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

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 put it) would be appreciated. Thanks. BencherliteTalk 15:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)'''

'''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)'''


 * 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 Today's featured article/December 15, 2014 by BencherliteTalk 18:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)



Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties is a nonfiction book by law professor Christopher M. Fairman about freedom of speech, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, censorship, and use of the word "fuck" in society. It was first published in 2009 as a follow-up on the author's article on the same subject. It cites studies from academics in social science, psychoanalysis, and linguistics. Fairman establishes that most current usages of the word have connotations distinct from its meaning of sexual intercourse. The book discusses the efforts of conservatives in the United States to censor the word from common parlance. Fairman wrote his article in 2006 and made it available on the Social Science Research Network. He had trouble finding a publisher for the article; it was rejected by the Kansas Law Review less than half an hour after submission. His article was published in 2007 in the Cardozo Law Review. Both the paper and subsequent book received favorable reception from news sources and library trade publications. Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries described the book as a sincere analysis of the word and its history of censorship.

In the image filter debates, people wrote things to the effect of "This is simple. Just set up filters for images containing nudity, violence, gore, etc.  You know, the stuff that people find objectionable.  What's the problem?" The idea that what's "objectionable" is culturally specific was either overlooked or addressed with suggestions such as voting on what's "objectionable" and doing whatever the majority wants. It should come as no surprise that this hasn't come to pass. —David Levy 21:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC) Secondly, how are we to determine what words and concepts are "offensive"? Whose cultural standards do you consider applicable? Yours? Should we abandon WP:NPOV in favor of content tailored to the nationalities and religions most prevalent among the English Wikipedia's readers, or should everything widely considered "offensive" within anyone's culture be banned from the main page? —David Levy 23:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC) I'm interested in reading your explanation of why displaying photographs of unveiled women is "a non-issue as far as our readership is concerned". —David Levy 03:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC) I suspected that was what you meant, but I didn't want to put words in your mouth. I addressed this attitude above, when I asked whether an editor advocates that we "abandon WP:NPOV in favor of content tailored to the nationalities and religions most prevalent among the English Wikipedia's readers". You can understand, I hope, why I regard that as problematic. —David Levy 01:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC) I don't assert that you can't oppose the article's TFA appearance because you dislike its subject. (There's no rule against it, after all.) Just don't expect that rationale to win the day. —David Levy 05:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Most recent similar article(s): Today's featured article/recent TFAs shows a few books but on completely different topics not related to Freedom of speech and censorship.
 * Main editors: &mdash; Cirt (talk)
 * Promoted: 2014
 * Reasons for nomination: Educational book about freedom of speech and censorship.
 * Date requested: 15 December 2014 &mdash; 223rd anniversary of adoption of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution &mdash; a topic focused on in the book and included in the book's title itself ("...First Amendment liberties").
 * Featured Article in the Chinese language Wikipedia.
 * My prior Featured Article quality contributions on the topic of freedom of speech and censorship include: the article on the book Freedom for the Thought That We Hate and on the documentary Fuck (film).
 * Note: See also similar prior discussion for Fuck (film) at Today's featured article/requests/Fuck (film).
 * Notifications given: Using exact same notification text used by for Today's featured article/requests/Fuck (film), I've left notice of this nomination at Talk:Main Page, Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates, Village pump (miscellaneous), Administrators' noticeboard, User talk:Jimbo Wales, talk pages of WikiProjects related to the article, my user talk page, and I've added the nomination to Centralized discussion. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - fine article, good choice of date, Wikipedia is not censored. Ivanvector (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Article quality is good, the similar featured article was 10 months prior to this one. Date seems like a good match. 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 22:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, for the reasons cited above. Regarding potential controversy, I'll note that in the case of Fuck (film), the catastrophic fallout predicted by some never materialized.  We saw the usual handful of "Think of the children!"-type posts (and little more).  —David Levy 22:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I must oppose the proposal in its current form. The blurb has been  to incorporate a confusing/misleading Eager egg link to Fuck, which will trip up readers with no intention of visiting that article.  This is a good-faith attempt by Cirt to address editors' concerns, but it creates a situation that I regard as unacceptable.  —David Levy 17:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've added the word back. I think two (2) instances of this one word in the blurb is certainly not too much. And it's written in an encyclopedic manner. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've restored my support and struck my opposition. This is contingent upon the continued absence of Eager egg links, so if it's determined that the blurb can't appear without one, my input should be assessed accordingly.  —David Levy 18:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, understood, and thank you. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Wikipedia is not censored, but as argued eloquently in this post, we still can and should exercise editorial judgment. Most readers will not be expecting to encounter the word "fuck" featured prominently on the main page, and we should avoid shocking and offending them unnecessarily. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussions of this nature invariably draw comments similar to the above. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, but 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 exception swallows the rule.  —David Levy 23:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest reading Sue Gardner's blog post here. I think it clarifies the distinction between censorship and editorial judgment pretty well. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I read it in 2011. I agree with parts of it, while others mirror the scare-quoted statement above.  Gardner touched on some real problems that exist within the Wikimedia projects, but in discussing a solution, she failed to consider that for most, neutrality is a fundamental principle.  Certainly, 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 – particularly when it's based on the cultural standards of the editors themselves and the readers whose nationalities/religions fall within the "majority" (which, in our case, really means "majority of native English speakers").
 * Support: We ran the article on the movie and had no problems. This is an article on a serious scholarly work that just happens to have a shocking title. My only beef with the article at this moment, and I'm not sure this is quite the place to raise it, is the use in citation templates of  fields where there is no , and the phrase "Accessed via" in   fields (especially where the actual publisher of the cited work is different). The latter particularly may pollute the COinS metadata that those citation templates generate. I think it's an effort to somewhat help guide people to finding offline sources, but my understanding has been that first you try to use ISBN or ISSN, and fall back on OCLC numbers. I don't think it's necessary to state the service the editors who wrote the WP article used unless there's a particular reason to do so. I think that's an easy enough fix, but I thought I'd mention it. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the Support -- I'd rather leave the citation style as is because it was specifically requested at the WP:FAC to improve accessibility by noting the database archive one could use to check sources. I have, however, modified the cites to use the "via" field, instead of the "publisher" field. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not being censored means we don't prohibit the article from Wikipedia or hold back obscene language from one. It doesn't mean that we must advertise and promote offensive language on the Main Page. As Granger said above, this sort of thing is not what is expected to be found when one first arrives at Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I must say, it doesn't seem like either you or is adding anything new to the "oppose" discussion that wasn't brought up and eventually found unpersuasive in the previous discussion for Fuck (film). I think most of us on the "support" side would say that the complete lack of negative response to the featuring of that article is a vindication of our position. I think if you're going to oppose this on editorial grounds, you need to address that there's a very strong precedent on that front and that everything turned out just fine.  0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 23:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of a prior discussion on a similar issue; I was commenting on this specific case.331dot (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly, past discussions have shown that the community at large doesn't share that interpretation of WP:NOTCENSORED. The main page is just as much a part of Wikipedia as anything else, and suppressing material on the basis that it's "offensive" is censorship.
 * I was directed to this page to give my opinion, which I have done. I don't seek to establish a regime to make broad judgements or restrictions. I respect your view but I stand by mine.331dot (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Likewise, I'm not expressing disrespect. I'm attempting to engage in discussion, in the hope of better understanding your view.  A statement that we should bar "offensive language" from appearing on the main page carries little meaning when "offensive language" hasn't been defined (apart from a single example).  —David Levy 01:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It carries all the meaning it needs to. It's not necessary to nail down every detail of the definition of "offensive language" for the purpose of this discussion; a single example is enough, since this discussion is about that single example.  GoldenRing (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case, I support the article's TFA appearance because it's snarfleticious. That's my new rationale.  Don't ask me to explain how I arrived at that determination or how it's a workable measure of an article's TFA worthiness.  All you need to know is that it's a good thing and the article under discussion is an example.  —David Levy 03:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I never thought you were disrespectful in any way. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose As a reader and an editor, I 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. It's most certainly not against our policies to have it there, but I would, as a member of the community, oppose having this on the main page on the grounds of editorial discretion. wctaiwan (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 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 unveiled women (particularly photographs thereof).  Right?  —David Levy 01:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice strawman, and the answer is absolutely not. We can easily address freedom of expression without putting "fuck" on the main page, whereas you can't discuss LGBT topics or abortion without mentioning them. As for unveiled women, it's thankfully a non-issue as far as our readership is concerned. Wikipedia is clearly not censored; there is no need to make a point of it. wctaiwan (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a straw man. I can't read minds, so I didn't realize that by "very good reason", you apparently meant "inability to cover a broad topic otherwise".  I understand that argument, but I don't see its applicability to this case.  We certainly shouldn't place material on the main page (or anywhere in Wikipedia) for the purpose of offending people (or proving the point that Wikipedia is not censored).  That doesn't describe this situation.  The matter at hand isn't whether to pick this article or a different one on a subject related to freedom of expression.  The question is whether this article qualifies on the merits.  Of course, if you have a different date-relevant featured article in mind, feel free to propose that it appear as TFA instead.  (I'm serious, by the way.  Maybe there is one!  If so, I certainly want to consider it.)  Otherwise, perhaps you should have gone to the effort of improving such an article and getting it featured, as Cirt did in this instance.
 * Photographs of unveiled women is a non-issue because the vast majority of our readership don't see it as an issue. My opposition boils down to "I don't think we should do this" and was never meant to be that strong, so I'm going to disengage. wctaiwan (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. It seems like a well-written article, and the anniversary of the US Bill of Rights seems like an appropriate moment to feature it. In response to the opposing voices, I've tried to imagine how I will feel when my young niece sees the link on the front page; I feel pretty sanguine. Discussion about offensive language does not offend me in the way that use of such language might. I realize that opinions vary, but on balance I don't think the likelihood of some people being offended outweighs the value of featuring the article. Cnilep (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not to take anything away from either the author of this book or the writers of our article about it, but, given Wikipedia's reputation as a sometimes uncivil, foul-mouthed boys' club, featuring this on our front page is only going to enhance that reputation. This choice for featured article seems "pointy" to me. Our first amendment liberties are about much, much more than the freedom to swear in public. Surely there are many books more deserving of front-page treatment who haven't taken their turn there yet. For example, why isn't our article on Capital in the Twenty-First Century featured yet? Have we put that on our front page yet? That book has more to say about the real risks to our first amendment liberties. Big Money is sucking all the oxygen out of the room that supports free speech for those who don't have a lot of money. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you familiar with the meaning of "featured article"? If so, you should understand why our Capital in the Twenty-First Century article hasn't appeared as TFA.  Instead of complaining, why don't you improve the article to make it eligible (rather than casting aspersions on an editor who took the time to do this with the article under discussion)?  —David Levy 01:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination. As for wanting to censor it as offensive/uncivil this addresses such concerns very well, both by being a quite civil and scholarly use of the word and by being precisely on the freedom of speech issues that are behind our censorship policy. I.e. it's both in line with policy and helps explain it, or lead readers to an explanation.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 01:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support This is a perfect example of what a properly uncensored, quality encyclopaedia can be and should do. To those in the "not censored unless I don't like it" camp, I say that I don't regard Wikipedia "as a sometimes uncivil, foul-mouthed boys' club". Given our very public policy of not being censored, those who do see it that way are clearly looking in the wrong place. They should take their concerns to those articles that show images of Mohammed, or images of dead Australian Aboriginal people. Both are very offensive to the respective interest groups. I must also note that the Opposes here are almost all framed in terms of what some unnamed other might think. In the vernacular of the language of my country, that's gutless. If you can't deal with the word "fuck" yourself, have the guts to say so. Stop claiming this is all about what someone else might think. HiLo48 (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose ooh, he said fuck! Juvenile, attention seeking title of article published in second rate law review. It has nothing to do with "freedom of speech" or censorship, it has to do with relevance. Google scholar gives it seven citations; Robert Bork's Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems has three thousand. I don't think readers will be offended, I think they'll be bored. NE Ent 01:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * FYI, those are search results for the 2006 article, not the 2009 book. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, NE Ent is correct. See --Fangz (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you're discounting sources simply because you can't view their full text on the Internet. That's completely inappropriate. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose as bad editorial judgement and bad taste. GoldenRing (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Other editors' similar sentiments notwithstanding, you're the first whose rationale for opposing this article's TFA appearance literally boils down to nothing more than "I don't like it." —David Levy 02:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And is that invalid? Many things are down to editorial discretion, from article structure and the weight given to different aspects of a subject to the choice of which images to put in an article. Some processes are very much based on ticking boxes in policies, but I don't see why deciding what to put on our front page shouldn't incorporate personal opinions of individual editors. It might not be a convincing argument, as phrased, but it's a valid one in this context. wctaiwan (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "I don't like it." (or similar) can be a valid rationale, depending on the context. In a discussion of whether to use a "prettier" color in template, it would be highly relevant.  In this instance, we're discussing whether an article should appear as TFA – a decision on which users' personal like or dislike of its subject has no bearing.  —David Levy 03:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A curious argument, since, as you well know, there is no policy regarding what articles appear as TFA. So most arguments made boil down to editorial discretion - the only exception being where a nomination violates some more general policy.  GoldenRing (talk) 04:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you believe that a description of Wikipedia's conventions isn't valid until it's been placed on a page with a green check mark at the top?
