Talk:Main Page

Main Page error reports

To report an error in content currently or imminently on the Main Page, use the appropriate section below.

• Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
• Offer a correction if possible.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 00:38 on 3 December 2024) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
• No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
• Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
• Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.

Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Please do not remove this invisible timestamp. See WT:ERRORS and WP:SUBSCRIBE. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Friday's FA

The text begins with "The École Polytechnique massacre". If you mouse over that link without clicking, either here or in the article, it says "French-language text". That is wrong. Mousing over normally tells you what article you will get if you click. But clicking the link doesn't give you an article about French-language text, nor does it give you an article written in French.

In edit mode, you'll see this is caused by template:lang, which is used 3 times. According to template:lang#Links, the lang template isn't even working when it's inside a wikilink like that, so you wouldn't lose anything by removing the lang links. The fix suggested at Template:Lang#Links doesn't seem to apply because the examples are entire links in another language, but here the word "massacre" is English. So unless someone has a better idea, I could just remove the lang templates that aren't working anyway. Art LaPella (talk) 07:03, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Or yuo could not. @Art LaPella:, please do not change featured content unilaterally. Paging relevant parties: @FAC coordinators: and @TFA coordinators . SerialNumber54129 10:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, I have often made minor unilateral changes to featured articles and blurbs without objection. Even when I ask for attention, I don't always get it. In this case I asked, and I'm happy to leave this issue for others. Art LaPella (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• I've changed from '''[[École Polytechnique massacre|{{Lang|fr|École Polytechnique|italic=no}} massacre]]''' to '''{{Lang|fr|[[École Polytechnique massacre]]|italic=no}}''' (thus École Polytechnique massacre to École Polytechnique massacre) which gets rid of the problem. This is possibly temporarily unless someone finds a better way; as "massacre" is a cognate from the French this isn't problematic, per se. - SchroCat (talk) 10:25, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

  This is a browser problem, not a content one, and that change has introduced an error. "massacre" should not be treated as a French word because, in this instance, it's English. The target article's lead has '''{{Lang|fr|École Polytechnique|italic=no}} massacre''' which, being syntactically and grammatically correct, should be used here: École Polytechnique massacre. Bazza 7 (talk) 10:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

  Read the opening comment and come up with something that doesn't cause the problems that began the thread. - SchroCat (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

  @SchroCat: I did read the comment, and have pointed out already that this is a problem with the reader's browser, not the content. The content generates

  <a href="/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_massacre" title="École Polytechnique massacre"><span title="French-language text"><span lang="fr" style="font-style: normal;">École Polytechnique</span></span> massacre</a>

  The browser uses any inner-most "title" attribute to generate a tooltip; so for hovering over École Polytechnique that will be French-language text, and for hovering over massacre it will be École Polytechnique massacre.

  The tooltip functionality is not a part of the code generated. We must not be led into generating inaccurate content purely to overcome the behaviour of certain browsers.

  The simplest solution to satisfy this non-error is to remove the language tag from around the establishment's shortened name which was also its shortened name in Canadian English at the time of the event; so: '''[[École Polytechnique massacre]]''' giving École Polytechnique massacre. Bazza 7 (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

  This is not a “browser problem”. The WHATWG specification of the title attribute says that “The title attribute represents advisory information for the element, such as would be appropriate for a tooltip” and defines an order of precedence for advisory information such that any higher-level elements are ignored. If “French-language text” is not the most relevant advisory information for the text, it should not be in the title attribute. 216.147.127.204 (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Art LaPella, that is Friday's (6 Dec) TFA not Wednesday's? JennyOz (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes which is the correct date. Secretlondon (talk) 13:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Friday 6 December. - SchroCat (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Bazza_7 is correct about this being a browser issue. What should probably be done is to modify the template concerned so that it is possible to supress the title attribute, by writing, say, ''[[École Polytechnique massacre|{{Lang|fr|École Polytechnique|italic=no|title=no}} massacre]]''; or possibly better still by simply removing the title attribute completely. I have raised this on the template's talk page; see Template talk:Lang#Issue with use in links. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Also noting that this is not an issue for users of the WP:Navigation popups tool, so the fix might be better done in whatever (Wikipedia) tool is failing to show the article preview popup. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Your suggestion of ''[[École Polytechnique massacre|{{Lang|fr|École Polytechnique|italic=no|title=no}} massacre]]'' shows as the following error message for me:

[[École Polytechnique massacre|[École Polytechnique] Error: {{Lang}}: invalid parameter: |title= (help) massacre]]

(for those who few for who this renders properly, lucky you, but the rest of us are seeing the multi-coloured ''[[École Polytechnique massacre|[École Polytechnique] Error: {{Lang}}: invalid parameter: |title= (help) massacre]]'')

The template guidance specifically says not to use this format because it doesn't work on talk and some other pages (as seen above); it's not something you want to try out on TFA blurb on the main page. - SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@SchroCat: I suggested earlier that the language tag may not be needed for this establishment name, so a simple '''[[École Polytechnique massacre]]''', giving École Polytechnique massacre will do. Bazza 7 (talk) 13:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't know who wrote the 'advice' at Template:Lang § Links but it is not very correct. This link:

[[École Polytechnique massacre|{{Lang|fr|École Polytechnique|italic=no}} massacre]]

works here in the Wikipedia namespace because {{lang}} does not categorize outside of mainspace. As written, the link will not work on main page because in mainspace, {{lang}} categorizes:

[[École Polytechnique massacre|<span title="French-language text"><span lang="fr" style="font-style: normal;">École Polytechnique</span></span>[[Category:Articles containing French-language text]] massacre]]

[[École Polytechnique massacre|École Polytechnique massacre]]

This is why {{lang}} has |nocat=yes. Use that parameter to suppress the category link in mainspace.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: The issue is not about categorisation, but tooltips vs. popups. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Sigh. I was responding to Editor SchroCat's comment: The template guidance specifically says not to use this format because it doesn't work on talk and some other pages. In fact it does work on talk and ... other pages as evidenced in the OP. As I explained, it will not work if included as-is on main page. If the {{lang}} template is retained, |nocat=yes is your friend.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth (I suck at writing documentation – it is known), I have rewritten Template:Lang § Links.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

"Your suggestion ... shows as the following error message..." I suggested that "What should probably be done is to modify the template" to allow such usage; not that it is possible at the moment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(December 6)

Monday's FL

(December 9)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Notice to administrators: When fixing POTD errors, please update the corresponding regular version (i.e. without "protected" in the page title) in addition to the Main Page version linked below.

General discussion

Featured article 12/15/14

Good to see the top level editors are apparently extremely childish. Of all the fascinating and informative articles in Wikipedia, this is what people are greeted with. Good job, you ever so clever winners. Geofferic ^T•_C✡ 09:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. That's what we call "the last straw" for me. Though did we really expect something other than puerility on a site founded with porn money?

What is extremely childish about the article itself Geofferic? It's very well written and encyclopedic and covers a legitimate topic which is considered a "taboo" by people like yourself. I'd consider it less childish than a TFA on a videogame, put it that way. Yes, it's probably not an ideal time to TFA it during the fundraiser due the fact that many bizarrely are still offended by it but it is a legitimate article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting choice, throwing the word "Fuck" front and center for all main page visitors during the religious holiday season and during Wikipedia's biggest fundraiser of the year. I realize Wikipedia Isn't Censored, but does anyone around here know the difference between "I can" and "I should"? Townlake (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Personally I agree, but there was an extensive discussion about this before it was decided it would be posted. 331dot (talk) 00:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the background, 331. I don't so much mind that it was "featured", but the timing is juvenile and tasteless. Townlake (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no reason to believe that this was featured because of the season. It's just a mere coincidence. You can't just appeal to one religion and country. This is the English wikipedia, not the american wikipedia. Weegeerunner (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Which religious holiday are you so worried about that falls on December 15? Rreagan007 (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Not telling you this to persuade you of anything, but a bit of trivia may interest you. My family observes both Christian and Jewish traditions. We will begin celebrating Hanukkah the evening of December 16. Townlake (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

That's the following day, though. And as you know, from a religious standpoint, Hanukkah is a relatively minor festival. It's taken on greater cultural significance largely as the Jewish answer to Christmas celebrations (for which I was grateful throughout my childhood, of course). —David Levy 22:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I just saw this. Let's see how many people never visit Wikipedia again after spotting that on the front page. --Biblioworm 00:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

As many as stayed away the last time the word was featured on the main page. Here's a link to the discussion at the time so people can avoid a rehash of the same debate.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Just FYI for anyone interested, the discussion can be found here. 331dot (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Another extraordinarily crass and stupid decision. The person or people responsible for this should have their permissions to edit the main page removed, and the task should be given to someone with better judgement. 86.152.160.175 (talk) 01:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Simmer down there. We are not here to insult and defile each other. Weegeerunner (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

A decision I support without any prudish opinion at all. I just knew the Outrage Corps. would rush here in a rush of panic, and I hope they are told to not get so flustered. doktorb _words^deeds 03:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hate to bust your name-calling bubble, but my feelings don't put me in the "Outrage Corps." My feelings are more akin to when I hear 13-year olds swearing it up on a crowded subway train. Yeah, it's allowed, but come on, time and place. Townlake (talk) 04:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

