretation," say the defenders of Wikipedia's style rules. "It's her name to capitalize as she sees fit," say her fans. "Her proper english name is spelled with capitals. I appreciate that you are great fans and all, but this is an Encyclopedia," answers someone else (who incidentally fails to capitalize "English"). To which Jackbox1971 grumbles, "It is amzing in this day and age where we can clone sheep we can't find away of allowing a person known to mass-culture to use his/her preferred style of writing their name. I think this is another example of the way in which we as a culture have allowed ourselves to sucuumb to the inertia of binary (machine) thinking rather than embrace the human." With all the energy expended on uppercase vs. lowercase, the debate over whether to prominently mention lang's sexual orientation and animal-rights activism barely heats up at all. Some issues are just more important.
2. Oral sex
To see what's bugging people the most about Wikipedia's "Oral sex" entry, start with the history page, which lists notations of edits, accompanied by terse explanations like "An encyclopedia is not to give advice… the purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts." Another editor responds, "These are facts—trivial for mature lovers and fans of Dr. Ruth, but pages are not written for the already knowledgeable." Among the points up for dispute on the discussion page: whether oral sex is biologically designed to be pleasurable for the giver ("Why not just try it? Then you can partake of this commonly known fact yourself," quips Zuriam); whether the images accompanying the entry should skew toward homosexuality; what skin color the figures in the images should have ("What posessed you to think including Interracial sex would be a brilliant idea? Who elected you god of morality and needlessly offend other cultures?"); and all manner of college-health-class-level queries about the absorption of "sexual fluids" into the body, the best way to achieve orgasm via fellatio, and the hygienic problems with performing cunnilingus during menstruation. And of course, some people are up in arms because the article exists in the first place. Webmistress Diva writes, "There is a law for this and I believe that Wikipedia has violated those laws. To make matters worse, this article gets a 'Top' rating which means that 'This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.' What does that mean??? Oral sex is now on the high priority for the list of things to do?"
3. Olivia Newton-John
This issue has divided our nation—nay, the world—for too long. Presidential candidates have debated it. Families have been torn apart by it. Gibb has been pitted against Gibb by it. Wikipedia, can you tell us once and for all: Is Olivia Newton-John British or Australian? Yes, we know she was born in England, but moved to Australia at age 5, and left again at age 17. But such details don't settle the linguistic and existential question of her essential nationality. Nv8200p "think[s] there is no doubt that Newton-John identifies with Australia," but the ensuing complicated discussion covers dual citizenship, British birth certificates, whether Mel Gibson counts as Australian, and ultimately whether Australians have an inferiority complex. "English-born, Australian-raised" is the phrase that currently describes Newton-John in the first paragraph of her entry, but the issue may not be settled for user wikilock, who opines hopefully: "I would imagine that Australia must have a fair amount of famous and respected true Australian-born and raised personalities who are known around the world." If you fit that description, please leave a note on the talk page for Olivia Newton-John's entry, so the Aussies can sleep at night. (Or as they call it, "billabong.")
4. Rotary International
The entry for this stolid civic organization masks a seething mass of vitriol on the talk page, manufactured by hilarious user/vandal Pierre Larcin of Lille, France. Throughout 2006 and 2007, Pierre tried to add lists of famous Rotarians to the entry, including honorary memberships given to Pinochet and Hitler (complete with details of their crimes), information about Rotary's failure to "emit any action against the armament, the prostitution, the AIDS," and the charge that Rotarians are crypto-Freemasons, because Hamas called it a "freemasonical and Zionist organization." The resulting edit war is one of the most entertaining on Wikipedia. As users AndyJones, Aldux, and Bridesmill try to repair the damage, M. Larcin starts sections called "CONTROVERSY OR SEGREGATION? vote here!" and "The blanking of Rotarian Conferencemakers by BridesMill- Polemic," while accusing his opponents of being "pro-Episcopalian theists" and "racist against French." "That's the first step to war," he continues threateningly. "You should be ashamed to speak about Mensa in your profile You GIVE US PAIN." A sad fate indeed for a user so dedicated to the truth: "Who fiddles here?… There is NO INFO in ALL your posts. Just controversy. WE here place INFORMATIONS."
5. Pop-punk
Defining a musical genre can be tricky, but when the attempt moves from barstool game to the Internet, it can get downright contentious, even when the genre is as eager to please and seemingly easy to define as pop-punk. "Pop punk," the entry begins, "is a fusion genre that combines elements of punk rock with pop music, to varying degrees." Sounds simple enough. But the discussion page houses a lively, hairsplitting debate about what kind of music belongs under the pop-punk umbrella and what doesn't. "Fallout Boy and Panic! at the Disco need to be removed. They are NOT punk, and that is NOT opinion," one poster goes. A much longer debate rages over whether bands who "take influence from 90s pop punk groups rather than punk rock itself" should be classified as pop-punk. The head spins. But the present discussion page only suggests the rage found on the archived discussion pages, where topic headings include, "ARE YOU PEOPLE INSANE?!", "Pop Punk, An oxymoron?", and "Pop Punk Revival is QUALITATIVE EXCREMENT (part 1)," a 4,000-word-plus debate spurred by the proposal to merge the entries for "pop punk" and "pop punk revival."
6. Speedy Gonzales
Speedy Gonzales cartoons are filled with what can politely be called dated, uninformed depictions of Mexican culture, which has attracted controversy in times more culturally sensitive than those in which they were created. The present Wikipedia entry for Speedy addresses this situation reasonably well. But the behind-the-scenes discussion on the Speedy Gonzales page takes a fascinating detour into the proper terms to describe Speedy's speech. Some users find that the phrase "Mexican accent" and "stereotypical Mexican accent" both come up short. Others suggest "inauthentic Mexican accent" as a possibility. "I would still go with 'inauthentic,'" Shadowy Cabal suggests. "No one, not even a linguist, has the authority to analyze Speedy's speech patterns and label them stereotypical." At present, the phrase stands as "comedic Mexican accent," but the debate rages on.
- Comments