 * What conventions? Wikipedia operates by consensus, not convention, as, again, you well know.  This process here is establishing a consensus and I've had my say in it.  We've got the message, by now, that you disagree.  GoldenRing (talk) 00:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, we operate by consensus, through which various practices are established by usage. (These are called "conventions".)  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.  It's doubtful that this will change now, but yes, you certainly are entitled to weigh in.  (Likewise, I'm entitled to respond.)  —David Levy 01:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support There are some accusations that the article is a shock piece that serves no other purpose than upsetting and unnerving readers. Looking at the actual contents demonstrates that this is a well-written and encyclopedic article about a legitimate academic work that just happens to contain a socially frowned upon word in its title. At the end of the day, Wikipedia is not censored (and we make this quite clear under our general content disclaimer). We are above all else an encyclopedia, and should not refuse to recognize good work just because it contains a socially frowned upon word. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. This is indeed not a shock piece, but a mature, FA quality article. WP:NOTCENSORED still applies to our main page too. When we featured Fuck (film), the sky did not fall. Our confidence in the sophistication of our readers was not misplaced then, and I trust it shall not be again. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 08:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support The multiple claims that the world would come to an end when Fuck (film) was on the main page in March 2014 turned out to be wrong. This is a Featured Article and should not be treated differently from any other as long as it reaches the required standard.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - The previous TFA has shown that our readers are more mature than we give them credit for. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, it's a decent article and I don't want to be seen like I don't appreciate the effort in bringing it to FA quality. But I don't think that risking negative press and reputational damage to the project by putting swears on the front page, either as a political statement on censorship or a juvenile desire to show naughty words to the unsuspecting, comprises good editorial judgement.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC).
 * These are the same arguments that were made in the discussion about Fuck (film), and there was, as far as I can tell, no negative press or fallout from that, or from any of the previous articles featured on the front page that were opposed for similar reasons. I suggest taking a look at that discussion. 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 11:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Just because you smack yourself in the face with a hammer once and suffer no permanent injury, does not mean it's a good idea to keep doing it. Lankiveil (speak to me) 14:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC).
 * Well it's just that this has come up several times, with Fuck (film), a DYK hook for The finger (with photo) and Gropecunt Lane. Each time the "oppose" votes predicted dire consequences and the "support" crowd felt it was overwrought. So far, we've never had the predicted problems materialize. There are plenty of people walking around who have been injured by getting hit with a hammer, but so far we have no examples of this sort of thing causing problems. So even if all you care about is preventing any kind of backlash or negative attention (which many of us would not find to be in keeping with the spirit of WP:NOTCENSORED, which is that sometimes you need to endure a bit of heat if you want to make a quality encyclopedia), the argument that this particular action is likely to be harmful is getting less and less plausible each time it fails to happen. 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 14:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has already ran a Featured Article with the F-word in it on the front page. I checked and the only attention it got was a reaction or two from a non-notable blog. There was no media coverage to speak of. I feel that the risk of negative press is being really exaggerated. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as per Wbm1058. Certainly folks took a good deal of time and effort to make this a quality article, I just don't want to see it on my desktop when I'm looking stuff up. By choosing the photo of a man smiling, instead of the front cover of the book, its pretty clear that the intent here is to re-enforce the "foul mouthed boys club" atmosphere. But hey, I'm a woman, and I've already been told that if I think it's too rude here I should leave. Sometimes all this in-your-face sexual content is just tedious and wearisome. There's a difference between viewing this sort of stuff when you're looking for it, and having to see it when you're really not in the mood, or when a co-worker is looking over your shoulder. When sexual content is no longer optional, it stops being fun. When I'm asked repeatedly, "you can participate, what do you think? Join Wikipedia! and this is the kind of discussion that is here, I feel like I am being cynically exploited by volunteering on this site. Come for the culture, stay for the swear words, and if you get pushback in real life for running with such a crew of barbarians, well hey, shut up and write more articles about women scientists, the cool girls like to swear and say sex stuff, if you don't, clear out! -- Djembayz (talk) 11:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The cover of the book is the word "Fuck", clearly visible, with some white out wiping out some of it. I'm thinking that the photo of the author (a respected law professor) was chosen for two reasons, 1.) the principle of least surprise and reasonable deference to those who would be offended 2.) the photo of the author is released on a free license, while the cover image is fair use. 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 11:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You're correct, I unfortunately was unable to obtain a free-use-licensed image of the book's cover, but was able to obtain one of the book's author, confirmed via the WP:OTRS process. I'm glad I did because it appears it's been used on multiple pages in the Chinese Wikipedia. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 12:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, upon reflection, it's actually the juxtaposition of an image of a man smiling that causes strong offense, not the content of the article itself. A perfectly ordinary photo of someone smiling for the camera suddenly takes on a different meaning in context. If it's possible to make arrangements to use some version of the book cover, you might consider resubmitting this request with a different image as an experiment to see if the image chosen makes people react differently. The book cover really makes the point about censorship in a graphic fashion. The image of the author makes a strong point too, but possibly not the point you are intending. -- Djembayz (talk) 12:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I will attempt, again, to obtain free-use licensing for the image as you suggested. But I think it's totally appropriate to have a picture of the author along with the blurb of the book by the author. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I do have to say, I'm not quite sure I understand the objection here. What is offensive about a smiling photo of the author of the book? Maybe if it were an article called "Fuck (sex act)" or something, but the article title includes the book's subtitle, which mentions first amendment liberties and academic subjects. A picture of a lawyer-looking guy next to that seems pretty mundane to me. 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 14:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Uh, well, guys don't smile at gals and use language like that without, uh, suggesting that perhaps someone has something in mind, uhmm, that um, isn't exactly, uh, "writing an encyclopedia." Sorry I can't be more explicit here, I don't know you well enough. Images, and especially facial expressions, modify the emotional impact of textual content. You may not realize this, but "looking like an attorney" is not a disqualifying factor with regards to amorous intentions. And you may be surprised to discover, if you ever visit DC, that even lawyers do things in their spare time with women that do not involve "writing encyclopedias." Sometimes double entendres like a smiling fellow next to an article like this get taken the wrong way, causing considerable offense and distress. Perhaps causing offense and distress is the intention here-- that's certainly been part of my experience as a female editor. Painful and demeaning experiences tend to discourage volunteers, and it's increasingly painful to be told to "move on", assume good faith, develop a thicker skin, stop being offended, etc., and just get back to work. In contrast, if you used the book cover, the point about censorship would be crystal clear. If you used the article alone, the point would also be clear. People might still take exception to featuring the article, but not on the basis of it being a double entendre. -- Djembayz (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I wonder if maybe being shown the photo with the implicit question, "Is this too offensive to be featured on the front page" has maybe biased you towards thinking that way in a way that a casual glance at it would not, I think it's taking things a bit far to imagine that he's saying he wants to fuck you or something, it's a portrait photo - I doubt he had any amorous intentions towards the cameraman when it was being taken. I imagine the worst that will happen is people will find him creepy and/or awkward-looking, since it's a posed photo which doesn't always read as natural, but I've never known anyone to be offended by someone looking creepy. Either way, I don't think it's fair to pre-emptively level charges of dismissiveness. I think has gone above and beyond in soliciting input on this topic (given that he probably could have soared through on precedent from Fuck (film)), and he's even gone so far as to try to secure rights to the book cover (which I think is very unlikely since these things tend to be tied up with multiple rights-holders, almost none of which have any incentive to pay a lawyer to determine how releasing their copyrighted materials on a free license could affect their business).  0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 15:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Per your recommendation, I've contacted the book publisher. They've agreed to license the image of the book cover by a free-use license. I've uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons. I removed the image of the male author smiling, from the blurb text. I've added the image instead of the (now free-use licensed) book cover to the blurb text. I hope this is now satisfactory to you, . &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Holy crap! I feel like that never happens. Great job ! Awesome of the book publisher to release it, too. 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 17:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Query I've already !vote-d, but it occurred to me, in the discussion of Fuck (film), it was decided that in the "recently featured articles" links, it would be stylized "F-star-C-K", because the film itself was occasionally stylized that way in marketing materials, and it was deemed a sort of compromise. Given that this book does not have a convenient "out" in that way, is the proposition to just leave it be, or is some sort of accommodation planned again? Personally, I think it will be fine, given how well everything went last time (no significant negative feedback, that I've heard about, mostly just positive things), but it's pretty much the main thing that will be different from the last time. 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 11:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't recall any negative impact the day of the TFA for Fuck (film), so I think your analysis is correct. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 12:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support free speech and the discussion of words vs. attitude when we talk about civility. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Wikipedia is not censored. That includes the front page. I got The finger to DYK a couple years ago with the lead picture as the image. So, this TFA request should be based on quality issues alone, and this one seems fine to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nominator did not supply adequate reason for making the article featured, but instead offered a subjective opinion of the subject matter (that the book is educational). This, together, with the proposed date, marks a clear attempt to use the front page to advocate for a particular (albeit laudable) political cause, which is not the purpose of FAotD. This also smacks of self-congratulation. WP:NOTCENSORED is a rebuttal to one counter argument, but is not in itself a positive reason. WP:SOAP applies.-Fangz (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * To expand, I question the notability of the article in the first place. My google searches show up a grand total of 81 entries for 'christopher fairman fuck book -wikipedia' and 52 entries for 'fuck "word taboo and protecting our first amendment" fairman' (both not in quotes) . This points to a minor work of low interest, that could well fall afoul of the notability brigade if rigorously applied. Are we judging the appropriateness of this TFA nom on a fair basis, or do we just want an excuse to get something very mildly offensive on to the Main Page again? --Fangz (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The book was the subject of reviews in publications including: Library Journal, Publishers Weekly, Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, and The New Yorker. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The New Yorker is the only mainstream publication in that list. Where is this review you reference? The only citation of the New Yorker is to this article (posted in the New Yorker's online blog) which does not in fact discuss the contents of book itself at all, but has a single sentence describing its cover, as part of a slide show gallery of books with Fuck in the title. Hardly a sign of impact. In reference to the article itself, I'd suggest it's also kinda messy. The lead paragraphs are filled with unreferenced claims. Other parts confuse discussion of the 2009 book with a 2006 academic paper Fairman wrote. IMHO, if this article was not called 'Fuck', there is no conceivable reason it would be considered for TFA.--Fangz (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The lede is cited later in the body text, per WP:LEADCITE. The reviews are referenced in full citations in the article. The other reviews are all mainstream publications. They are all major book review sources. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads." The lead here for example refers to 'favourable reception from news sources, despite the fact that no citation is given - and as far as I can see, such reception from news sources simply does not exist. Library Journal, Publishers Weekly, Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries are not mainstream publications, they are all trade publications aimed at librarians and academics. The linked to reviews also do not discuss the book in any great depth, in general. The degree of confusion between the book, and the article, and Fairman's advocacy activities, to me makes a reasonably strong case that really, the entire article should simply be merged into Christopher Fairman.--Fangz (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * With respect, you're mistaken, those sources are indeed mainstream publications, and especially so for articles about books. I'm not sure if you've actually read those book reviews themselves. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Please link a non-trivial work focusing on the book then, as per Notability. None of what I have seen linked on that article satisfies that.--Fangz (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Library Journal, Publishers Weekly, and Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries are most certainly not trivial works, and they definitely focus on the book. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the entirity of Publisher Weekly's review, the only one that is available online. It is a single paragraph rewrite of press release material, of a standard form used for many, many books each day, and can be obtained for a simple payment of $149. It gives little sign of the sort of wider recognition that the notability criterion demands. I do not have access to the other reviews. Ultimately I see nothing that sets this book aside from the many, many academic articles and niche books that are published, that quickly sink without a trace in the mainstream. It's just not notable.--Fangz (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , this is not a deletion debate. If you truly believe this article does not meet the notability threshold, please take appropriate action elsewhere. If not, please drop this line of discussion -- it's not relevant to the present discussion. -Pete (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * TFA status is contingent about the article being a featured article. Featured article status is contingent on the article fulfilled Wikipedia requirements on content. If there is an argument that an article should not exist in the first place, that is an argument that the article should not be FA, and hence should not be TFA. It would be ridiculous for the article to be both accepted as TFA, and then deleted. I think the appropriate course of action is to firstly reject the article as TFA, and *then* to proceed to consider a potential merger with Christopher Fairman.--Fangz (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Nonfiction Book Review". &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You're entitled to your opinion. I suspect that most Wikipedians will, like me, decline to engage with arguments that are not germane to a TFAR decision on a TFAR nomination page. -Pete (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