And how do you get "swearing it up" from a book title? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Read my post again, sport. Townlake (talk) 06:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Reading back through that discussion, it is difficult to believe that the result came up as 'Consensus to post'. The reasoning given lists the arguments then analyses all the arguments against and dismisses them one by one. No such analysis is done on the supporting arguments, despite a large fraction of them amounting to nothing other than WP:OTHERSTUFF. Indeed, the closer's own reasoning is also largely WP:OTHERSTUFF - we've done it before so we should do it again. GoldenRing (talk) 08:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I went straight to the talk page in anticipation of this thread as soon as I saw the featured article. Let's see: Something something think of the children something something. There, that about sums it up. Carry on. --WaltCip (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I find the discussion above a bit ironic considering the topic of the article... -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I have to admit: I was also extremely offended that this vulgar and disgusting featured article is on the main page during Zamenhof Day. The juvenile pruriency of Wikipedia has doubtlessly offended the dozens of Esperanto speakers worldwide.-RHM22 (talk) 05:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'm fully understanding of the whole "Wikipedia is not censored" concept. However, this is going to set off a whole pile of net nanny services/software and potentially get Wikipedia blocked from a whole pile of places where it would otherwise be permitted. Once blocked, it's hard to remove a site from those block lists, especially if one isn't an administrator on the system. Think libraries, schools and places of business where people may frequently visit Wikipedia. (It's a blocking word for searching for most of this software, and when it comes up in a page it will often block the whole relevant site.) Thanks guys, at a time when our readership is well down, I'm not sure we need this particular article on the main page. Risker (talk) 06:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

That would be self censorship, which is almost as pernicious as censorship by others. We should not indulge in it. If someone is annoyed that Wikipedia has been blocked by their ISP's filters, then they should complain to the ISP about the filters, not Wikipedia. Modest Genius ^talk 13:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Balderdash. The article exists, it is well-written and covers the subject in depth. Nobody is prevented in any way from reading the article, should they wish. If their software permits, it will come up if they search the site for the term "fuck". There is no censorship involved at all. Common sense, though, says you don't put things on the main page that are likely to trigger net nannies. Incidentally, the same "net nanny" issue is at least part of the reason that we don't have the even worse fundraising full-screen-overlay banners that were discussed earlier. If the WMF can figure this out, so should we. Risker (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. One thing I'd like to remind people is that WP:NOTCENSORED is not the focus of complaints about this from longstanding and good members of the community, so if you're citing that, there's a good chance that you haven't heard or understood the objection. I'm a very strong supporter of WP:NOTCENSORED and I'm also a very strong supporter of sensible, mature, and thoughtful editorial judgment. As Townlake said up above, "time and place" matter.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, are you saying that this is objectionable to you because of the time (during the holiday season) as well as its being featured on the main page? I can understand an objection based on the prominent appearance of the article, but the position that it's bad because we're ten days from Christmas seems a bit weak to me. (In case anyone isn't clear, my statement above about Zamenhof Day was meant as a response to this viewpoint.) Personally, I think it's unfair to say that a certain featured article that someone spent their time and effort improving should be permanently barred from TFA because it contains an offensive word. If I understand Risker's above point, then it seems as though Wikipedia should be blocked under those filtering methods regardless of what's on the main page. There are innumerable articles that contain vulgarities of all types, so if some filtering programs block the entire website, Wikipedia should already be 'blacklisted.' Apologies if I've misunderstood this, but I'm not familiar with those sorts of programs.-RHM22 (talk) 06:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

People would have to go to the page with the blockable word, and that would normally be prevented because they couldn't search for the word (the search is itself blocked). However, right now all they have to do is turn up on the main page. (If you enter "wikipedia.org" and then click "English", you wind up on the main page - so people could get blocked unintentionally.) Whatever happened to the WMF Board's direction on the principle of least astonishment? We sure took them seriously when they made decisions about fair use, why not this? Risker (talk) 06:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for the explanation. I understand the argument regarding the possibility of Wikipedia being blocked via parental filters, but how many other programs block Wikipedia on a daily basis for every sort of reason? Some or all of Wikipedia must be blocked by the Chinese firewall, for example, but we wouldn't even consider not featuring an article for that reason. There will always be disagreements regarding ideology. I'm not comfortable with any sort of censorship. It exists on German Wikipedia, and I think they're all the worse off for it.-RHM22 (talk) 07:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

As for me, I think there's no really good reason to put such things on the front page ever, but if we do, then during the holiday season and during the fundraising season strikes me as a particularly poor choice. Again I'll repeat what I've said already: this is about thoughtful and mature editorial judgment not about censorship.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

IMO, it is of concern that special concern is given to the fact that this is fundraising season. Should there really be a distinction? ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 10:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: For most parts of the world this is not a 'holiday season'. Please avoid the systemic bias of assuming that all readers are like you. Not everyone celebrates Christmas, and even less of them also have Thanksgiving to provide the other end of a 'season'. Even in places which celebrate Christmas most of them won't be on holiday until Christmas Eve or the day itself. Finally, even if there was a worldwide 'holiday season' (which would occupy almost 10% of the year) it should make no difference to our scheduling decisions. Similarly with our fund-raising activities, which are supposed to be entirely separate from editorial decisions on content. Modest Genius ^talk 15:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I saw the discussion regarding having this item on the main page, but it was closed before I got the opportunity to comment. I remember one of the main arguments was that it was several months since the last time the featured article contained a swear word. I wanted to pose the question then, but I'll mention it as a rhetorical now - when would repetition become too much? Once a month? Why not replace Friday's featured list with a "Fuck off Friday" collection of rude jokes? (By notable comedians of course) AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I was also considering about the sudden usage of the word on the Main Page. It might change people's mindset on using Wikipedia, especially parents who spot their children on Wikipedia's Main Page with the word would probably be shocked, although I don't know what they will do. I think the best thing to do is to just let it go, as the founder of Wikipedia stated, Wikipedia is not censored. However, it is really weird for the word to appear on the Main Page. I have to agree with the aforementioned fact. I was like, 'Woah, chill' and I was glad my parent(s) was not behind of me, but today is a weekday, and Wikipedia visitors should drop at weekdays, especially Mondays. I understand that the festive season might be here, but all featured articles should deserve a chance to be placed there. It's like, Fuck You (Lily Allen song)", "Bitch, Don't Kill My Vibe" and other articles which uses inappropriate words. DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 06:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

As noted above, this is the second time in 2014 an article with "Fuck" in the title has been Today's Featured Article. I don't personally mind the word, but we all know it means something offensive, and we shouldn't actively goad people who are offended by it (particularly Wikipedia's educational partners). The percentage of FAs with "Fuck" in the title is disappearingly small; given where and when this article is appearing, as Jimbo noted at a parallel conversation at his talk page it's obvious there are some tone deafness issues in our project's TFA department. At some point, the community begs for WMF intervention by pulling silly stunts like this. Townlake (talk) 07:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I've also just remembered that the other rationale for it being featured today specifically was that it is the 223rd anniversary of the First Amendment being signed. That is a rather obscure number, and the anniversary is not mentioned anywhere on the page, so in retrospect it appears to be a flimsy excuse. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 08:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• It's no Gropecunt Lane. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• The fact that the article subject is a book specifically about prurience and word taboo nonsense in regards to the very word people are complaining about is a kind of irony you don't get to see very often. All of you complaining about it above are both hilarious and extremely depressing. If the word in question was something offensive and derogatory toward a group of people, then I would understand. I wouldn't want Niggers in the White House featured on the front page either. But Fuck is such a tepid word that literally just means sex. And it generally doesn't even mean that much anymore, more just a generalized expression of disdain or intensification of following words. Silverseren^C 10:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• You are, of course, entitled to your opinion about the meaning of fuck, but that is not shared by all(if it were, we wouldn't be talking about it). I accept that this has been posted, but the issue is not censorship, but editorial judgement and potential blocking of people from accessing Wikipedia, as well as poor timing during the holiday season. Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be. Even Mr. Wales has expressed concern about this above. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• We have NOTCENSORED as a policy for a reason. This right here is one of the exact reasons why it was made. Dealing with people that would like to pretend that such subjects don't exist in the real world. Also, believe me, Mr. Wales' opinion makes me even more against all of you, since time and again all he seems to care about is the image of Wikipedia and not its editors or the work that is done here. And the funny part is, it's not going to be taken down. And by the time anything close to a discussion comes of this, the 24 hours will be up for it being featured anyways, just like every other time people have complained here that sex exists. Which is why this is all a waste of time. Silverseren^C 10:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• The image of Wikipedia is a consideration. We want people to come here, not drive them away. To me NOTCENSORED means that the subject is not prohibited from Wikipedia or the words are not blocked out/redacted; it doesn't mean we need to advertise it on the main page for everyone to see. It's about judgement, not censorship. I am not calling for it to be taken down but people have legitimate good faith concerns here that don't have to do with censorship. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• The point of NOTCENSORED is to express Wikipedia's impartiality. Wikipedia is meant to be as neutral as possible and that involves neutrally handling all articles and subjects and not treating then any differently. Censoring any article for any reason in any manner is a violation of that neutrality. Regardless of the material, it is all delegated in the manner as everything else is. Kinda like the controversy with the FBI seal back when the FBI was ticked off at us. Not running the seal when the article was submitted to DYK would have been a violation of that impartiality. And assuming bad faith on the part of the editor is also a no go. Oh, and in case you didn't know, that was also a situation where Jimbo cared more about how Wikipedia looked, and thus how he looked, than about the neutrality of Wikipedia, so he was trying to censor it passing DYK back then too. Silverseren^C 10:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• I am not assuming bad faith on the part of any editor; if I have suggested otherwise I apologize. I get that people have good reasons to post and support this but all reasons should be considered. Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be; so no censorship means that no editorial judgements can be made? Everything or nothing? It isn't the black and white, yes/no matter you make it out to be. There are gray areas in all aspects of life. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Not in regards to delegation and reviewing of material. Or, worded different, not for actions that are meant to be objective, not subjective. Black and white is very much the role needed for objective neutrality. Basically, that we are meant to be going through articles for promotion to places like DYK or Main Page not based on subjective opinions on their content. Silverseren^C 10:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Everything can be taken too far, including "objective neutrality". The main page is hard to avoid, especially the top of the main page. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• The pearl-clutchers never disappoint. freshacconci talk to me 10:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
• Indeed, the TFA coordinator and others showed poor editorial judgment. The coordinator when he or she found weak "or" no consensus, should have made a better call. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
• My younger child found the main page very, very funny. Thincat (talk) 12:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
• It's not even a particularly offensive word to a great many people, though; its shock value has been reduced. However, this choice of TFA, yet again, just reinforces the stereotype of Wikipedia editors as some sort of basement-swelling Beavis and Butt-head characters ... "uh-huh-huh-huh ... he said Fuck"!! Pathetic, really. Black Kite (talk) 14:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

