Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties

This discussion is already more than seven fourteen times the length of the article - anything that participants can do to help the "poor wretch who has to discern consensus here" (as

BencherliteTalk 15:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

The discussion is now nineteen times the length of the article (or, put another way, about 40% of the length of the book in question). I intend to close this discussion either Friday or early next week, time permitting, but it's obviously going to take me time to read all this and reach a reasoned conclusion. Thank you for your understanding.

BencherliteTalk 11:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page.

The result was: scheduled for

BencherliteTalk 18:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties

Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries described the book as a sincere analysis of the word and its history of censorship. (Full article...
)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates discussion (promoted 17 March 2014)


First Break

Enough.
BencherliteTalk 17:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Oppose. The article is about a recently published book, the impact and importance of which are not yet apparent. It's not a long article. It contains no negative criticism of the book or its contents. I can't find any academic review or citation, although I didn't do an exhaustive search. The article describes how one reviewer described the cover, although we can all see the cover for ourselves. It cites the NYT calling him the leading legal scholar on the word "fuck" in the USA, but are there single-word legal experts anywhere? It sounds tongue-in-cheek or, if it's not, just silly. The article just seems a little thin or fluffy for the main page. Moreover, the book seems to be more polemical ("protecting our First Amendment liberties") than educational, although I've never read it. Srnec (talk) 03:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know how I missed the Hopkins criticism when I read the article a couple days ago. I don't count the library journals as academic reviews or citations, but I missed the reviews in footnotes 9 and 21. It's better that a recent polemic have some negative criticism before getting FA status. Srnec (talk) 03:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec:I'm sorry you feel that way, please understand I did my best to find as much source coverage of the book as I could, source coverage in the article is due to a reflection of the source coverage, itself. — Cirt (talk) 03:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just corrected myself because in fact there is one negative criticism in the article. I'm not surprised, however, that you couldn't remember it! I think the source coverage isn't enough to sustain a front-page FA. (I once wrote an article on Zerezindo, an obscure Visigothic duke. It will never be a TFA, although I think it passes basic notability standards.) Srnec (talk) 03:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Srnec, I was about to correct you myself, that there is indeed negative criticism of the book in the article, which I had added myself. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 03:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Fuck (film) has appeared on the front page (disclosure: I voted support on that too) and the sky has not fallen. If there were a rash of naughty words on the front page I would want to slow that down a bit, but twice a year doesn't mean things are out of hand. This is a scholarly work, it's not like we're trying to put Virgin Killer (NSFW, btw) on the front page. Gamaliel (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't think the sky will fall if we put this on the front page, but it may take readers aback when we're trying to be inclusive and expand participation, and I'm not sure it shows the best taste to feature two "Fuck" articles in less than a year's time. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsing to try and keep this page under some sort of control.
BencherliteTalk 00:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
@Calliopejen1:Does it show the "best taste" as you put it, to feature an article that says: "Webster 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."? — Cirt (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cirt (and a fair few others), could you please stop the

bludgeoning of those who have a different opinion? When people are bludgeoned, others don't speak their minds in case they are treated the same way, (and, ironically, that's the censorship you say you are fighting!) Let others have their say without picking up on everything. I've seen a few arguments against inclusion, and the same arguments being thrown against those opposes (I've lost count if the number of comments people have thrown against the "taste" opposes). It's beginning to leave a rather bad taste in my mouth. - SchroCat (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