First Break

 * Oppose You're just asking for trouble by having this be featured on the front page of the site. Yes it's great we can say the word, yes it's great there's an article about the book, yes it's great that the article is a FA, but to have this shoved in people's faces is like asking them to read a TFA about the Muhammad cartoons. It's just a bad idea. Hasteur (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Too bad no one thought to get United States Bill of Rights up to FA status so it could be featured on this date instead. But there would be no shock value in that. -- Calidum  16:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You could be that editor. The status of that article has nothing to do with the status of this one. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Calidum, why didn't you get United States Bill of Rights up to FA status so it could be featured on this date instead? Because it's easier to complain about others' contributions to the encyclopedia?  —David Levy 01:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Why don't you go fuck yourself, since you seem to like the word so much that you've now badgered every editor who disagrees with you here. -- Calidum  14:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice civility there. I hardly think that responding to well-trodden (we went through basically the exact same discussion for Fuck (film) and everything turned out fine) and low-quality arguments that often amount to little more than I don't like it is "harassment". 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 14:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. This appears to be a valuable exploration of a worthwhile topic, and the anniversary date is a relevant tie-in. I don't see any downside to this; I think alleged "shock value" that seems to concern some people is minimal. -Pete (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per Gropecunt Lane.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 20:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Just reinforces image of Wikipedia as a bunch of 15-25 year olds who've never gotten laid and may never get laid, and thus go in for juvenile jokes about sex, their hand, "tw*t", "c*nt", etc. Now that's the kind of freedom of speech on Wikipedia I'm talking about! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The author of the book looks older than 15-25. As for the rest of your comment... – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Weak oppose I couldn't care less about the supposedly controversial or allegedly "shocking" nature of this article. The most important indicator of the worthiness of being featured for a FA should be the number of interwikis. This article has none except a traduction in Chinese. Okay maybe, this happens to create somewhat of a controversy in the US, but who cares outside the US ? Nobody, judging from the number of interwikis. This article has no international interest. We should almost never feature an article on a subject that is of interest only in a single country, when it happens that this country is already over-represented at TFA (for understandable reasons). And to top it off, this extremely narrow subject has actually already been covered on the main page a few months ago : Fuck (film). This ludicrous ultra Americanism in TFAs has to stop now, this is a fucking shame. If I am stating this now, it's because there's a link at WP:CENT and I happen to be active at the moment. My rationale would have been identical if the article were 2007 ACC Championship Game instead. I am serious, this is totally unacceptable on a project targeting a global audience. Cenarium (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The article hasn't been around as long as some others that have more interwikis. But it's not just in Chinese Wikipedia, it's Featured Quality in Chinese Wikipedia. That alone indicates a strong international interest in the subject matter. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it does not. This article has been translated by an editor who specializes in translating high quality articles from en.wikipedia en masse. All the sources provided are the same as the ones in the en.wp article, all of them being from the US. There is not an ounce of international interest, not even from the UK or other English speaking countries. Cenarium (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * When I did the math, I think it was 10 months between when Fuck (film) was featured and when this would be featured. Given that there's a relevant date (which a lot of people wanted for the Fuck (film) TFA), I don't see the big issue. It's not like there's a huge backlog of FAs, so it's not like this is displacing something with a huge international interest. How long would be an appropriate amount of time between the previous article and this one? (By the way, I have to say I appreciate that you have an oppose position that's based on something other than generic offense/self-censorship. It's quite refreshing.) 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 22:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ten months still seems like a very short period to me on an encyclopedic scale. There are plenty of articles of international interest in various areas yet to be featured, as a cursory search of WP:FANMP indicates. There are also numerous articles of local interest but from countries that are not over-represented at TFA (more like vastly under-represented). Those articles may have few interwikis due to the specificity of the subject (rather than the lack of global interest), and they are worthy of being put on the main page for diversity reasons. As an example among others, we have Vijayanagara literature in Kannada, which is featured since 2008 while the present article has been featured for only a few months. It doesn't seem fair, does it ? Whether there's a relevant date or not doesn't really matter in the decision to put an article on the main page (especially when this relevant date is recurrent on an annual basis, maybe it would have if it had been once in a century). It should come after the decision has been made, otherwise all of the articles for which there cannot be any relevant date, due to their nature, for example ... Vijayanagara literature in Kannada would be at an unfair disadvantage. Cenarium (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that other things should also be featured on the front page, but consider that only about 20 articles are currently already in the queue. If you look at the TFAR archive, you'll find it's basically a sanity check/rubber stamp at this point to make sure that the article is still FA quality, stable, etc. Presumably the only reason Vijayanagara literature in Kannada hasn't been featured is because no one nominated it. We need more nominations so we can get the kind of variety you're looking for, but we don't have so many nominations that we need to be picky about what gets featured right away. At least that's my read on the situation. 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 02:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * All right, I have changed my vote to weak oppose, because I still think that there are many other featured articles which deserve much more to be put on the main page than this one. But this problem should be tackled on a larger scale, this article is far from alone in this regard, and this is an unfortunate consequence of the lack of diversity of our core editing community compared to our readership. Cenarium (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much,, for re-considering after this discussion, and changing your comment from "Strong" to "Weak" oppose. Much appreciated, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose sure WP:Wikipedia is not censored (though of course it is), but also WP:Wikipedia is not stupid.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC).