What I have said previously on similar occasions - perhaps there could be a 'vanilla/child-, library-, work- and someone peering over your shoulder at your device on public transport- safe' English Main Page and one that covers 'more exotic topics.' Thus both sides can be happy (and a broader range of 'MP pick and mix of topics you didn't know you wished to know about.' Jackiespeel (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

That would never work, because the net nannies will never apply the "clean" page to their own settings. They would keep it on the uncensored one because faux moral outrage is what they want. Resolute 15:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The FA pages once had a director. Who was empowered by community RFC (over and over again) to make decisions so that things like this wouldn't happen. That is, the FA process was once known as "not a vote"; no matter how many "support" declarations, bad FAs weren't promoted.

Both the FA director and one of his delegates at the Today's Featured Article request page were chased off by the SAME (finally and eventually banned) sockmaster. With that sockmaster, by the way, when the director and I sought support from the arbs, we were silenced by a (now gone in disgrace) arb; it was not until after the FA pages had been assaulted for months that the community finally banned the sockmaster on other matters. As all of that happened, many editors, (FA-involved and otherwise) were either silent, or joined in support of the Merry Band of Socks chasing off the director (actually, in a deliberate breaching experiment regarding the scheduling of another TFA).

So, to anyone who was an active editor and did nothing when all of this was happening and is now here complaining: take your tomato. You're part of it.

If you were silent when socks chased off the FA director, this is where that ends. If that is so troubling to any of you, then go read the discussion of how we nowadays, in the absence of an FA director, appoint new coordinators empowered to decide what goes on the main page, not only TFA. (Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Notice of intention to stand to down as TFA coordinator).

And if you don't read the whole thing and weigh in, then please hold your tongue the next time you don't like a TFA selection. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, Sandy, the fact that Raul isn't here any more is completely irrelevant to the fact that our editing corps (in this area, anyway) does not appear to be able to rise above the mentality of giggling teenagers. We should be better than that. Although it's no surprise that we're not. Black Kite (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• I can't characterize the topic as the mentality of giggling teenagers (maybe because I'm uninterested in even reading the thing), but I disagree that the absence of a director does not explain what is going on across the FA pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
• The opposing view is that featured articles like today's demonstrate Wikipedia's ability to cover sensitive subjects in a mature manner. Perhaps some are unable to view the word "fuck" – in a wholly academic, fact-based context – without "giggling", but that doesn't accurately describe those who wrote a high-quality encyclopedia article about a law professor's book. —David Levy 14:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• The content is irrelevant, really. Do you think this book would have had all the work done on it to promote it to FA had its title not included the first word? No, me neither. Black Kite (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• The same editor, who's active in the subject area (freedom of speech/censorship issues), invested precisely that much work in Freedom for the Thought That We Hate. —David Levy 19:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Which is very laudable. And as I said, it's a very good article. I'm still entirely unconvinced that this article would have ended up on the mainpage but for its title, though. I only have to read the TFA discussion to come to that opinion. Black Kite (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• You suggested that the article would not "have had all the work done on it to promote it to FA had its title not included the first word". The editor's history suggests otherwise. Certainly, he focuses on articles related to freedom of speech/censorship issues (which, for obvious reasons, are exceptionally likely to contain provocative language), but I see no evidence that he selected this one because the book's title contains the word "fuck". —David Levy 20:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• As you know, Sandy, I was among those who defended Raul and condemned the sockmaster's actions. But I'm baffled by your statment that Raul's role was "to make decisions so that things like this wouldn't happen." Things like what? The display of "objectionable" material at TFA? As opposed to the family-friendly articles that Raul scheduled, such as The Human Centipede (First Sequence) and the aforementioned Gropecunt Lane? —David Levy 14:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I do know that. By "things like this wouldn't happen", I mean that the entire cadre of FA editors is implicated now as a "giggling teenager" group, and there is no one person where the buck stops. In the past, Raul was the "buck stops here" person. He put his balls on the line for the FA process, and had them chopped off-- chased out by a sockmaster. Now, it's the whole cadre of FA "giggling teenagers" that is accountable? Well, those FA "giggling teenagers" who didn't stand against a Merry Band of Sockmasters and their supporters should be held as accountable as they are ... and anyone who doesn't like this content on the mainpage, and hasn't weighed in on FA leadership discussions, should shut up or put up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• As I've commented elsewhere, you perceive distinctions that I don't.
  The above criticisms are no different from those that appeared here when Raul was the FA director. His decisions, like Bencherlite's, were based largely on community consensus – not that most aggrieved parties (then and now) know or care about the underlying infrastructure. —David Levy 15:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've contributed actively, but I intend to return to FA and DYK. I had no idea that Raul was no longer active, and it saddens me to know that. I always viewed his contribution in a very positive light. However, like Mr. Levy above, I agree that he never 'stopped these things from happening.' I'm fairly certain that he would have elected to post the same article today, and I've no doubt that the same people who now call the TFA crew a bunch of "giggling teenagers" would still be doing so; if they're saying that in the first place, then the chances are that they don't really know how articles are promoted and featured anyway. I hope we never marginalize any contribution to Wikipedia.-RHM22 (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

RHM22, "the same people who now call the TFA crew a bunch of 'giggling teenagers'" would instead simply be calling for Raul's head, as they did frequently and loudly, claiming he was a "dictator". Until socks and supporters got his head. Point being, people were silent for years as the FA pages were under assault, they're silent now on how to appoint a new TFA person, and those who don't like what TFA puts on the main page, but have never spoken up in any FA page discussion, again-- should put up or shut up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Or alternatively the people closing such discussions should actually put themselves above the swathes of OMGNOTCENSORED children and say "hey, we're actually trying to present a serious encylopedia here, how about we try doing that?". Who is actually in charge of TFA is completely irrelevant to that. As I said above, this article, regardless of how good it is, would not be a TFA if it were not for its title - because no-one would care about it. And that's the difference. Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is absolute crap. Do you honestly believe that someone spent hours improving an article and going through the FAR process because they thought it would be funny to one day possibly show a bad word on the main page? It's a fine scholarly article, on the subject of a book about the First Amendment. This is all in contrast to Gropecunt Lane, which was in fact expanded solely because of the humorous-sounding name, as mentioned elsewhere by another editor.-RHM22 (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't a good article - it is. But have a look at how many FAs are on similar subjects and then ask yourself - why this one? See also the previous FA this year with "Fuck" in the title. Sorry - I don't believe it. As I say above, I don't care about the word; it's simply the view of Wikipedia that the casual viewer will get. (Not to mention the thousands of educational facilities that will have had the mainpage blocked today because their governments require a profanity filter for U-16s, but I'm sure no-one here really gives a shit about that either). Black Kite (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Most children 5 and older know this word, and know not to use it, because they don't like the taste of soap. A few days ago we had a picture of a yucky cancer on the home page. Some of our topics are horrible, but need to be taught. I'm much more shocked by a picture of a starving person at Holodomor than a didactic use of the word "fuck". Jehochman ^Talk 14:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• People complaining about childishness or about TFAR being full of "giggling teenagers" clearly have not read this article. And that tells me a great deal about how seriously I should take their opinions. Resolute 15:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Not too long ago there was another FA using the word "Fuck" in it. There is a clear bias at work when choosing FA's to put profanity on the main page. This is absurd and it needs to stop. The timing of this right before Christmas and during the fund-raiser is horrible. This selection almost surely harmed Wikipedia. This has nothing to do with being prudish or anything. Rejecting this as today's FA would have just been common sense. I'm actually curious about the fraction of FA's that contain profanity. I'll have to investigate this. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Two in a one-year period? It's not like there are that many FAs to choose from, and if people have written about a book called "Fuck" it's eligible. If it's so surely harmed WP, can we have some evidence please? Also, it's ten days until Christmas, so I don't see your problem there; how big a margin should we leave sanitised, and around what times? Hanukkah, Ramadan, Thanksgiving, Diwali, Easter, July 4th? Way to block out the year.