@SchroCat:Thank you, but there seems to have been a fair amount of discussion and replying going on from multiple perspectives. I think it's relevant to note we've had some graphic violent acts discussed textually on the Main Page. — Cirt (talk) 23:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the same point has been made multiple times already. It may not be your intention, but it comes across as bludgeoning. No one is "discussing" (or attacking) those who are supporting, so just let the comments lie how they fall. Bencherlite has enough shite to trawl through without re-reading the same "replies" time and time and time again. - SchroCat (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, SchroCat, but I don't recall anyone mentioning the particularly gruesome murder and subsequent violent graphic acts from the article Murder of Julia Martha Thomas before on this page. — Cirt (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not, but there have been several other attacks on opposes based on the general subject of "taste" (and a hefty percentage of these were not aimed at "discussion", but at belittling other people's opinions). Just let people have a free say without the constant attacks please. - SchroCat (talk) 23:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can only speak for myself, SchroCat, but I've made no attempt to attack. I do feel it important to point out we are debating one word essentially here on this page, which seems less harmful to minors reading it than an article about a violent and graphic murder, for example. — Cirt (talk) 23:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It may not have been you intention, but the effect of constant "replies" by 4 or 5 editors to a large percentage of the oppose !votes certainly has the effect of an attack. It also leads to editors keeping away from commenting, (or a group of you creating a climate for censorship, which is ironic). I know this is about one word, the "replies" have battered that into everyone's minds whether they want it or not. By way of correction, we are not debating one word here: we are coming to a consensus as to whether an article should appear on the front page or not. You've had your spell on the soap box, it's time to let the voters have their say without any further pressure. - SchroCat (talk) 23:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mere replies don't constitute an "attack", SchroCat, one would have to comment something about an individual contributor instead of content to be an "attack". Otherwise it is what the purpose of discussion is for on Wikipedia, to assess consensus between multiple editors. — Cirt (talk) 23:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm moving away from this, as I think you've lost sight of what this page is for. Looking down this page at the "replies", I see a lot of aggressive responses from 4 or 5 editors to those who have the temerity to have a different opinion to you, and they do come across in many cases as borderline attacks: maybe not against individuals, but against their thoughts and opinions. I am sorry that my simple request to let people speak freely has led to a further lengthening of the page, and I see you're not open to suggestions of behaviour that may help others, so I think it's better if I close of my involvement here. SchroCat (talk) 23:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had an edit-conflicted response that was essentially the same as David's, so I'll say that I strongly agree with this. I think the comparison to LGBT topics, abortion, evolution, and other things that some people (possibly even a majority of people) might find offensive is one of the strongest arguments for essentially ignoring the vulgar nature of the word in this discussion and going just on the merits of whether the timing is right to feature this article. I find it hard to imagine what the difference would be between blocking LGBT content, since some people are offended by homosexuality and are choosing not to seek it out, and blocking anything that mentions the word "fuck" - even when used appropriately in high-quality content - other than the fact that most people would immediately recognize a blanket ban on those other topics as blatant censorship (or something very close to it). 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 18:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(de-indent) "non-negotiable" is silly and risks rendering NOTCENSORED an excuse for anything. Is removing BLP violations censorship? Not having a link to the article "gorilla" on the sidebar of every article censorship? Someone could certainly cry censorship in those cases, but they'd be rightly ignored. The oppose argument isn't "this is a morally bankrupt topic to feature" by some phantom strawman Puritan, it's just that it's rude, jarring, and unexpected.
To me, you are conflating two types of "offensive." There's "this is offensive because it goes against my moral / religious / political views", and *that* argument should be thrown right out, so there's no argument over featuring the likes of Gropecunt Lane or LGBT issues because some people disapprove of prostitution or homosexuality. This, to me, is what is explicitly protected by NOTCENSORED. Then there is material that is just 'crude', e.g. the famous Jenna Jameson example from Raul. This is great to have in the encyclopedia, but putting it on the main page would require a "good reason". Not including it is no more censorship than not including non-Featured Articles in the FA slot, or having a suggestion turned down for In The News. That is the proper analogy for this situation: an ITN nomination on a racy and obscure topic. It's not unreasonable to vote against due to the combination of them.
Now, I can see the response you're queueing up: what about works which are "important" precisely because they are 'crude'? What if they make FA? e.g.
Lady Chatterly's Lover, "Seven Words You Can't Say On Television", episodes of South Park... well, the answer is that there's a continuum. I feel that those topics can stand on their own such that we have solid grounding for why we'd feature 'em. And, to be sure, if I felt that this was a legal review type book that was talking about the current state of 1st amendment law on obscenity, I would support. Unfortunately, the article as it stands doesn't really sell that. The author 'discusses' the history of the term and the fact people are uncomfortable about it? So... what is said history then? Why are people uncomfortable? What does the author think the law *should* be, aside from warning against self-censorship and believing that letting the government censor specific words will disrupt freedom of thought? Why? It's possible the "content summary" section is selling the book short here, but it just doesn't apear to be much. I'm fine with not TFAing something so obscure that also comes with a downside. SnowFire (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