You're conflating separate concepts. WP:UNDUE isn't about deciding whether material is likely to upset people.
 * I have to hand it to you, Rich. 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.  —David Levy 01:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Rich is exactly right. Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties not censored. A newspaper is not censoring a story when they bury it in the "Book reviews" section rather than putting it on the front page. Censorship is when the story is not printed at all. Kind of like some of the things that celebrity scientist said about G. W. Bush. – Wbm1058 (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly, Rich stated that Wikipedia is censored, so I'm unclear on his message's relevance to yours. Secondly, please see initial reply to 331dot.  —David Levy 04:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is censored. Example: Any mention of this has been censored. This is editorial judgement by a consensus of editors. WP:TE editing often plays a role in determining consensus. Seems like it may play a role in determining the consensus here. I'm not saying that censorship is always bad. Sometimes it's best to use some discretion, and the example I cite may be one of those times. These calls sometimes aren't easy to make.
 * snarfleticious? Wbm1058 (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding #1, mention of the Neil Degrasse-Tyson statements was not included because there was no consensus for inclusion, with the question hinging on the weight of the statement. That is not censorship, it's a question of what is and is not worth including in the encyclopedia. This is high-quality content that has been chosen as a featured article. Wikipedia is edited and curated, not censored. 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 14:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that's just what all the words here boil down to, isn't it? One guy's WP:UNDUE is another's WP:CENSORED, and vice versa. Most of the rest is just noise. you probably could just count the !votes, that would save you a lot of time. This one is obviously very polarized. I'll just note in closing that since the last "Fuck" article appeared on the home page (isn't one such appearance there sufficiently due weight?), there has been a high-visibility discussion on Jimbo's talk page about civility, and the use of the "c" word, which while initially promising, seems to have resulted in no resolution of substance, and sadly, a certain brown-haired participant at the lead of that discussion, has now been absent from Wikipedia for an increasingly uncomfortable length of time. Maybe some other day, but my opinion is that the timing of this couldn't be worse. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

That question treats each of the two articles as nothing more than the word "fuck" itself. This illustrates some users' attitudes; they see the word "fuck" and don't bother to look further. (To be clear, I don't mean to suggest that this describes all of those opposing the article's TFA appearance.) —David Levy 21:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC) Incidentally, "snarfleticious" isn't a real word; I used it in my analogy because it has no meaning. —David Levy 23:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC) Perhaps you're comfortable promoting an atmosphere in which only those who choose to edit articles on "uncontroversial" subjects are treated with respect and encouraged to join (and remain part of) the community. I'm not. Thankfully, Cirt's disposition is such that he responds to baseless condemnations by politely addressing his accusers' concerns and going out of his way to appease them (as demonstrated above). Others on the receiving end of such abuse might not have the fortitude to withstand it. How many have been driven away from the project? Do you care? —David Levy 04:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC) You think that running this article on the main page is a bad idea. Obviously, I disagree. All of that is fine. Of course contrary opinions are allowed. That's why I'm expressing mine right now. The problem is that you went far beyond disagreement. You didn't object to the article's potential main page appearance on the basis that it would cause shock; you implied that this is why it's been proposed – that the goal is to shock people. You challenged the integrity of an editor whose sole infraction was improving an encyclopedia article whose subject matter apparently makes you uncomfortable. Such suspicion is entirely unwarranted. Say what you like about the article itself (and the dire consequences of exposing unsuspecting main page visitors to it), but there's absolutely no need to cast aspersions on Cirt (or others involved in the process). —David Levy 05:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC) I won't deny that I'm opinionated and loquacious. I'm aware that I tend to post an excessive number of replies, as I remind myself when trying (and failing) to resist the temptation to post yet another. But it certainly isn't my intention to "hector" anyone. If that's how my responses to you (or anyone else) came across, I apologize unreservedly.
 * Exactly. Had Neil Degrasse Tyson's statements been omitted to avoid offending people, that situation would be comparable.  —David Levy 21:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The statements were omitted to avoid offending people. The offended people argued quite tendentiously to make sure they were omitted, from my fairly brief (tl;dr) look at the situaiton. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The statements were omitted on the grounds that their inclusion would constitute undue weight. Irrespective of whether this determination was correct, it wasn't based on the rationale that your "tl;dr" glance has led you to perceive.
 * So really, we're quibbling over terminology. We can all it "censorship", an application of "editorial judgement", or "Steve". No matter what description we use, the real issue is whether it's appropriate.
 * Hey, now you finally get it :o) Wbm1058 (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per editorial discretion. Selecting featured articles for shock value does little to enhance Wikipedia's reputation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you know what else is unhelpful? Belittling (and ascribing bad-faith motives to) individuals who work hard to improve the encyclopedia, for no reason other than the subject areas on which they focus.
 * I disagree with the claim that running this article on the main page will make us look juvenile. If anything, it will demonstrate that we are mature enough to write comprehensive and encyclopedic articles on subjects that would be the subject of laughter and crude jokes on other parts of the internet. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, I seem to have upset the WIKIPEDIA ISN'T CENSORED SO WE CAN DO WHATEVER WE LIKE crowd, who seem to think that opinions contrary to theirs shouldn't be allowed.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You've transitioned from a baseless accusation about someone's motive to an outright ad hominem.
 * I suggest you cut out the crap about ad hominems - you've been hectoring everyone who has posted an opinion you didn't like right from the off, and made little pretence at being civil in the process. You are apparently incapable of actually responding to what people say, but instead erect ridiculous straw men - like your facile suggestion that I am made uncomfortable by the word 'fuck' - just so you can regurgitate the same blather, and convince yourself you hold the moral high ground. You don't. Discussions about the appropriateness or otherwise of content need to be based arount the content itself, and the grounds for its inclusion, and not on the same old vacuous slogans about 'censorship' that get churned out whenever someone can't think of a better argument for material.
 * And back on topic, I'm quite sure that Cirt is capable of responding for himself - and when he does so, he can explain why, if the proposal wasn't made for shock value, why he chose to discuss a previous FA with 'fuck' in the title in his initial nomination. If the article deserves inclusion on its merits, another article would be of no relevence, one would think. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I referred to the "subject matter", not the word "fuck". And that part wasn't a criticism. I don't know how the article affects you on a personal level, but you clearly aren't comfortable treating it as you would most Wikipedia articles, if only because you're concerned that it will upset others. Again, that wasn't the statement's critical portion. As I wrote above, say what you like about the article itself. I've taken issue with your assumption of bad faith. The difference between accusing others of causing trouble and alleging that they seek to cause trouble is immense.

This isn't about me. I claim superiority to no one, not that it matters. For the purposes of this discussion, I'm nobody. If you consider me a jerk who enjoys arguing with people just to hear the sound of his own voice, so be it. It has no bearing on the article or its TFA candidacy.

Agreed. I'm asking you to discuss the content itself (instead of the unfounded allegation that it's been selected "for shock value").

I agree that "Wikipedia is not censored" isn't a valid argument for inclusion. (That's what's led us to actual instances in which editors purposely cherry-picked content – including the word "fuck" – and sent it to the main page specifically to engender controversy and prove that "Wikipedia is not censored". I've opposed such shenanigans as passionately as I support this article's appearance, so I'm hardly a member of "the WIKIPEDIA ISN'T CENSORED SO WE CAN DO WHATEVER WE LIKE crowd".)  But when parties (by which I'm not referring to you) call for censorship on the basis that material is "offensive", it's a valid argument against exclusion.