Don't worry about the fundraiser, though. The banner is so big it obscures the page! (On my computer at least.) BethNaught (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Two in one year is almost one percent. Do one percent of notable topics include the word "fuck" in them? Obviously not. Not obvious? Well, let's see, out of the 4,670,492 current articles in English, a search for "intitle:fuck" yields 136 results, that means about 0.002912% of notable articles have the word. This in turn means that a rate of 1% would be oversampling those articles by 350 times. You don't even to do the statistical test to see that the possibility of statistical anomaly would be rejected against a possibility of a selection bias. In other words, FA editors are picking articles with the word "fuck" in them for the sake of picking the word. It needs to stop. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually it's 0.54%. And it's their prerogative to choose what subjects to write about. Shouldn't we be happy people volunteer to write high-quality content? And again I would ask for evidence this is harming Wikipedia before I will listen to such alarmism. BethNaught (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Your statistical analysis would be valid if TFA were populated from Wikipedia's 6,918,986-article pool. By necessity, the selections are derived from the small pool of featured articles that haven't appeared on the main page. The two "fuck" articles, among others related to freedom of speech/censorship, were improved and nominated by an editor with a keen interest in that topic.

For the same reason, it isn't unusual for all sorts of subject areas to appear at TFA multiple times over the course of a year (at a frequency far exceeding their representation in the encyclopedia). And when people complain about seeing "too many articles" about birds, plants, video games, and whatever else, they're told the same thing. We can only work with the featured articles that we have, so editors can help to counter these skews by improving articles on topics of interest to them. —David Levy 19:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Based on the ratio of featured articles including the word 'fuck' in the title to those which do not, I reached a very rough 33% likelihood of an article featuring that word in the title to appear on the main page if the selection were completely random.-RHM22 (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

OMG, somebody said Fuck! Maybe we should work that article up to FA status. After all, it's such a versatile word, isn't it? For example, it can denote surprise (What the fuck was that bang?" [Mayor of Hiroshima, August 1945]) or puzzlement (Where the fuck is all that water coming from? [Captain of the Titanic, April 1912]). There are so many other examples. Mjroots (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Those who believe that TFA is immature for selecting the word as the featured article are themselves immature for failing to see the wider meaning behind the article and just seeing a "bad word". KonveyorBelt 21:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It's about decorum and respectability

The Project needs to represent itself with a certain level of decorum befitting the world's most popular online encyclopedia. Running a Featured Article that is essentially the F-bomb does not pass the smell test. If Wikipedia wants to be respected, it needs to act like an adult. Imagine if Presidente Obama went on TV and started throwing around the F word. Could he? Sure he could, technically. Should he? No, it would be a terrible idea, and I don't need to explain why. Or more to the point, imagine if the Gray Lady, the NY Times, ran a front page headline with the F-bomb in it. Could they? Sure, freedom of the press. But would they be particularly more or less respected and esteemed afterwards? Less. It's not about prudishness or phobia of the word, and it's not about WP:NOTCENSORED. It's about acting appropriately. Yes, Wikipedia is not censored, but we are not handcuffed by that one policy. And WP:NOTCENSORED sure as hell is not a mandate to feature profanity. I strongly disagree with any editor who insists on a course of action that results in Wikipedia featuring items like this in the name of protection of free speech or whatever similar intellectual libertarianist argument. Free speech is not remotely in danger here. And Wikipedia is not your personal vehicle for attempting to change the public's generally accepted idea of what is or is not generally proper conduct. What are you here to do—organize and share the world's information, or attempt to shock people and push your personal agenda on them? Darkest Tree Talk 18:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The difference is that nobody is "throwing the F word around". you've got to look at the context in which the word is being used, and it's a perfectly encyclopedic one. If Obama was addressing the f word in a critical context, looking at how it affects American society it would be a lot more respectable than if he went up to George W on live TV and called him a "fucking retard" wouldn't it? A lot of people might not like him saying the word but the context at least would be fairly appropriate if he addressed it critically. We're not telling people to eff off here now are we? And quite frankly the word is so ridiculously overused on the Internet and films etc that in 2014 no person should really be "shocked" at seeing its usage. We're not the BBC or an institution which follows a strict code. There is an argument that the main page could be censored of course, for some of the reasons that Risker mentioned, but we're not are we? The irony above all this is that the article itself addresses an issue which this very discussion has proved to be a notable one with divided opinion. The article is very relevant from a sociological viewpoint. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Why can't Wikipedia's editors assume the burden of knowing what's best for the little people on the side of class instead of crass? I believe a front page should be suitable for "all audiences", with shocking, in-your-face, "I'm twelve and you're not the boss of me" content profusely included in the pages where appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.153.238.90 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Darkest Tree. The editors have gone out of their way to offend and grab attention. Sorry I donated this year. It won't happen next year. Brted (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

No worries, WMF already has enough money :) BethNaught (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that your monetary support was contingent upon Wikipedia restricting its main page's content to that which you find palatable. My support, conversely, is contingent upon Wikipedia's continued pursuit of neutrality. —David Levy 22:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think that neutrality, freedom of speech, or editorial liberty on WP is going to be the least bit endangered if we err on the side of caution when selecting Featured Articles that maybe don't include subjects or phrases that are generally considered offensive. Not because I am worried about people being offended per se, but because choosing this controversial material is not doing Wikipedia any favors. If you are framing your argument in terms of whether or not people will, or should, find the chosen subject "palatable," then you are probably seeking to shock and offend. There are places for pushing these boundaries, but IMO the main page and FA is not one of them. Think about, in general terms, how what we do on the main page is going to help or hurt the Project. Just because a legitimately controversial article exists does not obligate us to choose to feature it on the main page instead of an article or subject that is not "offensive." Darkest Tree Talk 00:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't seek to shock or offend. I object to the suppression of material from the main page on the basis that some people find it shocking or offensive (which describes far more than one might realize).

In some instances, Wikipedia editors have gone out of their way to cook up main page content for the purpose of pushing boundaries and proving that Wikipedia is not censored (e.g. scouring an article and cherry-picking the one fact that was tangentially related to an expletive, purely as an excuse to get that word into DYK). I oppose such actions unreservedly. —David Levy 00:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hold on. Are we talking about selecting featured articles which is intended to be solely based on merit or today's featured article i.e. selecting what to appear on the main page from the pool of featured articles? From what I can tell even editors like Jimbo Wales, Black Kite and Risker aren't suggestion we avoid recognising an article meets our quality standards when it does just because it contains the word 'fuck'. Nil Einne (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, all of us were referring to TFA (on the main page). —David Levy 09:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we're only talking about what we choose to run as TFA on the main page. And David Levy, I understand where you're coming from. But I think some things are appropriate for the main page and others are not. It comes down to what are we trying to do. If the intent is to widen the exposure of a subject people generally find offensive, especially if it's already no secret that some people will be upset by it, then why do it? The only answer is because a group of someones has an agenda to try to change the way the public thinks about the subject, using Wikipedia. Unless I'm greatly mistaken, there are policies against that kind of thing. The main page is Wikipedia's face to the world. Should that be a face that says "fuck" when it can, or a face that has some self-control? (P.S. I'm not advocating the "suppression" of TFAs on, for example, controversial historical or political subjects. But when it comes to a book about the word fuck, or Gropecunt Lane (I remember that TFA), I think we can exercise some discretion). Darkest Tree Talk 17:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

If the intent is to avoid offending people, we will need to exclude controversial historical and sociopolitical subjects. I don't quite understand why the word "fuck" is more problematic in this respect than, say, a blurb about a murderer who "dismembered the body, boiled the flesh off the bones, and threw most of it into the River Thames, allegedly offering the fat to neighbours as dripping and lard." For some reason, that isn't the type of TFA that triggers these discussions.

