This page lists Wikipedia pages by the total amount of text in all of their talk page archives put together. It is the best measure there is for determining how much squabbling has gone on behind the scenes for a given page.
Here is a ranking of all 63 of the listed pages that are actual articles (as opposed to policy/administrative/user pages), in descending order:
Donald Trump
Intelligent design
Climate change
Barack Obama
United States
Jesus
Race and intelligence
Catholic Church
Circumcision
Homeopathy
Muhammad
Gamergate (harassment campaign)
Chiropractic
Abortion
Monty Hall problem
Gaza War (2008-2009)
Evolution
Prem Rawat
Sarah Palin
India
Israel
World War II
Christ myth theory
Mass killings under communist regimes
Jehovah's Witnesses
September 11 attacks
Cold fusion
Climatic Research Unit email controversy
Armenian genocide
Anarchism
Atheism
Falun Gong
Neuro-linguistic programming
Jerusalem
Control of cities during the Syrian civil war
Kosovo
British Isles
Transcendental Meditation
United Kingdom
George W. Bush
Christianity
COVID-19 pandemic
Libertarianism
Acupuncture
Thomas Jefferson
International recognition of Kosovo
Israel and apartheid
Adolf Hitler
United States and state terrorism
Syrian civil war
List of best-selling music artists
Julian Assange
Russo-Georgian War
Historicity of Jesus
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
Tea Party movement
List of common misconceptions
Murder of Meredith Kercher
Genesis creation narrative
Taiwan
Hillary Clinton
Electronic cigarette
Michael Jackson
Bubbling under (present in earlier versions; I have gone back to 2015 so far here, though the page history goes back to 2010):
0.999...
European Union
Chronic fatigue syndrome
Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
Shakespeare authorship question
Fascism
Astrology
The Holocaust
Joseph Smith
Chelsea Manning
List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming [NOTE: now deleted]
Really not sure where there can be any controversy.
Israel
How could a page about a math problem end up more controversial there than a page on Pissrael?
0.999...
This is hilarious. How is this in any way controversial? Every person who diligently studies calculus for just a few weeks understands that 0.999... = 1, and why.
You need to prove that 0.333... is, indeed, 1/3 (and also that 0.999... = 0.333...*3) for that. Without being familiar with any sort of construction of real numbers, i.e. without understanding what real numbers are, you are just going to be doing a lot of hand-waving.
But yes, if one already accepts that 0.333... = 1/3, then that proof works. However, if one understands the reasons why 0.333... = 1/3, there are easier ways to prove that 0.999... = 1. Or, rather, why 0.999... = 1 is obvious to such people.
And sure, one might be familiar with any of those constructions without studying calculus, but if one does study calculus, they are going to study what real numbers are.
Also, fun fact for the onlookers: every repeating decimal represents a rational number, and every rational number can be represented by up to two repeating decimals (counting terminating decimals as repeating here). This can be generalised to natural bases other than 10, as well. Furthermore, if you have a repeating decimal that represents some rational number x, such that -1 <= x <= 1, then x = p/10n+x/10n, where p is some integer and n is a natural number, from where it follows that x = p/(10n-1).
Some examples:
-0.999... = 9/10+0.999.../10 => 0.999... = 9/(10-1) = 9/9 = 1
-0.123123123... = 123/103+123123123.../103 => 0.123123123... = 123/(103-1) = 123/999
More generally, when working with other natural bases, we have (x = p/bn+x/bn) => (x = p/(bn-1)), where b is the base. As such, 0.111... (base 2) = 1/10+0.111.../10 (base 2) => 0.111... (base 2) = 1/(10-1) (base 2) = 1/1 = 1.
Nope because capitalism just happens lol. It's never consciously implemented heheh. It's just human nature hahaha. stop asking questions lmfao. nobody's ever been killed for profit muahahaha
I just learned about this problem now. Took me a minute, but it makes sense when I think about my logic in certain card games where you're making decisions based on new cards being entered into play.
the funniest thing I've read is that if you present the monty hall problem to pigeons they get it immediately and switch every time because they literally dgaf and just want the food reward
I would switch but I also feel in my bones with 100% certainty that if I ever got on a game show I would do all the correct things and lose anyway just through bad luck.
yeah I was wondering about that too. she probably has someone hired to scrub her record clean. I can't think of any other reason why she would still be that relevant in this metric.
The most confusing one to me is the best-selling music artists. It’s just an amalgamation of record sale data, not sure where the controversy would be coming from.
I actually had a conversation about this on another forum just the other day and it was surprisingly difficult to find a clear answer. Like every single source people looked up said something different, kinda strange really.
wikipedia mods who police their favorite articles will literally just archive the talk page if the conversation isn't going their way. it's amazing how some articles you can get away with shit talk for years but other articles it gets scrubbed day 1. Some articles you'll get banned for vandalism on the fucking talk page and they'll invoke the "wikipedia is not a forum" nerd rule, while other articles you'll see completely forum-tier discussion going on for years and years in the talk page, dating back to like 2004.
On the F-35 talk page I complained about what was missing. It's my custom to complain on the talk page. If stuff gets fixed - great. If not - oh, well. I don't want to argue or get into an edit war. It works well for me. But that talk page was different. Within about an hour my comment was - I don't remember the term - "refractored" or something. They hid it.
Most people who have it know why, and it has to do with the large swathes of chuds (and libs too) who insist it isn't real, just in your head, an excuse to be lazy, etc. etc. Almost any chronic illness that is hard to diagnose and can't be pinned with complete unambiguous medical certainty to a single clear cause gets that sort of treatment. There are still so many people who don't even believe Lyme disease is real.