First off, this is not an example of something that is in any way crude, other than the fact that the title has a word which often (but, as per the actual content of the book, not usually) has vulgar connotations. It's not a "valuable because it's crude" situation, it's a sober look at word taboo. It in fact is a legal review book talking about the current state of 1st amendment law, whether or not you believe it. It is an expansion of a law review article into a book, essentially.
Second, I don't see how these are different types of offensive other than the fact that you personally are offended by one and not the other. A lot of people would find it simply "crude" for a woman to not be wearing enough, or for two men to be holding hands in public. Similarly, some people find all uses of "fuck" to be crude or vulgar. I don't think you've made an adequate case for why we should let potential offense taken come into play in this case. Also, I have to say, you're not making much of a case for why one of these "types" of offensiveness should be ignored and one shouldn't, even if they are distinct (and I particularly fail to see the distinction between a being offended at Gropecunt Lane and being offended at a book called "fuck" about the word "fuck"). 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 21:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"non-negotiable" is silly
"Nonnegotiable" is the exact word used in Wikipedia's neutrality policy.
and risks rendering NOTCENSORED an excuse for anything. Is removing BLP violations censorship? Not having a link to the article "gorilla" on the sidebar of every article censorship?
That's a textbook example of a straw man. (You used that term later in your reply, so I assume that you're familiar with the concept.)
No one has advocated anything remotely similar to the above. I referred to a hypothetical scenario in which "encyclopedic content [is omitted] solely because someone finds it objectionable. In other words, ... that's the only reason (and we otherwise would include the material)". Somehow, you've twisted this into "not excluding material for any reason (including defamation or utter irrelevance)".
The oppose argument isn't "this is a morally bankrupt topic to feature" by some phantom strawman Puritan, it's just that it's rude, jarring, and unexpected.
This appears to imply that someone who perceives it as "a morally bankrupt topic to feature" is wrong and someone who perceives it as "rude, jarring, and unexpected" is right. Is that what you mean? If so, on what do you base this assertion?
To me, you are conflating two types of "offensive." There's "this is offensive because it goes against my moral / religious / political views", and *that* argument should be thrown right out, so there's no argument over featuring the likes of Gropecunt Lane or LGBT issues because some people disapprove of prostitution or homosexuality. This, to me, is what is explicitly protected by NOTCENSORED. Then there is material that is just 'crude', e.g. the famous Jenna Jameson example from Raul.
I'm actually taken aback by your contention that "offensive because it goes against my moral / religious / political views" and "offensive because it's just crude" are distinct concepts. Like 0x0077BE, I see no basis for this claim other than your personal opinion.
I'm also a bit perplexed regarding your view that Gropecunt Lane (an article about streets named for the prostitution that occurred thereon – resulting in a compound of the words "grope" and "cunt", which we displayed on the main page) belongs in the former category, while an article about a pornographic film actress belongs in the latter. Perhaps you'd like to explain how you arrived at that determination.
This is great to have in the encyclopedia, but putting it on the main page would require a "good reason".
Date relevance usually is considered a good reason. Your argument (and that of others) is that articles about "offensive" topics (as defined by you) require better reasons than other articles do. This has no basis in policy.
We recently ran an article about a small, long-defunct Scottish railway. We did so without worrying about whether mentions of trains or Scotland would offend people. Presumably, the notion that someone might find either topic "offensive" seems absurd. Why is that? Because those things aren't offensive, while the word "fuck" is. Clearly, these are the correct beliefs. (Do you see how this is non-neutral?)
Not including it is no more censorship than not including non-Featured Articles in the FA slot,
A non-featured article falls short of the section's most basic criterion. An article whose subject you deem "offensive" might too, but not on that basis. There are many valid reasons for us to reject potential content. Being "offensive" isn't one of them. (This, of course, doesn't mean that such material couldn't be rejected for another reason.)
or having a suggestion turned down for In The News.
That depends on why the hypothetical ITN item was turned down. If it was because someone found the news "offensive", that's a problem.
That is the proper analogy for this situation: an ITN nomination on a racy and obscure topic.
A proposed ITN item about "a racy and obscure topic" should be rejected, but the "racy" part is irrelevant.
I'm fine with not TFAing something so obscure that also comes with a downside.
And the "downside" is that you (and others)
David Levy 23:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I apologize, but I don't want to get dragged into too long of a point-by-point debate, so I'll try to reply more generally. You didn't "get" my point. Of course I am not saying that supporters are in favor of including links to "gorilla" in the sidebar beneath random article; it is an example that, like much in life, there is a continuum and shades of grey. You are treating "non-negotiable" as an end to the debate, a magic talisman that forbids discussion. But... what if someone really thinks that the reason gorilla isn't in the sidebar is due to anti-gorilla censorship? Isn't it non-negotiable that the gorilla-oppressors lay off and put the link in?
The answer is obvious in this contrived case: the reason there's no such link is because it'd be silly and not in keeping with the sidebar. The reason for selecting content is important is what NOTCENSORED is getting at. If I want to remove a long background section at the article on a specific disease, that's fine, it's editorial discretion. If I remove the background section because it's unflattering to me (perhaps I'm a disgraced doctor), that violates
WP:COI
(not NOTCENSORED). If I remove the background section because it clashes with my religious beliefs (perhaps I'm a Christian Scientist), that violates NOTCENSORED. You can't just yell "NOTCENSORED is non-negotiable" to overturn any decision not to run content; it has to be relevant to the reasoning.
