Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Fuck (film)

Firstly, thank you to all who commented on the nomination, particularly those for whom it was your first time at the TFA requests page. A lot of good points were made – a few unhelpful ones – and I think that the nomination has now been open sufficiently long for a decision to be made. For the record, I left notice of this nomination at Talk:Main Page, Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates, Village pump (miscellaneous) and Administrators' noticeboard. There was also a discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales that I started after his name was mentioned here, and the nomination was added to Centralized discussion. I am satisfied that the discussion was well-advertised in neutral locations designed to bring in as many people as possible to the discussion and attempting to minimise any accusation that the decision had been taken by an unrepresentative clique. In fact, with 80 editors or so participating in the discussion, this sets a new record for a TFA request (and I will add it to Today's featured article oddities in due course).

Discounting those !votes that were conditional on appearance for a specific day rather than a non-specific day, I make the final tally of comments 52–25. In other words, more than twice the number of people expressing an opinion were in favour of the article running.

Looking at the arguments raised, several common themes emerge.
 * Some comments questioned the motivation of the nominator, but as so many respected editors endorsed the nomination it would be impossible to conclude that this was a bad-faith request.
 * Wikimedia:Resolution:Controversial content was expressly or implicitly referred to by some of the opposers; this says that "We support the principle of least astonishment: content of Wikimedia projects should be presented to readers in such a way as to respect their expectations of what any page or feature might contain." However the first principle in that resolution is also worth stating (and was itself expressly or implicitly (e.g. WP:NOTCENSORED) referred to in the discussion): "Wikimedia projects are not censored. Some kinds of content, particularly that of a sexual, violent or religious nature, may be offensive to some viewers; and some viewers may feel such content is disrespectful or inappropriate for themselves, their families or their students, while others may find it acceptable. 'Controversial content' includes all of these categories. We recognize that we serve a global and diverse (in age, background and values) audience, and we support access to information for all." A clear majority of editors commenting here have reached the conclusion that this content is acceptable for the main page of Wikipedia.  Insofar as the resolution helps the Wikipedia community find a line between acceptable and unacceptable content on the main page, the community clearly considers that this article is acceptable.
 * Various concerns were raised about the effect that this article would have on Wikipedia's reputation. Comments in reply were along the following lines: that this was a high-quality article treating its subject in a serious way and using the term appropriately rather than gratuitously; and that Wikipedia has run articles on the main page before (whether in the TFA slot or elsewhere) that might have been found to be offensive by some with no evidence of long-term effects (and in some cases no real complaints at the time).
 * Various concerns were raised about the effect that running this will have on content filters and the like. Responses were along these lines: filters are unpredictable at the best of times (see Scunthorpe problem); it would be inappropriate self-censorship to refuse to run an article on the mainpage for fear of filter problems; some networks will block Wikipedia in any event; and not everyone visits Wikipedia through the main page anyway.