There's also the issue of neutrality. Invariably, the idea is to cater to the "majority" of our readership. In other words, if material is widely considered objectionable within a minority group, too bad. We need to focus on what "reasonable people would find objectionable" (emphasis added, but otherwise an actual quotation from one of these debates). —David Levy 17:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Well there definitely seem to be some people here who didn't seem to understand the difference (e.g. the flawed statistics). I wanted to make sure the difference was understood as a few references to just FA or feature were made above, but as I said, the issue is about the TFA not FAs. Nil Einne (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Pee po belly bum drawers. Again. 80.3.72.207 (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• The TFA coordinator definitely made the right decision by running this. Wikipedia isn't censored, and it is an encyclopedia anyone can edit. Trying to put some "child-friendly" face on an encyclopedia full of disturbing things wouldn't be honest. We aren't going out of our way to be annoying; it's just that censorship is an issue and we should cover it. Wnt (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • You are plain wrong. The TFA coordinator made a very stupid decision. He or she is obviously incapable of exercising appropriate judgement and should be removed from his or her post. 86.136.150.146 ([[User

talk:86.136.150.146|talk]]) 00:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Please do not defile other Wikipedians. Weegeerunner (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• • • WP:NOTCENSORED is not a mandate, again. And we are not "covering" anything: WP:NOTNEWS. And this is not the place to Right Great Wrongs WP:RGW if you think censorship is a problem in the world. It certainly is not a problem on Wikipedia. The further assertion that everyone visiting Wikipedia needs to have "disturbing things" shoved in their face just for coming to the site, like the examples Wnt linked to above, is, itself, disturbing. I don't need to be "educated" on the subjects you find "disturbing" just because I came here to look up an article on, say, state capitals. Get a sense of perspective for the breadth and depth of information on Wikipedia, and how the vast majority of users visit it for what is generally very neutral content. Darkest Tree Talk 00:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The saddest parts of these discussions is the people who seem to honestly believe that the thing was posted out of a juvenile desire to be offensive, as though that were the only conceivable explanation. What strange and sheltered lives these people must live if they think that anybody who claims to not think exactly like them is merely pretending to not think like them for the purpose of causing trouble. APL (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

No, No, No. The saddest part is that the public user reaction to this article chosen to be displayed as Wikipedia's best was so predictable, and that Wikipedia can't bring itself to consider public user reaction when reviewing featured article candidates due to some misconcieved notions about censorship.192.249.47.204 (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

FA 15 December part II

(break for ease of use)

My suggestion above was more to have the 'alternative or vanilla version' available for those who would prefer such things in a given context (and the present tutti-frutti version at other times): there could also be the jalapeno pepper version for those so inclined (and also US-centric/cute animal-centric and other version Main Pages). More people would be happy more of the time (and there would be more opportunities for good material to appear on some main page). Jackiespeel (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, vanilla is covered: http://www.conservapedia.com/ —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

'If that is vanilla I am a hedgehog' - a far wider range of 'inappropriate terms' on the main page than has probably appeared on en-WP MP since it began. (Not to mention some of the 'rearrangements.') Vanilla in the sense of 'no cause for comment (not even that there is 'an overload of [insert pet topics here])'.

The Vanilla homepage is www.wiki.x.io.

It's been there all along. It's a logo and a search box.

Of course, people who like to complain ignore it completely because it has absolutely nothing to complain about.

(Or worse, they'll come here to argue that what they really want is a mainpage that's full of content, but content always tailored to their particular set of beliefs and/or interests.) APL (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

There is going to be 'one thing on the main page' every few months that causes wailing and gnashing of teeth and reference to Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells (and whatever the WP equivalent of Mary Whitehouse happens to be) - and not always an obvious topic. Jackiespeel (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

WP users #know# that WP contains many articles on topics that annoy, offend or simply are of negative interest to them: and that they are likely to come across some of them by clicking on blue links/'looking up some obscure reference' etc. #But# this is a matter of choice/deliberate intent.

The Main Page is how WP presents itself to the English speaking world (and others who happen to be strolling through the various language main pages), and is likely to be accessed by people having a tea-break or otherwise in a context where certain topics are likely to cause discomfort (not everybody likes tea/coffee flavoured soggy biscuits) #however# well written or interesting the article. Most of these topics can be predicted and will cause the same, sometimes knee-jerk, reactions. There will also be an element of 'my taste/what annoys me, your taste/what annoys you.'

WP is not censored - but there has to be some compromise between 'totally vanilla' MP contents (the search box is not the same - the MP is, as I have said on occasion, useful for finding 'things you didn't know you wanted to know') and 'if it meets the good writing/notability etc standards carry on regardless publish and be damned.'

The trouble is - there is no consensus on where after 'er, what??' the 'appropriate for MP' boundary is - and if there were an en[1]WP page some people would go there just for the frisson. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The thing for me is that only so few people are actually being offended, if wikipedia gets so much traffic, then how come this page isn't being flooded with complaints? BallroomBlitzkriegBebop (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem for me is that the people who control content of the main page immediately point to some discussion now completed to justify their actions. The FA page and others dealing with selection of main page content are relatively obscure to the casual visitor. Hiding behind "we're not censored" is a cop out. The admins who control content are "so proud" of their decision that they left the offending word out of the recently featured line; that speaks volumes.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 23:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

That's interesting. According to this edit, that was an intentional decision made during the same discussion that decided to run the article as TFA. My own views on this are more to do with the choices people make on what articles to work on, but I'll say more on that separately. Carcharoth (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The links have been piped to avoid triggering keyword-based content filters on days when the article isn't TFA. This, of course, was covered in the discussion (which you might want to actually read, unless you prefer jumping to conclusions). —David Levy 03:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The thing that should be made clearer here is that both the article being discussed here (the book Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties), and the previous one (the documentary film Fuck) were brought to featured article standards by the same editor (User:Cirt). I raised this point in an amendment request made by Cirt back in March 2014 to an arbitration restriction he remains under. It is worth reading through the amendment request to see what Cirt said there about his motivations for working on this topic (you will need to also read what I said there, the comments Cirt is responding to). The issue was touched on there of niche topics versus broad ones. Cirt has also worked on other niche articles related to freedom of speech and censorship, some of which have also been featured. It is trivial to find articles in this topic area that have words in their titles that will generate the kind of debate seen here. It is also trivial to find articles in this topic area that don't generate that kind of debate. Cirt does work on both, but has he focused more on the articles that shock than the ones that don't? The jury may still be out on that, but I think a pattern is emerging. What is clear is that Cirt works on books and films about a niche area of freedom of speech and censorship, some of which have words in their titles that can shock when featured on Wikipedia's front page, and some that don't (e.g. Freedom for the Thought That We Hate and Not in Front of the Children: "Indecency," Censorship, and the Innocence of Youth). Cirt also nominates the articles to appear on Wikipedia's front page. Should the nomination of niche articles with 'shock' value worked on by the same author be encouraged or discouraged (remembering we are all ultimately volunteers)? Personally, I'd discourage it in favour of working on and nominating broader level topics with more educational value (e.g. the articles freedom of speech and censorship themselves), but I fear that Cirt may see some of the discussion here as an encouragement to work on another niche book or film article that will provoke a similar reaction. Whether that will happen, only time will tell. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I think what is often misunderstood is that only featured articles can appear as TFA. Both examples listed above (Freedom of speech and Censorship) would be perfectly suitable, but they aren't featured articles. Anyone interested in promoting an article to featured status can certainly do so. Improve Fred Rogers, Thomas Bowdler or anything you so desire, promote it to featured status, then nominate it for a main page appearance. In fact, you don't even have to nominate it; many articles are plucked out (somewhat) randomly, with care taken to prevent a large amount of similar articles being featured in succession.-RHM22 (talk) 02:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

By the way, to be clear, I'm not referring to you, but to others who complain that more 'suitable' (but not featured) articles should appear on the main page. I know that you know that those two aren't currently featured. Many don't understand the way that articles are chosen, or don't care to.-RHM22 (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

That's an excellent point. Many (most?) readers are under the impression that "today's featured article" is simply an article that we've decided to "feature" today. It's common for people to ask why [non-featured article] wasn't scheduled for a particular date or why we picked [featured article] instead of running [non-featured article].

So it's easy to understand why they question the selection of an "offensive" topic from the 6,918,986-article pool that they believe exists for this purpose. —David Levy 03:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe that Cirt is motivated by a desire to get the word "fuck" onto the main page. The evidence suggests that he's simply creating, improving and nominating articles of interest to him. Given the subject matter, it isn't surprising that some of them have provocative titles (which, of course, the works' creators purposely chose in the hope of turning heads).

As you know, Wikipedia's editors are unpaid volunteers. When one invests the time and effort required to create a featured article – whether it's about a famous philosopher, a mushroom species, a hip hop album or a cartoon character – we should be grateful for his/her contributions. No one is under any obligation to edit anything, let alone to concentrate on articles that someone else deems worthy. —David Levy 03:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It is certainly likely that an editor who acts to promote the Fuck documentary, and then turns around to promote the Fuck: . . . book on which the documentary comments is doing so to promote multiple repetitions. It is bad editorial judgement to do it on the main page nonetheless. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

David, you make the point that the works' creators purposely chose provocative titles "in the hope of turning heads". I agree absolutely. My question to you would be whether Wikipedia, by featuring articles on books and films (and any other 'named' objects) with provocative titles, should be proxying for that sort of attention grabbing? This is part of the point people made in the earlier discussions that featuring niche topics such as books and films unavoidably ends up promoting both those books and films and their tone or attitude, even if done in a NPOV and dispassionate manner. If you feature a 'broad' topic such as freedom of speech or even the word fuck, then you avoid that specific problem. As for what motivates editors to gets these articles featured and run on the main page, I'm less willing to assume good faith there. I would look askance at anyone who repeatedly pushed provocative topics to the front page (you see this to some extent in DYK as well). Once, OK. Twice, maybe. A third time would be pushing it, IMO. Carcharoth (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

My question to you would be whether Wikipedia, by featuring articles on books and films (and any other 'named' objects) with provocative titles, should be proxying for that sort of attention grabbing?