And thus we return to my original point: all the complaints about censorship are irrelevant, because that is not the actual argument of (most of) the opposers. I am not morally against the word "Fuck". None of us are morally opposed to gorillas. However, the Main Page is intended for readers, and it's perfectly neutral to cater to them. Sometimes it's easy, like not running "Bob Smith wins Toronto Badminton championship" in ITN. Other times, yes, there are certain topics that will unduly cause a scene. I wholeheartedly agree that "I don't like it" is not an argument, but "this is not material appropriate or expected for a landing page shown to all readers" is. Call it "they won't like it" if you will. We will have to agree to disagree if you don't feel that's a valid concern, as I believe it is. SnowFire (talk) 01:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I am not saying that supporters are in favor of including links to "gorilla" in the sidebar beneath random article; it is an example that, like much in life, there is a continuum and shades of grey.
Yes, I realize that it was a reductio ad absurdum. See the article's "Straw man argument" section.
The problem is that your examples aren't remotely analogous to the position that you seek to refute. You're inventing ambiguity where none exists.
You are treating "non-negotiable" as an end to the debate, a magic talisman that forbids discussion.
I've been criticised by several editors for repeatedly attempting to initiate discussion on this page. Now you're accusing me of attempting to forbid discussion, which couldn't be further from the truth.
You're quoting the word "nonnegotiable" out of context. At no point have I proclaimed that the matter of whether to run the article as TFA isn't up for debate. I'm among those who's sought to encourage discourse on the matter. When I express an opinion contrary to yours, this doesn't mean "you're wrong, so shut up".
But... what if someone really thinks that the reason gorilla isn't in the sidebar is due to anti-gorilla censorship? Isn't it non-negotiable that the gorilla-oppressors lay off and put the link in?
No. Again, you're ignoring the context in which I used the word "nonnegotiable'. More importantly, you're ignoring reality.
In your fictitious scenario, someone has surmised – incorrectly – that some sort of anti-gorilla sentiment has led to a link's omission. Were such a dispute to arise, the community would reject that line of reasoning.
An analogous scenario (and one that realistically could exist) would be one in which someone assumes that an article hasn't appeared as TFA because its content was deemed "offensive". This, too, might be incorrect. There are many other possible reasons why the hypothetical article hasn't appeared as TFA. Maybe it isn't a featured article. Maybe its subject is similar to that of another article that appeared recently. Maybe it's being saved for a specific date in the future. Maybe a copyright issue has come to light. Maybe the article's appearance simply hasn't been requested yet. Whatever the reason, this is something to discuss if and when such a dispute materializes.
Conversely, those of us opposing "censorship" aren't addressing a potential rationale that we've presumed to be in play here. We're responding to the actual argument brought forth by many (certainly not all) of those opposing the TFA request. We aren't engaging in wild speculation or imagining motives that don't actually exist; we're addressing a rationale provided.
The answer is obvious in this contrived case: the reason there's no such link is because it'd be silly and not in keeping with the sidebar.
Indeed. And when someone alleges – incorrectly – that something has been excluded from the encyclopedia due to censorship of material deemed "offensive", that's another dispute to resolve through discussion (with the actual reason[s] conveyed therein). This is very different from a situation in which editors express the view that we should omit material because it's considered "offensive". You contend that disputing this position is analogous to validating any and all perceptions of such (regardless of the actual rationales provided).
You can't just yell "NOTCENSORED is non-negotiable" to overturn any decision not to run content; it has to be relevant to the reasoning.
Exactly. In this instance, "it's offensive" is the reasoning to which we're responding.
And again, you're distorting the context in which I used the word "nonnegotiable". I was referring to "neutrality" (specifically, Wikipedia's policy thereon). I didn't write "NOTCENSORED is non-negotiable", let alone claim that any omission of material constitutes censorship.
From a pragmatic standpoint, I understand the argument that certain decisions – even if compliant with policy – might have unintended consequences. And if I believed that running this article as TFA would harm Wikipedia's reputation (as some have argued), this would give me pause. But I don't believe this, given that exactly the same predictions proved unfounded when we ran the previous "Fuck" article.
And thus we return to my original point: all the complaints about censorship are irrelevant, because that is not the actual argument of (most of) the opposers.
As I requested above, let's not get hung up on the precise meaning of the word "censorship" (which can vary according to context). Again, for the purposes of this discussion, supporters of the article's proposed TFA appearance have used the term in the sense documented at
WP:NOTCENSORED
. We've done so in response to the argument that this TFA request should be rejected because the article's content is considered offensive. You don't see that rationale emerging again and again?
I am not morally against the word "Fuck". None of us are morally opposed to gorillas. However, the Main Page is intended for readers, and it's perfectly neutral to cater to them.
Cater to whom, exactly? Many people are offended by the concepts of homosexuality, transsexualism, abortion, evolution, miscegenation, et cetera. In some cultures, photography of unveiled women (or even women in general) is highly objectionable. You don't advocate that we defer to these readers' beliefs, and the only explanation that you've provided is that there are "two types of 'offensive'", with the aforementioned examples falling under "offensive because it goes against my moral / religious / political views" and the article in question falling under "material that is just 'crude'".
You literally claim that "there is material that is just 'crude'" – a condition that you believe exists independently of people's personal/cultural views. You've declined to elaborate on this distinction, the genesis of which remains a mystery.
I wholeheartedly agree that "I don't like it" is not an argument, but "this is not material appropriate or expected for a landing page shown to all readers" is. Call it "they won't like it" if you will.
I await your explanation of who "they" are (and on what basis you've excluded others). —
David Levy 08:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Second Break - Michele Merkin comparison?