He listed his "prior Featured Article quality contributions on the topic of freedom of speech and censorship." He also linked to the previous TFAR, which contains a great deal of discussion about whether to run an article whose title contains the word "fuck" as TFA. He later mentioned that he posted notifications containing exactly the same text used by Bencherlite in that instance (as requested in the past, primarily by editors who were surprised to see "objectionable" material on the main page and upset because the relevant discussions weren't advertised specially). I'm at a loss as to how any of this was inappropriate. Cirt appears to have gone to great lengths to document the situation as thoroughly possible, as opponents of "offensive" main page content have demanded. And now this is being held against him. (Had he not mentioned the other article, someone probably would have accused him of attempting to conceal his involvement in that matter, citing this as evidence that he's out to cause shock.) —David Levy 08:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC) My point is that the objective here isn't to "win". I'm responding not because I consider myself morally superior and seek to prove this, but because I disagree with various statements and wish to address them. (This is a discussion, after all.) Bencherlite has to wade through a great deal of text written by multiple editors. I've added more than most have, but that has no bearing on its validity or lack thereof. (My idea of what should be "filtered out" might differ from yours.) —David Levy 21:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC) Regarding the filtering concern, I'm curious as to the availability of data regarding the extent to which Fuck (film)'s TFA appearance had such an effect. In my view, we've been too focused on the question of whether excluding the article from the main page on the basis that it would cause offense constitutes "censorship". The word "censorship" can be used to express various concepts, and it appears that the debate stems primarily from opposing definitions. All of us can agree, I hope, that "leaving the article out of the encyclopedia" and "leaving it off the main page" are two very different concepts (with the former being a far more extreme measure, irrespective of how we feel about the latter). So really, we're quibbling over terminology. We can all it "censorship", an application of "editorial judgement", or "Steve". No matter what description we use, the real issue is whether it's appropriate. —David Levy 10:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC) But jumping the queue to put it on a specific date that is irrelevant to readers unconnected with the US seems unnecessary: let it take its place in the queue. "The queue is short" is not a good reason to jump it: and if one day there are no FACs to feature, just say so on the main page. I can never be bothered with the faff of GA, FA etc for supporting articles (there is no Best supporting actor in Wikipedia) but might do if I felt they had a chance of getting attention (I mean more by editors than readers). The queue-jumping is shocking. (But then, I'm British, you would be killed for it in the UK, or worse, snubbed.) Si Trew (talk) 09:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC) No. We're expressing disagreement with the argument that the proposed action's "offensiveness" is a valid application of editorial discretion. We're addressing the objections that exist, not rejecting all possible objections that could exist under any circumstance. The latter would constitute "abandoning editorial discretion".
 * Actually that's where you're wrong. The poor wretch who has to discern consensus here has to wade through (and filter out) all your harangues, which makes his job a lot more challenging. -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you interpreted my statement as an acknowledgment that I'm "a jerk who enjoys arguing with people just to hear the sound of his own voice", you misunderstood. If you're expressing agreement with that description, the same "so be it" applies.
 * Support. It's only mildly offensive to some puritans; we should not pamper to the few percent of the population who will feel offensive. We are not censored, and while I'd support not main paging certain topics that would be offensive to most, I don't feel this one would be. As a compromise, I'd suggest setting this up as the next April Fools topic; it wouldn't be as "shocking" at that time. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Running the article on April Fools' Day would create the appearance of a joke – a calculated attempt to raise eyebrows – thereby reinforcing the perception that this is the motivation behind its selection. Given that such a belief is one of the main objections cited above, that would be counterproductive.  —David Levy 04:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, but not for the reasons most supporters have given. Yes, Wikipedia is uncensored: we're not going to title this article F*ck because people find the true title too offensive. But we still have discretion about what we want to advertise on the main page, and I think it's entirely legitimate to decide that common politeness overrides the desire to educate readers about, say, fellatio. It's all a question of where to draw the line. Personally, I think the simple use of the word fuck in a scholarly context really isn't very shocking—certainly not shocking enough to take the unusual step of banning it from the main page.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 05:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support as a well-referenced and well-written article. Its title shouldn't prevent this from being on the main page.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 06:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I know Wikipedia editors have a tendency toward wanting to push other people's buttons, and featuring on the main page a word that most English-speaking countries censor on television and radio would be a good way to do that, but I strongly feel that this would be harmful to Wikipedia's reputation.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 10:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * On what do you base this strong feeling? What harm to Wikipedia's reputation did the previous "Fuck" article's TFA appearance cause?  —David Levy 21:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support The word is part of our culture and few are shocked at hearing it anymore. Run the article and the controversy goes away.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm not moved by any of the objections listed here, although comments about editorial judgement are fair. If consensus about anything is decided here, it should be only that. -- Laser brain  (talk)  13:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose For the very good reasons expressed above. Choosing not to feature this article is not an act of censorship, so WP:NOTCENSORED is irrelevant here. What is relevant is Wikipedia's reputation and I agree that this is likely to do more harm than good. Waggers<small  style="color:#080">TALK  14:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * How, exactly, would featuring a high-quality article about a book examining the linguistic, legal and cultural history of an incredibly common word, damage Wikipedia's reputation? Have you read the article? It's responsible, mature, neutral coverage of a book which has its own history of similar objections just because it is, itself, a responsible, neutral and mature look at the issues surrounding the word fuck. I doubt it will alter our reputation one way or another, but if anything I would guess that it would cast us in a good light, given that we are able to address even potentially taboo subjects in a reasonable manner. 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 14:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously going to argue with everyone who lists an oppose !vote?! Covering such things, and covering them well, is commendable and does indeed cast the project in a good light. Splashing that coverage over our front page is something else entirely. <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  23:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I was addressing the arguments against as they came up. Since has expressed concern over the time it will take to assess consensus, I've decided to hold off at this point, mainly because nearly every Oppose vote is using reasoning identical to but found inadequate in the case of Fuck (film). I'm a bit concerned that none of the Oppose people seem to be building off of the discussion last time, and I was hoping that I'd be able to convince a few Opposes to either switch to Support or make a more substantive argument, but that doesn't seem to be happening. Generally people just accuse those of us trying to have a discussion rather than a vote of badgering, harassing or haranguing people.  0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 23:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that's what it looks like. The reasoning in the film case wasn't at all inadequate - there just happened to be a greater weight of opinion on the other side. The same appears to be the case now but that does not invalidate the arguments we opposers are putting forward. Essentially your objection to my opinion is akin to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - an argument to avoid. <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  13:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Fuck here. No fuck there.  There are perfectly acceptable places for "fuck" on Wikipedia.  A discussion here about Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties is a perfectly fine place to use "fuck".  Over there, on the main page, people are not expecting to see "fuck" and therefore featuring a word that is essentially prohibited on public broadcasting is a bad idea.  We would be putting "fuck" into people's homes, workplaces, schools, phones, etc where they aren't expecting it.  Places where "fuck" isn't appropriate.  In the minds of the majority of people who find "fuck" offensive, we will solidify a negative impression of Wikipedia.  That is not good for Wikipedia.  Common sense, people.  Common sense.  Deli nk (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. I came skeptical, but the more I consider it, the more innocuous it becomes. I read the article and part of the point was the political maneuver to title the book as such, so it would be placed in places such as the main page. Calling it out makes the word lose its power (per Wehwalt). The Reception section is pretty sparse (other than The New Yorker, the other reviews are very, very brief, especially knowing LJ, Choice, PW) but I don't think notability is an issue. Instructive in this moral panic is the fallout from the last time an article by the name of "Fuck" ran on the main page. If someone could cite some negatives from last time, I'd be willing to consider changing my support. As it stands, and considering the precedent, I think this discussion is a tempest in a teapot czar ♔   16:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Repurposing my comment from the last discussion. The article itself is fine. If it attracts the attention of the media then that's a good thing as readers will be directed to sober, well-written content that might actually make them think about freedom of speech and censorship. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Children read Wikipedia. This shouldn't be splashed in their faces by putting this on the front page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, having read through all the arguments I can see both points of view. Yes this would be a controversial TFA, but given that the vast majority of TFA's aren't controversial I think the occasional one does no harm and sometimes it's good to shake things up a bit. --Rotten regard 22:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose though not for reasons of protecting the children. Oppose because the occasion for running the article is not adequate. This book is not primarily about the 1st amendment, but about the history of the word. First amendment concerns have been only a part of that history. of much more importance,   the value of the 1st amendment is in contexts much more important than the relatively trivial one of this particular word, and it cheapens the significance of free speech to think it is mainly about curse words or obscenity.  DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Also not "for the children" - I think many of them already know words like this by the time they hit kindergarten and swearing in media won't really harm them, nor do I even have the personal aversion to swearing in media that I do with sex - it's that since we've already had the Fuck film on the front page, doing it again in such short order comes off as gloating, "Hey, world, fuck you. This = free speech and we can put as much profanity on the main page as we goddamn well please, you cunts." And yes, Wikipedia has a reputation to uphold - it's more than a matter of tut-tutting; parents could ban their children, schools their students, or companies their employees from looking at Wikipedia if something like this were featured on the main page again. Perhaps they already did after the first one. Tezero (talk) 04:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose the blurb as written. We can blunt some of the criticisms over running the blurb by minimizing the word fuck to only appear in the title of the article in the first line of the blurb. That sentence ends with "and use of the word 'fuck' in society", which could be pipe to "and use of the word itself in society". Another concern: there is also the possibility that filtering software will block our Main Page as long as the word fuck appears in the text. That means for four days, readers at various libraries and corporations using sensitive filtering software will be unable to load the Main Page. Sadly, we can't re-render the title as F★ck as was done with the TFA on the film; that change matched the stylization of the title on the film poster. If there is a similarly stylized rendition of the title from some edition of the book, I would suggest switching to that. Final comments—the article and topic matter are not a problem for me. The fact that the author of the book delayed publication of the original article on this topic so as to not impact his tenure says a lot though about the controversial nature of the topic, and it's no surprise that editors have strong feelings about it. To those crowing that leaving it off the Main Page is censorship, you are wrong. Censorship would be leaving the article out of the encyclopedia. Editorial judgement, which is a function undertaken by the full community of editors, allows us to leave the article off the front page of our publication. If this article is to run as TFA, the blurb needs some work to deal with issues that will come up because of filtering software.  Imzadi 1979  →   08:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:EASTEREGG. Replacing a visible instance of "fuck" (which appears earlier in the same sentence anyway) with an obfuscated link to the Fuck article (likely resulting in many unintended visits thereto) seems counterproductive.
 * Thank you for your thoughtful recommendations. Per your helpful suggestion, I've gone ahead and modified the blurb text to only have one (1) instance of the word diff. Further, in subsequent days the link may simply be to the book's subtitle, Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties, as it has been referred to secondary sources, for example The Washington Post. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I hate to disagree with the changes you've made, but I think the use of the piped word " itself " in the blurb is just blatant censorship. To me at least, it sounds unnatural and almost implies that the documentary is about the word "itself". For the other removal of the word (about the article name Fuck), I would have been happy to see it stay, but the sentence still sounds okay with "on the same subject". For the subsequent days, I'm happy with it linking to the subtitle to minimize problems caused by filters. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 17:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, I mostly agree with you, but keep in mind I'm trying to take into account the expressed opinions of a lot of different editors here. raised some good points, and they are in-line with prior comments by  from the prior TFAR close decision at Today's featured article/requests/Fuck (film). &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This time round, the reason I chose a specific date, was due to the "Support" comment from at Today's featured article/requests/Fuck (film).  said: "Support for a specific date only—that will negate the criticisms of running this article to appeal to a more prurient nature. The article, and its subject, is worthy of highlighting. All FAs should someday be TFA, but given the controversial nature of this nomination, I can only support it for a specific date that will tie into the theme of the film. Imzadi 1979 → 01:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)" So it was directly in response to my attempt to incorporate that helpful suggestion, that I chose a specific date for this one. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Neutral (abstain). I've read all the above and can't add to it, beyond casting a vote as a no-longer-silent member of the silent majority. It's no big deal, if the film TFA had no great comeback, run with it. The content is fine. I am not offended by "swear words" but don't use them as substitutes for commas, because they do cause offence to other people (and I can think of "other people" who are offended by them – my parents).
 * What do you mean by "queue-jumping"? Featured articles aren't placed on the main page in the order of their promotion.  We frequently schedule one in accordance with "a specific date that is irrelevant to readers unconnected with [insert country]".  For example, I assure you that the 160th anniversary of the opening of the Great North of Scotland Railway's first line meant very little to Americans (and I'm inclined to doubt that it was on many Britons' minds).  And that's fine.  It's a normal part of TFA.  —David Levy 10:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose The book doesn't seem especially important or significant — it hasn't won any prizes, right? Featuring it would give it undue weight and seem too promotional, contrary to WP:SOAP. Andrew (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if that is relevant. Nothing in the featured article criteria says that a piece of media (book, film, play etc) needs tp be important or win awards to be featured. Also unless you are suggesting that  Cirt is somehow directly involved with the book I don't see any evidence to suggest that they are trying to promote the book. There are some valid reasons to challenge this but I don't believe the book is not important is one of them.--69.157.253.160 (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As you mention the featured article criteria, we should note that the article in question clearly fails them as its coverage of the topic is quite shallow and is far from complete. The topic here is a book but there's hardly any bibliographic detail.  Missing facts include:
 * the number of pages, their size and material
 * details of the binding - were the pages cut, for example
 * details of the typesetting
 * details of the editions and translations
 * details of the print runs and sales
 * details of the pricing
 * So, this is not even a GA let alone something that should be featured. The appropriate place for this is the bottom slot of DYK - the light relief. Andrew (talk) 08:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't tell if you're being serious. What you list above is hardly critical encyclopedic material as shown by other FA articles like All God's Children Need Traveling Shoes and The Diary of a Nobody. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 08:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm serious. Not only does the article not contain elementary facts about the book such as its page count but it seems to be padded out with irrelevant facts like "He worked as a clerk on the Texas Court of Appeals for the Third District for Justice J. Woodfin Jones."  The article is generally lacking in the quality expected at FA level. Andrew (talk) 09:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, for your helpful suggestion about the page count. I've added this information on the page count into the article. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 09:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks but I don't think the page count belongs in the reception section; it would be better in the infobox where there's a parameter for this statistic. But NeilN thinks we shouldn't have this information at all so this seems to be an unresolved dispute and that's not acceptable at FA level. Andrew (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that helpful specific recommendation,, I've gone ahead and moved that page count info to the infobox, where you're most certainly correct, there is an appropriate field for it there. Thanks again, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 09:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Page count would be useful. Page size, material, typesetting, binding, pricing are not, unless they are unique aspects to them, for a modern book. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per general rationale of Andrew Davidson. I dont think this is a major work, so we can circumvent the censorship debate. I am inclined to not place controversial content on the main page unless the topic has risen to a fairly high level of discussion in the English language media. Just like i wouldnt want a nonfamous, run of the mill hardcover porn image on the front page, or even as the main image at pornography, but am perfectly happy with such an image appearing at the Pornography portal, as that is a page where readers can reasonably expect to have such content featured. I would support an image like Marilyn Monroe's nude appearing on the main page, as its famous (i dont think there are any copyright free famous pornographic images, though). The real acid test for this article is, of course, if it chosen, how the public actually reacts. for that reason alone, as an experiment in free speech vs our public image concerns, I would be strongly inclined to support a highly notable featured article with controversial content appearing on the main page, up to and including topics like "portrayals of muhammed", "adult/child sexual activity", "armenian genocide", the term "nigger", etc.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per editorial discretion. Much of the reason for running it is unconvincing: 'it exists' and 'notcensored' arguments are arguments to abandon editorial discretion, for which there is no basis in policy (nor do those reasons make sense, when discussing editorial decisions for the main page).  Moreover, the arguments that this proposed action is commercially or politically promotional are well taken. Then too, there is the undue provocation argument,  which is well reasoned, given the generally poor arguments in support, which amount to 'sure it can be unduly provocative but we should run it because it is so', [and it's been established above that it is a minor book of limited scope]. So, no. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC) [added: Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)]
 * Rejecting a particular exclusion rationale ("it's offensive") ≠ abandoning editorial discretion. It's reasonable to assert that said exclusion rationale is valid, but those of us who disagree don't assert that no exclusion rationale is valid.  The "it exists" argument would amount to such a claim, but no supporter has actually written that (or anything similar).  Likewise, no supporter has described the proposed action as "unduly provocative" (or anything similar).  That's your opinion.  —David Levy 07:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No. The supports have argued 'notcensored, so it should run on the main page' that is abandoning editorial discretion. The supports have argued 'it is FA, so it should run' that's an 'it exists' argument and is abandoning editorial discretion; the supports have argued 'Fuck exists', so it should run on the main page, that is abandoning editorial discretion. The opposes not the supporters have made the 'unduly provocative' argument.  You've given your opinion many, many, many, many, many times already. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC) If you are asking me to talk further on the undue rationale that has already been explicated above by many, we already had the documentary, we don't need the book that the documentary comments upon, its repetitious. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, we're addressing the objections that exist. Many users opposing the article's TFA appearance have cited nothing other than its "offensiveness", which we believe (and you're entitled to disagree) is not an appropriate reason to exclude a featured article from TFA. This doesn't mean that there can be no appropriate reason to oppose a TFA nomination. (Otherwise, what would be the point of discussing the matter?) Others have cited different concerns (some of which I consider valid), which have been addressed separately.