I see no reason to restrict the question to subjects with purposely provocative names. Should we feature articles about violent acts committed by persons/organizations seeking attention? Articles about political/religious activists? Articles about commercial entities in general?

My answer is that maintaining a neutral point of view entails presenting information as it exists in the real world, not seeking to level the playing field by promoting low-key subjects and discriminating against high-profile ones.

We strive to maintain a topical balance (to the extent possible, given the inherent limitations associated with selecting articles from the FA pool), but we don't deem certain subjects more or less worthy of inclusion based on value judgements. That a marketer, activist, criminal, author, filmmaker or anyone else did something to grab attention is neither a valid reason to favor an article about the result nor a valid reason to disfavor it. To do so would be to deem the aforementioned attention-seeking good or bad. We have a responsibility to remain neutral.

This is part of the point people made in the earlier discussions that featuring niche topics such as books and films unavoidably ends up promoting both those books and films and their tone or attitude, even if done in a NPOV and dispassionate manner.

The alternative is to exclude all such topics from TFA. In addition to the above point, I'll note that reduced variety is one of the last things we need.

As for what motivates editors to gets these articles featured and run on the main page, I'm less willing to assume good faith there. I would look askance at anyone who repeatedly pushed provocative topics to the front page

Why? Cirt (the user in question) clearly has a keen interest in topics related to free speech/censorship, so he chooses to write about them. How is this any different from an editor who writes about birds or tropical storms?

Certainly, editors are motivated by a desire to get material of interest to them (and yes, that to which they want to deliver readers) onto the main page. (For obvious reasons, this is unavoidable.) And while people complain about seeing too many articles about mushrooms and video games, I don't recall anyone accusing their creators/nominators of selecting these topics in bad faith, with a goal of stirring up trouble.

If Cirt were seeking out articles across a wide range of subjects (with no apparent commonality apart from their expletive-containing titles), I would understand the suspicion. That isn't what's occurring. He's focusing on a specific subject area (including articles whose titles don't contain expletives). The two "Fuck" articles are connected beyond this shared subject matter (with the film discussed in the book), so the notion that Cirt went out of his way to find an additional "Fuck" topic is utterly baseless. (To be clear, I'm not referring to comments that you've made.)

(you see this to some extent in DYK as well).

DYK is a different animal. Cherry-picking the one "offensive" detail from an article isn't the same as summarizing an "offensive" topic. —David Levy 16:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, no one is saying, going out of the way to find the topics -- going out of the way to promote them is another matter, and is undisputed, along with Fuck the movie, and Fuck the book, being repetitious matter. That also has nothing to do with neutrality. We all make editorial judgments when we write articles, we make other editorial judgments when we promote them for the main page (they are far from the same decision) - the notion that that later decision is being "neutral" is just not in keeping with the meaning of neutral. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, no one is saying, going out of the way to find the topics -- going out of the way to promote them is another matter, and is undisputed,

I dispute that Cirt went out of his way to do anything – apart from improving the encyclopedia, for which he should be commended. He focused on articles whose topics interest him, just as most editors do.

If you meant that Wikipedia went out of its way to run these articles as TFA, I dispute that too.

along with Fuck the movie, and Fuck the book, being repetitious matter.

The pool of featured articles that haven't appeared on the main page is limited (with several subject areas depleted and others nearly so), so some degree of repetition is unavoidable. Were two articles about mushrooms, tropical storms or video games to appear as TFA 9 ½ months apart, I doubt that you'd complain that we went "out of the way to promote them".

That also has nothing to do with neutrality. We all make editorial judgments when we write articles, we make other editorial judgments when we promote them for the main page (they are far from the same decision) - the notion that that later decision is being "neutral" is just not in keeping with the meaning of neutral.

What do you mean? I mentioned neutrality in response to a question as to whether TFA should include articles about entities whose creators purposely gave them provocative names. In my view, rejecting an article's proposed TFA appearance on the basis that we should seek to thwart such "attention grabbing" would be non-neutral. (We aren't here to deem our articles' subjects "good" or "bad", let alone to reward the former with extra exposure and punish the latter with exclusion therefrom.) Do you disagree? —David Levy 18:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

How can you dispute that the Pedia took a long conversation to come to little or no consensus on putting the article on the main page; how can you dispute that the nominator made the extra effort with notices all over to promote it to the main page. Have you sought to put every article you created on the main page, because there is certainly nothing requiring you to, and it does take extra effort that is not writing articles. Your excuse for repetition is merely an acknowledgement of repetition - as for how you draw parallels between different species of mushroom, and different storms, and the subject of one word is rather bizarre but more so unpersuasive. The issue is not deeming any article subject good or bad, the issue is using the editorial power and function to put it on the main page - that has nothing to do with neutrality - neutrality would be, it does not matter if it is on the main page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

How can you dispute that the Pedia took a long conversation to come to little or no consensus on putting the article on the main page;

I agree on the "long conversation" part. Regarding "little or no consensus", our outgoing TFA coordinator determined otherwise. Of course, you're entitled to disagree with him. But you and I are hopelessly biased, so I don't regard either of us as qualified to gauge consensus (or the absence thereof).

how can you dispute that the nominator made the extra effort with notices all over to promote it to the main page.

As explained in the discussion, those notifications were deemed a requirement; Cirt didn't post them out of a desire to "promote" the nomination.

It appears that you and I meant different things. When I stated that Wikipedia didn't go "out of its way to run these articles as TFA", I meant that no extraordinary measures were taken to give them priority over others.

In terms of sheer effort, yes, this was a chore – for the nomination's supporters and opponents alike. But I wouldn't describe it as "going out of our way to run these articles as TFA" (and I doubt that you'd describe it as "going out of our way to not run these articles as TFA"). Discussion is standard procedure at Wikipedia. I wish that one of this magnitude hadn't been necessary, and you probably do as well (albeit for a slightly different reason). But things don't always work out that way. Hopefully, you aren't suggesting that nothing requiring extensive discussion should be proposed around here (because it would be easier not to).

Have you sought to put every article you created on the main page, because there is certainly nothing requiring you to,

Is your point that Cirt wasn't required to take the article through the FA and TFA processes? That's true of every editor and every article.

and it does take extra effort that is not writing articles.

All sorts of normal Wikipedia activities require effort. This includes the aforementioned processes, without which we would have no featured articles and no TFA section on the main page.

That a TFA nomination involves "extra effort" beyond that which is required to simply write an article (as well as the investment of time that otherwise could be spent on a different activity, such as working on other articles) is an accurate statement. I just don't understand what point you're making. That TFA is a waste of time?

Your excuse for repetition is merely an acknowledgement of repetition

Well, yeah. I explicitly acknowledged the existence of repetition. I'm not making an "excuse" for it. I'm simply stating a fact: some degree of subject matter repetition is unavoidable (and the current pool of eligible featured articles contains less variety than it could – a situation that should be improved, not excused). Do you dispute this claim? If so, please convey your solution.

- as for how you draw parallels between different species of mushroom, and different storms, and the subject of one word is rather bizarre but more so unpersuasive.

Neither article's subject is "one word". Various editors' shared perception to the contrary was among the elements of the TFA discussion that I found most troubling.

The issue is not deeming any article subject good or bad, the issue is using the editorial power and function to put it on the main page - that has nothing to do with neutrality - neutrality would be, it does not matter if it is on the main page.

I addressed a hypothetical scenario in which we actively accept and reject articles for TFA on the basis of our positive and negative opinions of their subjects (specifically, disapproval of actions undertaken by persons directly involved in some of the entities' creation). You've responded by describing a different hypothetical scenario that you've rightly deemed irrelevant (because it's unrelated to my point).

Indeed, not caring whether any given article appears on the main page would be a neutral position. So would not caring about what material appears in an article. By this definition of neutrality, it "has nothing to do with" writing the encyclopedia.

If you'll excuse me, I'm off to read today's featured mushroom article. (And tomorrow's featured article – about an anglophone soldier/politician – is only minutes away.) —David Levy 23:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The TFA coordinator said in the close they found less "or" "no consensus". It's as if you did not read what coordinator wrote, nor what others have written here: The nominator went out of his way to get this put on the main page ("extra effort" as you admit to be) -- you also apparently missed the plea of the coordinator in the close for the nominator to stop it. The repetition of subject is apparent in the titles, and in the subject matter, both dealing with treatments of one word. Your last point is irrelevant because you keep insisting that it is not judgement and an act of will to put something on the main page, but you are wrong about that -- and you already admitted that getting it on the main page is not writing articles for the encyclopedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The TFA coordinator said in the close they found less "or" "no consensus".

His closing statement's Conclusion subsection reads as follows:

So for all these reasons I find that many of the "oppose" arguments are either off-topic or weaker than their numerical presence might at first blush suggests. Looking for strength of arguments, then, my conclusion is that there is consensus, albeit weaker than in the previous TFAR discussion, in favour of running the article as requested. If I am wrong about that, then there is not a consensus against running the article, and in the absence of a consensus to change the default position (that all TFAs are eligible for the main page) then I take the view that it is eligible.

