[nickysielicki]

I strongly disagree about current events. The Merrick Garland wikipedia page was a mess immediately after he was nominated, and I've just checked and the word "unprecedented" appears 7 times, in spite of the fact that it is by-no-means unprecedented for the senate to not consider a nomination [1]. There are a lot of partisan editors that wish to astroturf for their own political convictions, and because Wikipedia articles are generally so nonpartisan after they've had some time to mature, I think it's especially problematic because readers don't realize that a fast-moving article is nowhere near up to standards.

[1]: "During the 1852 campaign between Democrat Franklin Pierce and Whig Winfield Scott, Justice John McKinley died in July. President Millard Fillmore, a Whig who was not running for reelection, nominated three candidates — one in August, one in January and one in February. The Democratic-controlled Senate took no action on two candidates and the third withdrew after the Senate postponed a vote until after inauguration. One of Fillmore’s nominations was never even considered by the Senate, while the other was simply tabled." from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/...

[blondie9x]

Unprecedented in recent history. There really should be a law that the Senate needs to start holding hearings within X days. Otherwise partisanship will creep up on either side or multiple sides if we ever move beyond two parties.

[kbutler]

"Unprecedented" means "never done or known before", and "never" means "at no time in the past or future; on no occasion; not ever."

"Unprecedented in recent history" is misleading sensationalism.

[koolba]

> Unprecedented in recent history. There really should be a law that the Senate needs to start holding hearings within X days. Otherwise partisanship will creep up on either side or multiple sides if we ever move beyond two parties.

Similar to a pocket veto, not acting upon a nomination is a form of action. It's an indirect mechanism to reject a nominee.

I'm pretty sure changing this to mandate a hearing within a fixed number of days would require a constitutional amendment, not just a regular law, so is essentially impossible.

[joshuamorton]

A pocket veto has a built in time limit. So it's not at all similar.

[tomrod]

And it's an unintentional power that should be restricted in the minds of many.

[raz32dust]

+1. I have felt this as well. I personally consider the "Lock" icon as a sign that the article is controversial and then I am extra skeptical about it. Might be a good idea for Wikipedia to highlight controversial articles prominently using some other iconography like big bold text telling that the current article is under rapid contradictory edits, or even highlight parts of the text that have been recently edited multiple times and therefore are likely to be controversial.

[dredmorbius]

Politics is amongst the most contested areas. At least the disputes are visible, rather than hidden from view as with most media.

[throwawayqdhd]

True. When I was starting out, I was tasked with editing the Wikipedia page of one of our clients to add more information. Wasn't anything sinister; the company just wanted to ensure the page had up to date information.

When I ventured to the 'Talk' page, I was surprised to see so many edits and comments from editors.

This was for a little known company in a niche field with little traffic or chance to profit. Yet the editors were as diligent as ever.

[heartbreak]

In the time it took you to write out this comment you could have edited the Merrick Garland Wikipedia page to your satisfaction.

[coryfklein]

If you want changes to stick to a highly visited page like Merrick Garland then you need to either:

1. Craft an essay on the Talk page explaining why your modifications are well sourced and should not be changed

2. Camp the page for modifications

Both of which require much more time than it took to write OP's comment above.

[ThrustVectoring]

It'd have gotten reverted within 5 minutes. Wikipedia is an absolute dumpster fire for any sort of controversial topic for this exact reason.