That was a shockingly short list (only 13 items).

The capitalization of into in Star Trek Into Darkness was a matter of debate as some wished to have it capitalized and others preferred “Star Trek into Darkness.”

Don’t forget about that guerrilla editing group that takes over specific parts of Wikipedia and puts “their view” on the page and shuts out anyone wanting to edit the page

Fuсk ​gѕоw

Edit: autocorrect changed guerrilla to gorilla

This raises questions as to what qualifies as an edit war

Weapons of mass destruction alternated from being a discussion of strategic weapons to its use in the aughts as a dysphemism for strategic weapons, as used in the United States to criticize enemies of the state.

Thought-terminating cliché is an article that has repeatedly disappeared and reappeared.

The article Historicity and origin of the resurrection of Jesus has been disappeared and now simply directs to Resurrection of Jesus , an article that discusses very little about the historicity of the resurrection myth. One important line from the old article: Post-Enlightenment historians work with methodological naturalism, and therefore reject miracles as objective historical facts, a matter that concerns seminary clergy and biblical scholars, alike.

I don’t know if the conflict around these articles failed to meet the standards of an edit war or just haven’t been acknowledged, but they sure have been controversial.

I don’t know if it would be considered an edit war but Kevin Lasagna’s talk page is hilarious.