He explicitly conveyed a determination of consensus to run the article. Then he described a hypothetical scenario in which he's wrong.

The nominator went out of his way to get this put on the main page ("extra effort" as you admit to be)

I acknowledged that extra effort is required to get any article on the main page. I'm baffled as to how that relates to this instance in particular.

However, Cirt did go overboard (to the extent that it became disruptive). It's clear to me that this wasn't his intent. He meant well, but he was overzealous.

That isn't the context in which I used the phrase "went out of his way". I'm addressing suspicions that Cirt selected the articles in question in bad faith, for purpose of stirring up trouble by getting the word "fuck" onto the main page.

(-- you also apparently missed the plea of the coordinator in the close for the nominator to stop it).

Actually, I joined him.

If that's what you meant by "went out of his way", you have no disagreement from me on this point.

The repetition of subject is apparent in the titles, and in the subject matter,

Of course the two articles share subject matter, as I've stated repeatedly. If they didn't, that would be evidence that Cirt went out of his way to get random "Fuck" articles onto the main page (as opposed to focusing on related topics of interest to him).

both dealing with treatments of one word.

Indeed, both the film and the book cover that topic. As I noted above, the film is even mentioned in the book. That doesn't make the word "fuck" the subject of the two Wikipedia articles.

Your last point is irrelevant because you keep insisting that it is not judgement and an act of will to put something on the main page, but you are wrong about that

I've done no such insisting. I'd like to clarify my comments, but I don't know what you've misinterpreted to mean the above.

-- and you already admitted that getting it on the main page is not writing articles for the encyclopedia.

"Admitted"? That an activity other than writing articles for the encyclopedia is not writing articles for the encyclopedia? How is this an admission? I'm at a loss. —David Levy 03:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes. You admitted that it is not writing articles for the encyclopedia, so your penultimate last point is about writing the encyclopedia is irrelevant. You have admitted that the nominator made "extra effort" (which is the same as 'out of his way') to put what you admit are two repetitious articles on the main page. You apparently admit that the closer found "weaker" consensus and alternatively no consensus. You apparently admit the closer pleaded with the nominator not to do this again in the closing statement - as for "bad faith" no one said that but you (which is probably a sign of your bad faith or just failure to read what other people have written). Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You admitted that it is not writing articles for the encyclopedia,

I'm trying to understand why you perceive that as an admission. Was this a matter of contention? Was there some suggestion that getting an article on the main page is writing articles for the encyclopedia? I don't even know how such a claim could make sense. How could those two distinct activities be one and the same?

so your penultimate last point is about writing the encyclopedia is irrelevant.

It was a comment on your definition of "neutrality" (as it pertains to Wikipedia). You stated that the process through which articles are selected for TFA "has nothing to do with neutrality" because "neutrality would be, it does not matter if it is on the main page." This equation of neutrality with apathy/inaction is inconsistent with the context in which Wikipedia's fundamental principle of neutrality is discussed, irrespective of whether we're writing an article or compiling material for the main page.

If an editor were to opine that the Hillary Rodham Clinton article should be excluded from TFA because "women have no place in politics", that the Nikolai Kulikovsky article should be excluded because "Russians are scum", or that the Ringo Starr article should be excluded because "he's a mediocre drummer who stole Pete Best's fame", I would respond that such a rationale is incompatible with Wikipedia's fundamental principle of neutrality.

By your definition, the hypothetical editor should argue that the decision "has nothing to do with neutrality" because "neutrality would be, it does not matter if is on the main page."

You have admitted that the nominator made "extra effort"

I've acknowledged that every TFA nominator makes "extra effort" (beyond that which is required to write an article). How is that exceptionally relevant to this particular instance?

(which is the same as 'out of his way')

I was addressing suspicions that Cirt went "out of his way" to do something unusual and inappropriate (in comparison with the behavior expected within the FA and TFA processes). Specifically, I was referring to his article selections. Like most Wikipedia editors, he chose to focus on a subject area of interest to him – in this case, free speech/censorship. This includes two related works whose titles contain the word "Fuck", among other topics. He didn't go "out of his way" to write about out things with "fuck" in their names (e.g. the band Fuck and the website Fucked Company, neither of which falls into the aforementioned area of interest) as a means of getting the word "fuck" onto the main page.

If you want to describe the act of nominating an article for TFA as "going out of one's way", that's fine, but it's unrelated to my point.

to put what you admit are two repetitious articles on the main page.

The repetition occurred when the second of the two appeared, but yes. We ran Fuck (film) as TFA, followed by Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties (an article on a related subject) 9 ½ months later. If you're arguing that a wider gap would have been preferable, I'm inclined to agree. And as I requesed previously, if you know of a solution to the problem stemming from the limited topical variety among articles eligible to appear as TFA, please share it.

You apparently admit that the closer found "weaker" consensus and alternatively no consensus.

He did, indeed, describe the consensus as "weaker" than it was in a previous discussion (related to the film). He didn't find "alternatively no consensus". Again, you're referring to a condition that he doesn't believe exists (but described to address a hypothetical scenario in which he's wrong).

You apparently admit the closer pleaded with the nominator not to do this again in the closing statement

Huh?

- as for "bad faith" no one said that but you

Throughout the two TFA discussions, it was suggested repeatedly that Cirt nominated the articles not to improve Wikipedia, but to cause shock, offense and disruption. Your 17:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC) message was a reply to one in which I addressed the following statement by Carcharoth:

As for what motivates editors to gets these articles featured and run on the main page, I'm less willing to assume good faith there.

(which is probably a sign of your bad faith

Now you're accusing me of acting in bad faith?

or just failure to read what other people have written).

See above. —David Levy 09:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the appearance of bad faith, like when you take apart a sentence and say you do not understand half the sentence. The points which are being made, which you ignore, as to the actions of the nominator, as to the repetition, as to the extra effort to affect the repetition, as to the placement on the main page, is the matter of appropriate appearance, which appropriateness, is precisely the thing that NOTCENSORED ("whether it is [] appropriate") and NPOV, judge. We can't be neutral about what is appropriate because we are not neutral about what is appropriate. The extra effort to cause the repetition, also, appears to be problematic, whatever motivated it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel this way. I've done my best to address your views and communicate mine. I hope that we can collaborate successfully in the future. —David Levy 18:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Basically: . 'Some articles' meet the criteria of FA status but are on topics which are considered unsuitable to ever feature on the MP; other potential FAs are 'likely to generate much discussion because of words used, or particular topics (medical, war/violence/'bad taste' etc), and some are debate generators because of particular circumstances/they appear (possibly accidentally) in conjunction with other topics.

The debate is how to balance WP MP freedom of expression and 'the requirements of good taste, computer filters and tea breaks' in the latter two cases.

There are also going to be many articles that reach FA status and are unlikely to cause much debate (beyond 'this is the Xth article on subject Y in Z days') but for which there is no MP space - how can they be showcased? Would a 'FA showcase' which does not have the restrictions/constraints (of all kinds) of the Main Page get round the issues raised by this particular article? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

There actually is something wrong with the FA process, but it's not the lack of censorship. No, the real problem is that there is a huge preference for articles about narrow topic areas, specifically commercial products, while any general article faces much more resistance. An article like freedom of speech or cell (biology) or video game will never contain every possible reference about the parent topic; therefore it will never end up being called 'comprehensive' and 'stable' and put on the featured list. Instead we end up with articles about specific video games very, very frequently, a phenomenon that looks to me a lot like unpaid advertising. I wholeheartedly agree that Cirt deserves nothing but our congratulations for shepherding multiple articles through the FA gauntlet. I do wish though that there were a way that we could recognize the greater difficulty and scope of effort that can go into high-level general topic articles and give them a more reliable path toward featured status. Wnt (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

According to whom are certain topics "considered unsuitable to ever feature on the MP"? Upon whose standard of "good taste" are we to rely, and why? (Was "the requirements of good taste, computer filters and tea breaks" a quotation?) Where does "freedom of expression" (neither a constitutional right in this context nor part of Wikipedia's five pillars) enter the equation? —David Levy 12:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

There were a few articles that were (and maybe still are) essentially banned from the main page. I remember it being said about Jenna Jameson (no longer a featured article) that it would never appear on the main page, and there were a few others if memory serves. I never did agree with that, especially since the lede for Jameson isn't exceptionally prurient. If it were an article on one of the 'colorful' pornography titles, then I would be a little more sympathetic to the prohibition.-RHM22 (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

You're referring to a small list maintained by Raul654 (our former featured article director, who no longer participates in the process). It didn't fit Jackiespeel's description, as Raul explicitly stated that he compiled the list purely because he wanted to avoid the irritation of dealing with complaints, not because the articles were unsuitable for the main page. I believe that Jenna Jameson was the list's last remaining item. (Another – Wikipedia – was demoted long before Raul's departure.) I never fully understood his reasoning, as he scheduled articles that seemed far more "controversial". In any case, none of this is current. —David Levy 16:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I know that Raul's list is no longer around (I assumed that it went along with him), but I thought that may have been what Jackie was referring to above. Other than Jameson and the Wikipedia article you mentioned, I can't think of anything else at all that would be considered unsuitable, unless something has changed recently. I mentioned earlier that I haven't been active in a couple of years, so some things are different than I remember them.-RHM22 (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Understood. Indeed, Jackiespeel may have been thinking of Raul's list. —David Levy 16:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The Featured Article showcase sounds intriguing. I often wonder why the Main Page is being used as a Showcase Page in the first place. --Khajidha (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I was quoting myself making a general summary of possible reasons why a particular topic might be excluded from the Main Page: bad taste might include the Thatcher/Wicked Witch song controversy, computer filters (libraries, work places etc) tend to be finicky - and who 'doodling around while drinking a cup of tea' wants to see a 'very medical, war-event, high squick factor, or similar' image?