The most recent substantial discussion on controversial material on the main page, as far as I'm aware, was at

BencherliteTalk 08:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Well, this isn't a debate about a picture, but rather a printed word. — Cirt (talk) 08:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: And really the more relevant substantial discussion on controversial material on the main page was at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Fuck (film), which ended up with consensus to feature the Featured Article, without much subsequent fanfare after it was successfully featured. — Cirt (talk) 08:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cirt, I think I'm aware of the previous TFA discussion and its result, and you don't need to keep linking it (let alone in bold). Can anyone explain why the community has reached different conclusions for an article and an image?
BencherliteTalk 08:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Reply: An article about freedom of speech and censorship has educational and encyclopedic context to teach and inform the reader about word taboo and its impact on society. The image has no context, and much less educational value — it's simply an image. — Cirt (talk) 08:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Was that really the reason? Images are still featured on the main page and context about them is given. I thought the reason is that while "fuck" and near-nudity can both offend, the latter was more prejudiced. The word "fuck", unless used in specific contexts, is not offensive to women, black people, LGBT, etc.: it's just a generic profanity. The image, however, may have been seen as misogynistic and unfriendly to women. Given the discrepancy in gender of Wikipedia contributors, it's important that female readers and writers of Wikipedia don't feel objectified or discriminated against here, or that Wikipedia is sexist in terms of article content or images. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 10:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also a very good point. Both arguments have merit to explain the contrast. :) — Cirt (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bencherlite: Cirt presumably included the notation for the benefit of others reading this subthread. In the discussion above, multiple respondents seem unaware of that TFA request and its outcome, and the Merkin image is likely to prove somewhat more attention-grabbing than Cirt's already-overlooked TFA request links have been. —
David Levy 21:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, ironically, Cirt has removed the image as unnecessary and a waste of bandwidth, so the attention-grabbing element is gone. We're just left with the rest of the waste of bandwidth to be found on this page... </groan>
BencherliteTalk 19:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:SLOW is the closest policy I can find, but I'm fairly sure even with my limited knowledge of technology that bandwidth is nothing to worry about. Condemn us all you want for wasting our valuable time discussing this, but there are 34 million pages on this site and one more won't make a difference. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 20:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm fairly certain that Bencherlite wasn't literally asserting that this page will have a significant effect on server performance. —
David Levy 01:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