To whose comments are you referring?

Exactly. You (and others opposing the request) regard the article's prospective TFA appearance as unduly provocative. Above, you described the "arguments in support" (emphasis added) as "sure it can be unduly provocative but we should run it because it is so". That's a mischaracterization. We disagree that it would be unduly provocative.

To quote 0x0077BE, that's because I'm "trying to have a discussion, rather than a vote". This thread's purpose isn't merely to express our opinions and leave; it's to discuss the matter and address each other's concerns, thereby gaining a fuller understanding thereof. Many individuals (not including you, to be clear) have essentially duplicated others' comments without addressing preexisting responses thereto (which, in some instances, the previous editors haven't addressed either). I simply seek to discuss people's views on the matter. —David Levy 21:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC) "Weak" is your assessment. Likewise, I regard some opposing arguments as weak. Neither your opinion nor mine is impartial or binding on others, let alone grounds for demanding that anyone (with any view) disengage. You're complaining because I've responded to editors' good-faith questions and comments with good-faith questions and comments of my own. In the previous "Fuck" TFA request, this included defending your remarks and criticising someone's harsh response thereto ( | ), despite sharing that individual's position on whether to run the article as TFA. I'm here to discuss the matter at hand, not to declare my opinions in isolation. As for "rejected", many of my replies (and others') appear to have been ignored, which is all the more reason to reiterate one when a newcomer to the discussion essentially duplicates an argument addressed previously. (This applies to the request's supporters and opponents alike.)
 * Wrong. Sure, you have the burden as proposer of an act, but that's not good reason to repeat over and over, your same weak and rejected arguments. Yes, proposers have argued over and over again to abandon editorial discretion for the main page in the areas identified, and in the ways identified, but repeating yourself on that score to again support abandonment of editorial discretion is not helping anyone, nor this process. I have carefully reviewed the arguments previously and analysed them, so I rejected your claim of 'characterization', as you probably already know or should know. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Describing my explanation that I don't support abandonment of editorial discretion as "repeating [my]self on that score to again support abandonment of editorial discretion" is not helping anyone, nor this process.