I do not know how practical a Featured Article showcase would be - but it would be one way of 'dealing with' Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page and could be run on slightly different lines to the Main Page (pages show for eg a week; former FAs; and can have themed selections etc). The intent would be to show WP articles at their best not to exclude them from the MP. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be thinking of something like a portal, of which we have many already, including Portal:Featured content which is linked on the left-hand side of every page, as well as broad-topic portals linked at the top of the main page. I don't see how having a different showcase-type page "deals with" WP:FANMP, though, or why we need to "deal with" it beyond it being the pot from which TFAs are chosen. Some FAs get to the main page more quickly than others, but that's inevitable unless we run a strict "first in first out" policy, which I don't think I've ever seen anyone suggest for TFAs. Bencherlite^Talk 20:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Given that there are 'many more potential FAs' than days in several years to come, and that some of these articles are 'likely to generate much comment' (and the regular complaints about overemphasis on one area or another) trying to come up with suggestions that will satisfy the wishes of as many people as possible (including mine that there should be as many opportunities of 'finding things one did not know one wished to know more about.') 'Lists of headings' are not as inviting as 'pictures and text.'

We can't satisfy or even interest all the people all the time - we just have to find ways of maximizing the sum of WP happiness (and getting people involved) Jackiespeel (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, further to the comments way up there about immature editors, we can look forward at some point to seeing an eroticised portrayal of an underage girl being forced onto the Main Page as Featured Article by a sniggering clique clearly out to shock. Awien (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you read the article - the painting actually had a surprisingly extensive impact on American culture. I see no reason not to side with Inez Milholland on this one. Wnt (talk) 11:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I honestly can't believe the massive controversy this has caused. I honestly think that the attitude that "horrific deplorable violence is okay, so long as people don't say any naughty words" is being adopted here. I mean, seriously, it's a legitimate topic, there's no reason to hide the article just because some people don't like the word "fuck". That's what WP:NOTCENSORED is all about. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I honestly can't believe how some people just can't understand why obscene words should not be put in in big bold letters at the top of Wikipedia main page. 86.152.161.61 (talk) 01:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I honestly can't believe how some people just can't understand that their personal and cultural beliefs – including what constitutes obscenity – aren't universal. —David Levy 01:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

If the average age of Wikipedia editors were a few years younger, the Main Page would feature the First Amendment implications of censorship of a discussion of peeing on you. And opponents would be conflated with Muslims objecting to unveiled women. Which is not to say I know what the right answer is ... Art LaPella (talk) 04:17, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Please elaborate on this hypothetical scenario. (To what potential main page content are you referring?)

Also, what conflation do you believe has occurred? I've mentioned "Muslims objecting to unveiled women" (among many other examples, including even stricter editorial standards enforced by certain adherents to my religion), but my point (and that of others who've made similar comments, I think) is that Wikipedia's readers aren't all the same. —David Levy 04:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The hypothetical scenario is of course reductio ad absurdum, demonstrating that enough of us are the same so that some judgments are possible (every reversion is such a judgment). Art LaPella (talk) 05:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

However, here it seems to be more of a straw man. I would recommend against using it since it tends to be equivalent of a middle finger, in this case to editors below the average age of a wiki editor (which the age is, by the way, higher then you'd expect). Another thing is that, naughty words or not (apparently violence doesn't count) Wikipedia is still way more respectable then the majority of the internet as a whole, even google is not without its controversy. BallroomBlitzkriegBebop (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is more respectable than others, then some judgments are being made. That's what I said. Art LaPella (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Did someone assert that judgements aren't being made? I remain baffled as to what point you seek to make. —David Levy 02:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Then would you agree that Wikipedians can and do make judgments, including judgments about what is too offensive (whether or not the original book is beyond the pale), even though everyone won't agree? Art LaPella (talk) 06:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

That depends on what you mean by "Wikipedians" and "make judgments".

Individually, Wikipedians are entitled to deem material "offensive". Collectively, they aren't entitled to impose content restrictions based on these views.

Your previous statement that "if Wikipedia is more respectable than others, then some judgments are being made" seems to point to the latter context. (It also appears to equate "more respectable" with "less offensive", but I don't want to put words in your mouth.) If so, I'm curious as to whether you read the above discussion in its entirety (as I believe that I conveyed my position rather clearly).

Likewise, it's inappropriate for Wikipedians to include material because they regard it as "offensive" (and I addressed this above as well). Mindful of your "reductio ad absurdum" explanation, I'm unsure of whether you were describing such a scenario. Is "the First Amendment implications of censorship of a discussion of peeing on you" a reference to a hypothetical featured article about a urolagnia-related subject, a criticism of editors' immaturity (as you perceive it), or something else? —David Levy 21:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I can only interpret the 2:41 post to mean that no one, including you, would assert that judgments aren't being made in the context of making Wikipedia more respectable, which you correctly connected with less offensive. Then you say that such judgments, if they actually make Wikipedia less offensive, would be against policy and consensus. Taken together, it's an example of what I choose to call a fine distinction beyond my understanding. So I should find something else to do. Art LaPella (talk) 01:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

In that case, your "only" interpretation is incorrect. I wasn't referring to the suppression of "objectionable" material (let alone opining that "less offensive" is synonymous with "more respectable"). I was addressing – as I mistakenly believed that you were – a much broader context.

You stated that you sought to demonstrate "that enough of us are the same so that some judgments are possible", adding that "every reversion is such a judgment". Then you used the identical phrase ("some judgments") in your next message. That this suddenly referred strictly to "judgments ... being made in the context of making Wikipedia [less offensive]" (as opposed to judgements in general, including "every reversion") was not self-evident.

However, this is not to say that the potential for causing offense is never a legitimate factor in Wikipedia's decision-making. As I've noted, we certainly shouldn't purposely offend people, nor should we deliberately select an "offensive" option over one that's otherwise comparable.

As you've again declined to explain what you meant by "the First Amendment implications of censorship of a discussion of peeing on you", I'm unable to delve deeper on that point. —David Levy 03:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Looking to future FAs

OP admits to WP:POINT. No further discussion needed --Jayron32 00:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In an upcoming FA scheduled for 6 January, Epiphany, of all days, the Spanish name for The Falkland Islands is mentioned. To me this is FAR more taboo than saying fuck. Now I know a lot of people have worked hard on that article and other people won't understand, but it upsets me and me alone. Can we remove the article from the FA schedule and possibly delete the mention from wikipedia forever? -LÒÓkingYourBest(Talk|Edits) 17:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Reply from a UK editor: Er ... no. Black Kite (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC) So wikipedia doesn't care about my feels, even in a fundraising period? -LÒÓkingYourBest(Talk|Edits) 17:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC) I am slightly confused as to why it would upset you. The Spanish name for the islands is well known; it's not as if the article suggests that it is the general name for the islands. Black Kite (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Am I correct in assuming that this is a joke?-RHM22 (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Must be, no mention of Las Malvinas or the Falkland Islands in the article at all. Mjroots (talk) 09:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC) Wait. What? Five of the first six words are pretty much that! Unless that's a clever joke? My post was indeed tongue-in-cheek and as ridiculous as most of the discussion above it. Although I imagine people are going to have a good old whinge on February 6 when the world "vagina" is due to appear on the front page. Shock horror. -LÒÓkingYourBest(Talk|Edits) 10:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC) That Feb 6th article will likely have enough serious commentary. No need to crack wise about it. Very important topic to cover. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC) I'm sure it will. It'll also have people complaining about it, despite it being an important topic and worthy of MP. As with the two 'Fuck' articles. No wise crack. -LÒÓkingYourBest(Talk|Edits) 08:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC) "That Feb 6th article will likely have enough serious commentary.": And the December 15th article didn't? Sceptre (talk) 11:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Never said it didn't, did I? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

south beach tow

I would like to put out that what I have read about what you have said and you are wrong it is not fake I mean obviously parts are like when Bernice hits people or the other drivers do it but that is cause of the cameras and non off you are saying that is not the case that you guys wont play up a little but the word is reality documentary I do not agree with things like tension at the end off each episode I also watch south beach tow every night 5 nights a week Mon-Fri and in the credits it does not stat nothing about based on real events and I know cause it is what happens also I do not agree that the other drivers they might have are not on television and should come on screen

This would be better at the article's talk page. Britmax (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

POOP!

I am the great sock pupeteer of poop, and I get a new IP address on my smartphone by turning mobile data off and back on when I am banned.