When this nomination opened, I followed the debate for a while, got somewhat bored by the repetitious arguments, and gave it up. I've just looked at the page to see how the matter was resolved – and find the discussion still going on!! One thing is clear: there will be no consensus here. The summary table shows 34 supports and 30 opposes – both I should imagine records of their kind. That proportional division hasn't changed much since the debate got under way; the community is split roughly 50:50 on this issue, and there are forceful arguments on both sides. In these circumstances I think it is for you, Bencherlite, as our TFA co-ordinator, to decide whether this should run, on the basis of your own editorial judgement. Roughly equal numbers will be pleased and disappointed no matter what decision you take, but I think the time for that decision is now. Brianboulton (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton:Thank you for this reasoned comment. Recently two (2) editors have chosen to change their sentiment from "Oppose" to "Weak oppose", so it's interesting that this discussion had thoughtful debate which evidently has persuaded some individuals to at least partially rethink their prior conceptions. — Cirt (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that
David Levy 21:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
We agree, then. It's up to Bencherlite to make a judgement and end this increasingly tiresome discussion. I trust he will act soon. Brianboulton (talk) 10:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another thought to consider is some editor fatigue related to this topic. The other TFA only ran 10 months ago. Cirt keeps quoting my comments at that time out of context in places. It would have been better to have held off on the documentary to put it on an appropriate date. It wasn't, and now 10 months later, we have the book coming up for TFA on that "appropriate date". I'm inclined to say "not in 2014, wait for 2015 or 2016" to avoid a perception related to the frequency of this topic. (Like it or not, some people aren't going to recognize that the first fuck article to be TFA was a documentary, and this fuck article is a book, and therefore a separate topic.) On the other hand, if Bencherlite delays this until 2015, are we going to have a repeat of this dog-and-pony show in October and November 2015?
In my mind, we made a mistake by running the documentary on a non-specific date. We make another mistake running the book in the same year as the documentary. Yes, the sooner we run this, the sooner it can never be up for discussion again because we don't rerun TFAs* around here, so this is a once-in-a-lifetime issue.
One more thought, but Cirt, your actions here are coming off as very aggressive. You're commenting and replying to most editors' comments here. You're regularly updating the tally of votes. In some ways, you've engaged in "campaigning" at a forum where we don't campaign. The impression I have is that TFA (and FAC, etc) are like a papal conclave. You should have been content to make your initial pitch and let others carry water for you. Yes, there are direct queries that merit replies, but thanking those who support your nomination is too much. You mean well, but the end effect is that it feels like you're doing this to advance some agenda. Your actions are souring me more and more, and I don't think I'm the only one. Like it or not, controversial topics require a lighter touch. Imzadi 1979 → 21:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Imzadi1979:You're absolutely right about the last point, and my apologies. I'd thought I'd held back from commenting for a while, and I admit I thanked one or two people as I'd gotten a bit discouraged about some of the things that had been said about my Quality improvement efforts related to freedom of speech and censorship and after being disheartened, it was nice to hear some positive appreciation for my contributions. I don't see why it's a big deal to update tallies, however. — Cirt (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the previous instance, I supported the non-specific date request because I felt that the article's TFA appearance was more likely to be perceived as an activist stunt if it occurred on a day related to free speech. Given that it ended up being essentially a non-issue, I now believe that even that degree of caution was excessive (which is why I support this article's proposed scheduling for a relevant date).
If the current request is unsuccessful on the basis that not enough time has passed, I hope that we can decide now to run the article next year (instead of – as you put it – having "a repeat of this dog-and-pony show"). —
David Levy 22:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I have to say, I've been thinking the same thing - if we don't schedule it this year because of the too-close spacing, it'd be nice to schedule it for next year now, with the condition that it's still a high-quality featured article when that date rolls around. 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 14:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of continuing this discussion?