I don't understand this portion of your reply. —David Levy 00:39, 3 November 2014/00:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Again your not helping this process - your complaining is now just walls of repetitious or irrelevant text to the matter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Repetition breeds repetition. At no point in the discussion have I directed an additional reply toward someone who ignored that which preceded it.  (This is why accusations of "harassment" are off-base.)  If you want me to stop responding to you, you can simply act in kind.  —David Levy 02:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, so, at every point you must have the last word, again your not helping. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you don't like your comments to be assessed and challenged, this isn't the project for you. Grammar skills notwithstanding. --78.35.245.233 (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What more is there to discuss. The argument has already been made that the purpose of the editorial function is to determine what to exclude, as well as to include. The argument has already been made that its a minor book of limited scope and the sourcing does not support it as a matter of main import.  The argument has already been made that it appears promotional/campaigning.  The argument has already been made that its repetitious.   The argument has already been made that use of emotive language is undue attention and provocation, even given its boring endemic use. Re-arguing all that again and again is also boring. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Support: the article maturely describes a book which maturely describes the use of the word "fuck". Yes, many people may be offended by it, but many more may enjoy reading an article (or at least a TFA blurb) on the subject of a taboo term. Some people are saying that anything could offend anyone, as it could, but the answer to "where do you draw the line?" is probably not "let's not have a line at all, then". However, Wikipedia is not censored is already an established policy and if something can be found from the random article feature (as Fuck can, as well as more disgusting articles such as The Human Centipede, 2 Girls 1 Cup), then it is already something someone can stumble across by accident. Given the huge amount of TFAs that don't provoke controversy, this is not giving undue weight to offensive articles and no privilege is being given to subjects which provoke shock reactions by using the word "fuck" on occasion on the main page. And finally, I would personally be more offended by something that used a less offensive word in a more offensive way: the documentary doesn't attempt to provoke anyone and does not use the term in a discriminatory way. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 14:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Be bold! This will help move the Main page into the 21st century. Prhartcom (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Let us be bold about covering difficult topics. Let us be bold about featuring controversial things of true significance. Using the word fuck in text is no longer particular significant, and the change occurred well before the 21st century. What apparently has not changed is the schoolboy practice of using it as a sign that we too can be bold.  DGG ( talk ) 15:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Support It's just a word and in itself, it cannot be offensive. It is the context in which such words are used that determine if they have the possibility to offend, or not.  I see no context in which the title of a book, no matter what words it contains, could ever be considered offensive by anyone of sound mind. Parrot of Doom 17:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and other supports above. <b style="font-family:AR Cena;color:black;">INeverCry</b>  22:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. I don't think I need to link all-caps policy links, as they've all been linked already... multiple times, it seems.  I do not find this to be an immature attempt to troll or instigate controversy.  This is a legitimate topic of interest to readers, and it has been nominated on a day that seems topical.  Offended readers can choose not to read the article.  In my opinion, the most reasonable objection is based on scope and international interest.  However, the Chinese translation does seem to alleviate these concerns, at least to some extent.  While the topic may be of limited scope, it is easily understood in the context of broader attempts at censorship throughout the world, and it is of interest to international community in that context, much like the subject of the British "video nasty" censorship. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - while Wikipedia is not censored, that doesn't mean that te first content word people read on Wikipedia should be "fuck". While this book (and any other notable book which contain "bad language" in their titles) definitely beling on Wikipedia, placing them on the front page will probably damage Wikiedia's reputation. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * On what do you base this assessment? What damage to Wikipedia's reputation did the previous "Fuck" article's TFA appearance cause?  —David Levy 07:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Support: A legitimate topic and article. The word "fuck" is now widely used in public life, including notably on television, and any objection to that is not great; moreover we have already had a "fuck" TFA and had no problems. No reasonable person will be mortally offended by this. Someone's probably said this already, but does nobody see the irony in censoring equitable coverage of a book about free speech? BethNaught (talk) 09:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Way back in 1981 while studying English Literature for A-level, one of the set texts was This Be The Verse (opening line: They fuck you up, your mum and dad ...). Before we discussed it as a group we each had to write a critique. Far too much of my critique was spent in concentrating on the word "fuck" and its apparent shock value. I was told that by my teacher and he was right. I ended up with a grade A in the subject and the poem is itself very much within the popular canon, as evidenced by it being voted among Britain's Top 100 Poems in a BBC survey. It is a common enough word, as others have said; the article is FA, and thus is a valid candidate. I don't see what the problem is here unless the argument is that it should not have been promoted to FA in the first place due to failure to meet the required standards. That, of course, is really a different argument but if someone wants to take it to the Review process then it is their right. - Sitush (talk) 10:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Procedural. As soon as this request was listed in Centralized Discussions, it became a violation of the time-honored injunction "Do Not Disrupt Wikipedia to Make a Point." I was neutral on the matter, now opposed to this pointy nomination and even moreso to this pointy process. Carrite (talk) 11:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way, please note that the prior discussion Today's featured article/requests/Fuck (film) was also added to Centralized discussion with minor subsequent tweaks diff by . In addition, Bencherlite has approved of the centralized notifications this time around. Further, Bencherlite noted these centralized notifications in his closing statement at Today's featured article/requests/Fuck (film). &mdash; Cirt (talk) 11:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I would have strongly objected to that then, if I had caught it. My objection before was grounded in the apparent intent of the nomination to dismiss the reasonable expectations of casual readers. That doesn't seem to have proved to be a huge matter of controversy and dispute when it actually ran then; thus my neutrality up to now. This nomination clearly has become a disruption trying to make a point this time around, however, and I oppose it for that reason. Carrite (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: Please note that is the same user that, when commenting at the last discussion Today's featured article/requests/Fuck (film), violated WP:AGF and WP:NPA by stating: "Blatantly obvious troll." Thank you. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, Really?!?! - Well, it that's the way you want to play, Cirt, let me add that this pointy nomination of an relatively unimportant article about a relatively unimportant book for the mainpage because it prominently features the word "FUCK" (just like the previous nomination of a mainpage blurb about a film because it prominently features the word "FUCK") is also a blatantly obvious troll. Carrite (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Incorrect assessment and another violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA by . I've had all prior Featured Article contributions I've helped improve in quality on the Main Page. This includes the article about freedom of speech and censorship, Freedom for the Thought That We Hate. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * For someone so dedicated to freedom of speech, Cirt, you certainly seem quick to make heavy handed use of rules and acronyms to shut down the free speech opportunities of others. Your ominous acronym links are additionally inapplicable. A great deal of WP:BULLPUCKEY is being spread in a patently obvious example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point... Carrite (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't "shut down" anything,, but thank you for recognizing my Featured Article contributions to freedom of speech including Freedom for the Thought That We Hate. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As noted previously, the discussion has been advertised heavily because opponents of past appearances of "controversial" material on the main page complained that they lacked advance knowledge due to insufficient publicity and explicitly requested that such measures be taken in the future. —David Levy 21:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no obligation to clog Central Notification with every potentially controversial nomination for a mainpage blurb. After the previous non-incident following the Fuck The Movie listing, this nomination on its face would seem to be hardly controversial. This whole 100,0000 bytes of "letting the community decide" bullshit is the point of the entire exercise, it seems to me. I look forward to the next overblown controversy 10 months from now about the yet-to-be-written piece Fucking in Gibraltar. Carrite (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, we are at 122,600 bytes and counting. I congratulate all involved. Carrite (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * 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) 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)
 * 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. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Thank you,, 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. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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."? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

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)
 * 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. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Perhaps,, 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. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I can only speak for myself,, 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. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Mere replies don't constitute an "attack",, 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. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)