By now, it must be abundantly obvious to everyone involved that there is no absolutely no chance that there will be

consensus for this article to appear as Today's Featured Article. So, what's the point in continuing this discussion other than to waste people's time and energy? It's time to end this charade and move on. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Well. we've got over a month before the requested date to decide. You don't have to participate if you don't want. This is more or less an exact repeat of what happened when Fuck (film) ran, with some minor exceptions, and, as we've been at great pains to point out, that turned out just fine. I note that you seem to have the burden of proof such that a no-consensus result ends up with it not running - but given the nature of this particular enterprise (the only articles that qualify are ones that have already gone through the process that deems them worthy of being featured), you could just as easily say that there was no consensus to exclude it. Either way, it's down to Bencherlite's judgement, which I trust to be fair (he's already shown that he's not necessarily going to be swayed by specious arguments from the last time around, so if he decides not to run it this time, I imagine it will be for one of the more legitimate concerns brought up, like topic spacing). In the end, I'd say that there's no immediate rush, since nothing in December is even scheduled yet, even if the conclusion seems foregone. 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 04:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the debate is starting to drag. We've all had our two cents on this by now. It should be possible to make a decision one way or the other.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the idea that this is more or less an exact repeat of what happened when Fuck (film) ran, the film !passed by a 2-to-1 margin, 52–25. This discussion, at about 36–32, is !passing by a small plurality, but don't we usually set the bar for "consensus" on Wikipedia a bit higher than that? Try making the point at requests for adminship that an editor should be made an administrator because "there was no consensus to exclude" them. There is one way that this is like the film debate though. If we keep this open long enough for another 10 votes to be cast, then this will set a new record at Wikipedia:Today's featured article oddities § The ones with the most votes, and the top two vote recipients will both be about articles which discuss the same word. Draw your own conclusions on what that says about Wikipedia's editors. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above,
David Levy 13:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I think we're getting into trouble here with the idea that perhaps ten votes may be disregarded because they all make the same "weak, inapplicable or invalid" argument(s). Sure, if one or two editors say "no, because there is water on Mars", we can disregard those, But I don't see that being the case here. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're getting into trouble here with the idea that perhaps ten votes may be disregarded because they all make the same "weak, inapplicable or invalid" argument(s).
Are you suggesting that an argument must be treated as strong/applicable/valid if enough people repeat it?
Sure, if one or two editors say "no, because there is water on Mars", we can disregard those,
What if ten editors say that?
But I don't see that being the case here.
I agree that no one has supplied a rationale comparable to your hypothetical example. And I'm making no assertions as to whether anyone's argument was weak, inapplicable or invalid. (Obviously, both you and I are biased.) I'm addressing your vote count and claims regarding its significance. —
David Levy 14:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
  • We saw the usual handful of "Think of the children!"-type posts (and little more).
  • I've never understood the logic behind this one. To me, the argument seems to be "Wikipedia is not censored, but to avoid offending people, we should use our best judgement to decide when to censor Wikipedia." The except*ion swallows the rule.
  • we shouldn't display content for the purpose of upsetting people. But when we reject otherwise-suitable material purely to avoid causing offense, that type of "editorial discretion" is non-neutral
  • how are we to determine what words and concepts are "offensive"? Whose cultural standards do you consider applicable?
  • A statement that we should bar "offensive language" from appearing on the main page carries little meaning when "offensive language" hasn't been defined
  • You "do not want material that may be constructed as offensive by a large number of readers on the main page without a very good reason". I assume that this includes content related to LGBT topics, abortion, and unveil*ed women (particularly photographs thereof). Right?
  • The concept of rejecting a TFA appearance due to editors' personal dislike of the article's subject isn't part of any Wikipedia consensus of which I'm aware.
  • I didn't expect anyone to top the "I don't like it." rationale discussed above. But here you are with the rationale "It's stupid." Impressive.
What I'm suggesting is that one editor repeating the suggestion that a particular line of reasoning is not "strong/applicable/valid" umpteen times doesn't make it so. This line of rationale is not so far afield that it should be lightly discarded. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you overlooked the portion of my reply in which I acknowledged that my bias renders me unfit to gauge consensus (which, as also stated above, is Bencherlite's responsibility anyway).
Again, I'm not passing judgement as to whether anyone's argument should be discounted (let alone "discarded"). I'm addressing your apparent belief that
David Levy 16:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
OK then. I am aware that there may be intangibles in the determination of consensus. That's why the
WP:IAR). My point is that while perhaps there are some comments above that might be discounted, I just don't see enough that could be discounted that would pull this to a consensus in either direction. But I'm not "The Decider" (catch phrase ;o), and I'll respect their decision. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Indeed, it isn't up to us. And even if the decision weren't Bencherlite's to make, both you and I would be in no position to gauge consensus (or the absence thereof) objectively. We can express our opinions (and my perspective differs from yours, of course), but we're anything but impartial. —
David Levy 17:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
@Wbm1058: Either way, it turns out how it turns out, and I'm not necessarily arguing one way or the other whether it's consensus-to-include or consensus-to-exclude - in the end it's neither because it's Bencherlite's decision, and he could schedule it with or without a discussion, that's just how TFA article selection goes. I'm just saying it's not quite as straightforward that it would be consensus-to-include, since these articles are all pre-vetted by the FAC process (which is a consensus-to-promote process), so it's not quite analogous to the RfA process, which is itself a vetting process. 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 15:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is now nineteen times the length of the article (or, put another way, about 40% of the length of the book in question). I intend to close this discussion either Friday or early next week, time permitting, but it's obviously going to take me time to read all this and reach a reasoned conclusion. Thank you for your understanding.

BencherliteTalk 11:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Closing statement from Bencherlite

There are obviously two very different schools of thought on this and it is not easy to digest fully such an extensive discussion, let alone produce a reasoned conclusion that as many people as possible can accept even if it is one with which they do not agree. Inevitably I can't deal with every point raised in the discussion but will try to deal with what I see as the main points.

I've had the "luxury" of a long train journey over the weekend, and spent some of that time reviewing this discussion and the previous discussion, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Fuck (film). As far as I can see, over 130 people commented in these two discussions, and there was relatively little overlap in participation; perhaps not unsurprisingly, those who did participate in both nominations were on the same side of the support/oppose divide each time.

So where to start? Well, there is no super-principle that trumps everything in this discussion. As I said last time:

WP:NOTCENSORED
) referred to in the discussion): "Wikimedia projects are not censored. Some kinds of content, particularly that of a sexual, violent or religious nature, may be offensive to some viewers; and some viewers may feel such content is disrespectful or inappropriate for themselves, their families or their students, while others may find it acceptable. 'Controversial content' includes all of these categories. We recognize that we serve a global and diverse (in age, background and values) audience, and we support access to information for all."

Unlike the previous discussion, though, the numbers for and against are much closer. But it is weight of arguments that I'm looking for, not weight of numbers. Some of the "opposes" are on irrelevant or undecipherable grounds – one "opposes per X" when X was in favour of running; another opposes on the basis that the nomination itself and its advertisement at various venues is disruptive. I cannot give any weight to either argument. (As for whether it’s a good idea to announce these sorts of discussions, I still think it is, so that we can discuss in advance at one venue rather than have a heated debate on the day, which would be more disruptive, and probably not confined to one venue).