I support this TFA request not because someone who finds the material objectionable is somehow "wrong" (an inherently subjective assessment), but because such a grievance isn't a valid reason to suppress encyclopedic content. —David Levy 02:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC) As for something better to do,  is a bit too lowbrow for my taste, but I do enjoy When the Whistle Blows. —David Levy 03:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC) It's true that the main page isn't an article, but I don't regard this as a material difference. The main page is part of the encyclopedia, wherein neutrality is nonnegotiable. Deeming certain content "offensive" (and barring its appearance on the main page for that reason) is non-neutral. People belonging to various cultures are offended by all sorts of things. When you say that we should exercise greater caution when it comes to "offensive content", to what material are you referring? Does it include LGBT topics? Abortion? Evolution? Miscegenation? Photographs of unveiled women? *I'll note that we also don't include material solely because it's objectionale. —David Levy 18:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Support because I don't think the reasons to oppose are encyclopedically valid. There is a use-mention distinction&mdash;discussing the word fuck is not the same as saying fuck to someone. People seem worried that we might get "bad press" by running this; on the other hand, I think we'll get good press for showing an article that recognizes the encyclopedic nature of the topic and can discuss a taboo word objectively. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 09:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per David Levy. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , David Levy has supported the nomination (very near the top). I realize that was several hundred thousand million words earlier in this discussion, so you might have muddled things up, so what did you mean here? BencherliteTalk 19:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Editorial discretion. -- Fauzan <sup style="margin-left:+0.5ex"> ✆ talk <sub style="margin-left:-4.6ex"> ✉ mail  18:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you care to elaborate? The above rationale literally means "ability to decide content".  You've provided no indication of why that ability should result in the particular decision that you advocate.  —David Levy 00:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Much has already been said above, and Sue Gardner. Changed to weak, as this is not a big deal -- Fauzan <sup style="margin-left:+0.5ex"> ✆ talk <sub style="margin-left:-4.6ex"> ✉ mail  15:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much,, for re-considering after this discussion, and changing your comment from "Strong" to "Weak" oppose. Much appreciated, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Support because we're not censored, Anyone offended by the book or the word "Fuck" should log off and go elsewhere - We're in 2014 not 1914. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  01:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, for your Support and thoughtful comments about censorship, much appreciated. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You're more than welcome Cirt and thank you for nominating it :) – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  02:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * People are entitled to take offense and to express criticism. When this occurs, the sentiment that they "should log off and go elsewhere" is every bit as judgemental and unhelpful as any dismissive condemnation found on this page is.  It's important to welcome good-faith input and politely explain ourselves (instead of playing into the perception of disrespect potentially underlying a complaint).
 * With all respect I'm entitled to say what I like and how I like .... Perhaps you ought to find something better to do than going through every rationale here picking faults. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  03:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * With all respect, the entitlement works both ways (and it has limits, which I'm not suggesting you've exceeded in this discussion).
 * Oppose The world is well past caring whether a website features this topic, and I don't have the slightest concern about how Wikipedia's reputation might be impacted. In a similar vein to DGG, the problem for me is that putting fuck on the main page is just so, well Lenny Bruce—it's been done folks! Shouting offensively is an unwanted consequence of the First Amendment, not its purpose. Johnuniq (talk) 07:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose As defined my mw.com, definitions of "fuck" are either "usually obscene" or "usually vulgar".  Unscintillating (talk) 03:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the word "fuck" is widely regarded as such. A professor wrote a book on the topic, which is the subject of the encyclopedia article under discussion.  What's the nature of your objection?  —David Levy 11:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Support this, just as I supported Fuck (film). Do we really need to have this kind of drama every time WP:TFA wants to feature an article that some may consider controversial?  Seems ridiculously ludicrous to me... — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 15:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * (Opppose) Unfortutaly I was underwhelmed by the quality of the article; which I like others suspect is lack to a dearth of sources. Most probably it never will be possible to make this into a good article. The book content section is very short and meager; with a few run-of-the mill arguments regarding free speech and not much more. I don’t think the «date» argument is strong here since it’s not a round anniversary and the article doesn’t really provide much deep insight into the issue anyway. And while I wouldn't have minded two "fuck" headlines if the articles were of high enclyclopedic value, I am inclined to find it a bit pointy when the book in question only barely passes Wikipedia's generous notability bar. As for the think of the children argument, I am reminded that on 9 November it was exactly 25 years since the fall of the Berlin wall; something many felt was a big fucking deal. You would however hardly have known if you read the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet on 10 November which had no mention on the event at the frontpage and instead featured a large headline reading «LET THE CHILDREN SWEAR!» cited to a Norwegian child psychologist. So at least as far as Norwegian kids are concerned I don’t think a mention of the word «fuck» on the main page will create any (additional) harm. (Putting the oppose in paranthese as I don’t think the sky will fall if it ends up at the mainpage). Iselilja (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is already a featured article. That is not something this discussion will change. This isn't an AfD discussion either — the article's notability doesn't seem to have been disputed before. WP:FAR and WP:AFD are options if you think the article isn't notable or is lacking in quality. No other article nominated for TFA has to face this sort of scrutiny and objections based on quality — that happened when it was nominated for FA. This discussion is about whether to put the article on the main page, so other than WP:POINT (and I would strongly agree that Cirt is doing this to prove any sort of point), you don't seem to have made any arguments opposing that. (No offense, attack or badgering intended: just trying to have a discussion here.) Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 07:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per others. Editorial discretion is a thing that exists.  "Not putting on the front page" is not equal to censorship, so all of the "we can't endorse censorship!" arguments are irrelevant.  (I opposed "Fuck (film)" as well.) SnowFire (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As I noted previously, I think that we've gotten too hung up on the meaning of the word "censorship" (which can vary according to context). One could argue that WP:NOTCENSORED should contain different terminology, but that's a separate matter.  For the purposes of this discussion, supporters of the article's proposed TFA appearance have used the term in the sense documented in that policy.  Whether it's best described as "censorship" or something else, how would a decision to omit material from the main page on the basis that it's "offensive" differ materially from the act proscribed?  —David Levy 10:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "omit material from the main page" is the key. The main page is qualitatively different than article space concerning "censorship"; it's like trying to apply US law in Canada, some of if might still be applicable, but not all of it.  The Main Page is not an article.  It is a landing page intended for readers.  Rather than a reader "seeking out" offensive content and it being their own fault if they find it, it's something we present to the reader.  Thus, it's perfectly reasonable to be a bit more cautious. SnowFire (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand that argument, but I disagree that it's consistent with Wikipedia's fundamental principles. The crux of WP:NOTCENSORED is that we don't omit* encyclopedic content solely because someone finds it objectionable.  In other words, if that's the only reason (and we otherwise would include the material), it's invalid.
 * 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)
 * (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)
 * 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)
 * "Nonnegotiable" is the exact word used in Wikipedia's neutrality policy.
 * 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)".
 * 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?
 * 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.
 * 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?)
 * 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.)
 * That depends on why the hypothetical ITN item was turned down. If it was because someone found the news "offensive", that's a problem.
 * A proposed ITN item about "a racy and obscure topic" should be rejected, but the "racy" part is irrelevant.
 * And the "downside" is that you (and others) don't like it. —David Levy 23:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * That depends on why the hypothetical ITN item was turned down. If it was because someone found the news "offensive", that's a problem.
 * A proposed ITN item about "a racy and obscure topic" should be rejected, but the "racy" part is irrelevant.
 * And the "downside" is that you (and others) don't like it. —David Levy 23:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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.
 * 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".
 * 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.
 * 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).
 * 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.
 * 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?
 * 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 await your explanation of who "they" are (and on what basis you've excluded others). —David Levy 08:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 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?
 * 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 await your explanation of who "they" are (and on what basis you've excluded others). —David Levy 08:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 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 await your explanation of who "they" are (and on what basis you've excluded others). —David Levy 08:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I await your explanation of who "they" are (and on what basis you've excluded others). —David Levy 08:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. This isn't gratuitous offense. Refusing to put it on the front page is curbing valid, relevant free speech: the very point addressed by the book. I'd oppose putting offensive language on the main page, per the principle of least surprise, under most circumstances, but not in this case. In this case the word is relevant and appropriate. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Recentism, and lack of notability/importance. Making it TFA would just be a stunt, and shock value, and probably pointy, even given the anniversary. I'm all for making it a DYK (allowing it grace for not being within the time limit, due to it's having been in this debate), but not for this pointy stunt of making it TFA. Softlavender (talk) 11:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose As I read this, I was reminded of the scene in Jurassic Park where List_of_Jurassic_Park_characters comments that John Hammond and his scientists were so preoccupied with the question of "Could...?" that they never stopped to consider if they "Should...?" We have stopped to consider this, and while we could surely do whatever we wanted, it's unclear whether we should put this article in such a prominent place. Therefore, I respectfully oppose. Ezratrumpet (talk) 05:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, it would be helpful to explain why you find it unclear (i.e. what considerations led you to determine that it might not be a good idea). As it stands, your rationale is "I'm not sure that we should do this.", with no mention of any specific concerns underlying this conclusion.  —David Levy 10:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - we have the liberty to do this, but the (enormous) discussion shows it is not sensible to do it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

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 this POTD discussion about the image shown here, which ended up with consensus against using the image as POTD. At the risk of turning this discussion from a short story into an epic novel, are there comparisons / points / lessons here, for either supporters or opposers? BencherliteTalk 08:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, this isn't a debate about a picture, but rather a printed word. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 08:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: And really the more relevant substantial discussion on controversial material on the main page was at 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. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 08:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 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: 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 &mdash; it's simply an image. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 08:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Also a very good point. Both arguments have merit to explain the contrast. :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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... BencherliteTalk 19:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Comment: Generally, I would support having this topic on the Main Page, particularly since Fuck (film) was shown without the backlash that many opposing editors anticipated (and the ones here should be recognizing that). In other words, I find many of the opposing arguments squeamish and wanting of censorship. However, the one thing that gives me pause is the frequency and redundancy of the topic. The film article was shown only last March, and now this feels like a retread of the same topic in a relatively short time span. I'm not fully familiar with TFA history, but it seems like we want to space out similar topics. (Maybe that was with the point system, I guess, which is gone now?) I would not have minded a different kind of "controversial" topic. I hope I would say this kind of thing about other two closely related topics in a TFA discussion. In other words, I would be fine with showing this topic, but perhaps about the same time next year? (Yeah, feel free to let me know that time span is irrelevant...) Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It will be about ten (10) months time between the TFAs, which is almost one year. And multiple users at Today's featured article/requests/Fuck (film) had opposed, last time, because it was up for a non-specific date and they wanted a date related to freedom of speech and censorship. So it was taking into account those comments from the last discussion,, which is why I chose to nominate for this particular date. I hope you will reconsider, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I apologize, I admit I did not see that there was a specific reason behind the date in question. Since that infuses the Main Page display with meaning, I Support it. I am still kind of iffy about the redundancy of this particular topic. Can't we branch out to other kinds of profanity for next year? :) Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Not sure what'll be on my Quality improvement project agenda at that point in time, but perhaps simply Beyond the First Amendment might be nice. :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes. That one seems more interesting and looks like a much better choice. Perhaps it can be fast-tracked for upgrade from good → featured status, and run on that date instead. The idea that some types of speech are not legally covered under the first amendment intrigues me. I may want to take a closer look at this book. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry,, but it took a lot of effort to successfully get this article through multiple stages of review and to WP:FA quality. I don't have the time or energy now for another Featured Article improvement drive. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand. I'm not very familiar with this multiple-stage review process; this is the first such request I've commented on, as best I can recall, and I, like others, wouldn't even be here but for the Centralized discussion notice. Can you provide links that walk me through the multiple stage process for this particular article, to help bring me up to speed on that? Thanks Wbm1058 (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The article was promoted to Good Article quality, had a copy edit through the Guild of Copy Editors, went through the Peer Review process, was again copy edited from another experienced editor, went through the Featured Article candidates process, and was successfully promoted to Featured Article quality. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, so:
 * Created article on 11 June 2013, and notified 11 talk pages about new article creation, e.g., Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human rights
 * One hour after creating the article, you nominated it for good article status. See Talk:Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/GA1. And then, on June 23, a single editor reviewed and passed it on to good article status. I see from this notice posted by GA bot that having just a single reviewer may be the normal process.
 * Then you notified another eight editors about the new article.
 * After an editor assessed and rated the article (rating it C-class, Low-importance for several WikiProjects), you increased the ratings on your article to B-class to "keep WikiProject ratings to uniformity and standardization for all of them."
 * I see that the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors works on eliminating the backlog of articles tagged with Copy edit, which places such articles among the some 2,300 articles in Category:All articles needing copy edit, and requests such as yours placed here. I also note that on 18 September 2013 you posted a template noting that the article was copyedited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors on 7 September 2013 (diff showing their work)
 * Then on 3 February 2014 you requested a peer review. See Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1. Much more participation here.
 * I already noted Wikipedia:Featured article candidates discussion (promoted 17 March 2014) in the hatnote at the top. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * this is all about right, at least at first glance. I'd suggest that if you want to continue a discussion about Wikipedia's processes, it might be better on your user talk pages, as this is starting to stray from the purpose of this discussion. -Pete (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

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)
 * 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. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll note that consensus (or the absence thereof) isn't determined via a simple vote count (and decisions of this nature aren't based on what will please the most people). It's up to Bencherlite to gauge the arguments' quality (i.e. their general validity and their applicability in the context of Wikipedia's policies/guidelines and the specific matter at hand).  —David Levy 21:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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, 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)
 * 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. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that an argument must be treated as strong/applicable/valid if enough people repeat it?
 * 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, 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)
 * As noted above, consensus (or the absence thereof) isn't determined via a simple vote count. If an argument is weak, inapplicable or invalid (which is for Bencherlite to assess, of course), its repetition by multiple editors doesn't change that.  —David Levy 13:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)

What if ten editors say that?

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)
 * 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)
 * 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 consensus (or the absence thereof) is determined via a simple vote count.  —David Levy 16:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * OK then. I am aware that there may be intangibles in the determination of consensus. That's why the not symbol "!" is put in front of the word "vote". The simple look at vote count doesn't show a clear consensus, so the only way to find a consensus here is via the "intangibles" (i.e., we're not supposed to violate policies, and we should usually follow guidelines, unless there is a good reason to 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

'''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)'''

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, 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:

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)