Others oppose on the basis that the article doesn’t deserve a TFA appearance either because of the notability of the book (or similar arguments) or the quality of the article. In fact, these particular arguments don’t bear much weight in this context. This book may not have won any prizes or made it into any Top 100-type lists, but that is not what I’m looking for in choosing TFAs. There is no "super-test" of notability for TFAs – if the topic is sufficiently notable to have its own article (i.e. it has not been deleted at AFD and there has been no consensus to merge it somewhere else) and if it has passed successfully through FAC, then that is enough for a TFA appearance. If we had some "super-test" of notability or interest for TFA, then we would probably exclude many FAs from the line-up (including all the ones that I have written)! Article quality concerns can justifiably disqualify an article from TFA until they are resolved (either by clean-up or by demotion at FAR) but the concerns expressed here seem to me to be linked to complaints about the lack of sources for a longer article, which is not a TFA-disqualifying issue. Similarly, views that putting this article on the main page would amount to advocacy make no real sense – putting a warship as TFA is not advocacy in favour of war, nor is putting a KKK leader on the main page (as we have done) advocacy in favour of his position. I don’t see this article in a class of its own on this point. The broad range of subjects displayed at TFA shows, I hope, the lack of advocacy in favour of anything (although critics of the TFA process would no doubt say that I advocate too many mushrooms, video games, hurricanes and cricketers – but that’s another story...)

What are the main arguments? They seem to be in two linked pairs. In favour of running, that TFA ran an article with the same word without the world collapsing; against running, that TFA ran an article with the same word not all that long ago. In favour of running, that TFA should not refuse to run articles on the basis of possible offence; against running, that TFA should not go out of its way to run articles that are likely to cause offence. In relation to the last pair of arguments, if there is a dividing line between the acceptable and unacceptable (and I’m not sure we’ve seen here or elsewhere a satisfactory and workable articulation of the principle) then the consensus last time was that Fuck (film) fell on the acceptable side of the line and with the best will in the world I cannot see a real distinction between that article and this. Furthermore there was little if any reaction to the last such article – perhaps because the issues had been thrashed out well in advance. No-one has put forward anything to suggest that anybody outside Wikipedia particularly noticed. I am not aware of any WMF comment afterwards – and nobody has linked to any. All of this certainly weakens, in my view very considerably, what I might call (without meaning to be disparaging) the “reputational arguments” against running. Of course, the mere fact that we have done something in the past does not mean that we have to, or ought to, do the same again, but it does enable a more sanguine view to be reached about the possible damage to Wikipedia. As for the length of time since the last similar article – well, we don’t have the points system any more but a lapse of time of x months would not have been penalised under the old system and in my judgment enough time has elapsed to make it not inappropriate per se to run a second article on the general theme of the word "fuck".

The suggested date connection is not strong – as was said in the discussion, free speech is about much more than the use of "fuck", and I doubt anyone would guess the link if they didn’t know about it – but opposing this article on the basis that it’s not another article with more direct relevance is not a strong point at all. TFA can only work with what it has, not what it might like to have if different people had written different articles. TFA often runs articles without any date connection at all, of course (as with Fuck itself).

Conclusion

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.

Final thoughts

After nearly two years in post, I am announcing my intention to stand down as TFA coordinator today. This is unconnected to this nomination or to my decision to run the article – I had said to a couple of people in emails earlier this year that two years would be a natural point at which to stand down, and a long train journey has given me time to draft something in relation to my impending resignation as well. But at least if I schedule this article now and take any flak that there might be from doing so, then my successor(s) will be spared any repeat nomination of this article.

Standing down gives me slightly more licence to speak slightly more freely than I otherwise might do if I faced an indefinite time in post. Personally I will not be disappointed if I never again have to deal with a TFA request with the word "fuck" in the title. The length of this discussion, despite all my efforts to urge people to rein it in, speaks for itself. If only there was as much interest in the run-of-the-mill workings of TFA, whereas in fact the community is only interested in nominating articles for about 45% of the time (as I have often noted), leaving me to choose the other 55% of TFAs unaided. But there we go...

Finally, I strongly suggest to Cirt that – unlike last time – he lets me finalise the content of the blurb. I do not want a repeat of the prolonged to-ing and fro-ing that happened last time. For example, the blurb ought not to go into so much detail about the 2006 article, and some of the negative comments about the book need to be mentioned for balance (the same goes for the lead, actually). At the risk of others accusing me of censorship, I will, though, take up his suggestion of using simply the subtitle on subsequent days in the list of "recently featured" TFAs.

Finally finally, thank you to all those who participated in this discussion and I hope to see some of you more often at future TFAR discussions about less controversial subjects.

BencherliteTalk 18:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/requests/Fuck:_Word_Taboo_and_Protecting_Our_First_Amendment_Liberties&oldid=1139987591"