On balance then, I take the view that the supporters have the stronger arguments as well as the numerical superiority and I will schedule the article as TFA. Having said that, I take the point that there are various ways of presenting articles, some more offensive than others. One of the comments that I most appreciated in the discussion after the appearance of "Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo" was from someone saying that although they wished that the article had not been the TFA, they were happy with the way that the blurb (which I redrafted) had been presented. So, the decision I reach is that I will run the article, with a blurb that says "fuck" as few times as necessary, and the "recent articles" links for the following three days will use "F★CK" (one of the title under which the film was promoted) in the hope that this will help avoid unnecessarily tripping filters on the main page. BencherliteTalk 22:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Fuck (film)
 Fuck is a 2005 American documentary film by director Steve Anderson about the word "fuck". It argues that the word is key to discussions about freedom of speech and censorship. The film features the last interview of author Hunter S. Thompson before his suicide. Linguist Reinhold Albert Aman, journalism analyst David Shaw, language professor Geoffrey Nunberg and Jesse Sheidlower of the Oxford English Dictionary explain the history and evolution of the word. Anderson was exposed to conceptions surrounding the word "fuck" by comedian George Carlin's monologue "Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television". Bill Plympton animated sequences illustrating concepts in the film (example pictured). Fuck was first shown at the AFI Film Festival on November 7, 2005, at ArcLight Hollywood. A. O. Scott called the film a battle between advocates of morality and supporters of freedom of expression. Reviewers criticized its repetitiveness. Law professor Christopher M. Fairman commented on the film's importance in his 2009 book Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties. The American Film Institute said, "Ultimately, Fuck is a movie about free speech ... Freedom of expression must extend to words that offend."
 * Note: I edited the blurb down to 1,195 characters including spaces. No points if after 8 March 2014, minus one point before that. Film about freedom of speech and censorship. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. Educational documentary about censorship and freedom of speech. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support A nice article on a fascinating subject.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 23:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Notes left at T:MP, WP:AN, WP:FAC, and WP:VPM. BencherliteTalk 12:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Why not. Looks interesting. — ΛΧΣ  21  Call me Hahc21 13:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Very nice article and a good topic for the main page coverage.  Though I do sense a great deal of irony will abound at Talk:Main page when (if) this runs due to some people's hangups about the use of the word. Resolute 14:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support freedom of speech, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Fuck yeah. -- John Reaves 15:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless the WMF gives an explicit say-so. Free speech is a valuable right, but having the right to do something isn't an obligation to do it. Wikipedia doesn't exist in a vacuum, and for better or worse running this at TFA will trigger automated filters and get Wikipedia blacklisted on a lot of corporate networks, get Wikipedia blocked from schools worldwide, and get the site banned as a whole in large swathes of Africa and Asia. Since schools and the developing world are precisely where the WMF is keenest to push Wikipedia, this will have a disproportionate effect. If this were a major article that nonetheless upset some people (Rape, Sexually transmitted disease, Obscenity…) the WMF would be able to make a reasonable defence that the educational mission justified the potential problems caused, and that any resultant bans were inappropriate censorship—as when German Wikipedia ran Vagina as TFA—but in this case, regardless of good intentions, to most outside observers this is going to look like teenage posturing and Wikipedia going out of its way to cause offence, and Jimmy Wales is going to have to spend the next few months trying to persuade assorted sceptical governments that Wikipedia doesn't represent a threat to public decency, and to persuade the corporate donors on which Wikipedia ultimately depends that their money wouldn't be better off going to CARE or the International Literacy Foundation. – iridescent 2  15:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems certain that Frank's Cock appearing as featured article would have been far, far more offensive to those parts of Africa (not sure about Asia) that have old-fashioned views on such things, and Jimbo (who talks to African governments quite a lot I think) didn't mention getting any negative feedback at all. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @Iridescent, the Wikimedia Foundation has no editorial role in Wikipedia, and would certainly take no position on whether or not a certain article would be featured on the main page. I say this not only as a user, but as somebody who worked for the Foundation in a community outreach capacity. It's a very clear line. What puzzles me is, surely you know this?? Why have you suggested a criterion that is impossible, not on the merits of this specific proposal, but as a matter of general principle about editorial authority? Why not simply say you believe it would be inappropriate to feature this article (which is a perfectly reasonable position)? -Pete (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As the author of an FA that was pulled from the TFA queue pending WMF approval, you'll forgive me for not taking your claim that the WMF never intervenes very seriously, and as someone who remembers the WMF's response to previous controversial mainpage content you'll forgive me for not taking your implication that the WMF in their community outreach capacity are unconcerned with what goes on the main page very seriously. FWIW, "I'm astonished it is there, and not in a good way" and "It is absolutely true that if we measure success by raw hits to an entry while it is on the front page (a perfectly fine factor to consider, out of many factors to consider), then we should run shocking / sexy / outrageous things on the front page every day. That's pretty obvious.  It's also pretty obviously not what we really want to be." were Jimmy Wales's reactions to the mainpage appearances of Vulva and Cartman Gets an Anal Probe respectively. I'd agree with Cirt's suggestion that if this does run, it should run on a weekend; like it or not, this will get Wikipedia banned from schools in Britain at the very least,* and that would minimise the impact. –  iridescent 2  13:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)  * As documented elsewhere in many threads, when Gropecunt Lane was TFA Wikipedia was blocked from every state school in the UK; the culprit wasn't the title, but the inclusion of the word "cunt" on its own in the blurb, which triggered the compulsory blocking software; as this article unavoidably will have the work "fuck" standing alone, it will have the same effect.
 * , quick question about your above comment: "As the author of an FA that was pulled from the TFA queue pending WMF approval, you'll forgive me for not taking your claim that the WMF never intervenes very seriously, and as someone who remembers the WMF's response to previous controversial mainpage content you'll forgive me for not taking your implication that the WMF in their community outreach capacity are unconcerned with what goes on the main page very seriously." Just curious, which FA(s) are you referring to in this comment? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know what FA you're referring to either. However the opinions of a board member or staff member of WMF are not the same thing as WMF taking a position. (I do, personally, believe very strongly that this is a perfect illustration of why people in positions of trust should be very cautious and circumspect about expressing their personal views on issues where they might be conflated with WMF positions -- but that's a tangent we don't have to explore here.) -Pete (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment expressed by John Reaves and add that it's about fucking time. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose May be interesting and important, but do we really want this to be the first thing a parent sees when opening up the 'pedia to help their child with their homework? I know Wikipedia is not censored--nor do I think it should be--but I don't think we need to push highly controversial topics to the front page, which will clearly offend a great deal of the population. Definately will not improve Wikipedia's reputation worldwide. &mdash; Fr&epsilon;ckl&epsilon;fσσt | Talk 16:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting comment referencing Think of the children,, but prior TFAs have included The Human Centipede and Frank's Cock -- how is this more controversial than those? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not really thinking of the children so much as "thinking about Wikipedia's reputation". Neither of those titles are as controversial as the title of this article. &mdash; Fr&epsilon;ckl&epsilon;fσσt | Talk 16:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * , so a film about "a German doctor who kidnaps three tourists and joins them surgically, mouth to anus, forming a 'human centipede'" is more permissible and satisfactory to you to see on the Main Page, than a documentary film examining the censorship and freedom of speech issues surrounding a naughty word? What message does that send to parents of children, ? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow. So did not need to know a movie like that existed. Damaged for life.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Freckfoot - you missed out Gropecunt Lane, which was TFA back in 2009.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw Gropecunt Lane, but I didn't vote on it. The title The Human Centipede itself isn't vulgar or really shocking, though from what I read, the movie's content is. And Frank's Cock could--really--be about some guy's chicken. No other article's TITLE is as directly invective as this one. I still oppose. &mdash; Fr&epsilon;ckl&epsilon;fσσt | Talk 21:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. If children are unscathed by reading about The Human Centipede or, you know, the rest of the entire internet, then this will hardly be the finishing blow.  If the image were of the title in a size 75 bleeding red font, then we would certainly do well to discuss issues of taste and appropriateness.  But here, aside from the fact of a four letter word, there is nothing here to raise alarm bells. I would not be opposed, if a compromise is necessary, with replacing the image with, say File:Perversion-for-Profit-putnam.jpg.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 17:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't run the Putnam frame. For one, Perversion for Profit and Fuck are two different movies. We don't want to confuse people. Plus, why the fuck wouldn't we run a little animation by Bill Plympton? When things like these are public domain, we gotta use 'em.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 17:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with this comment by, above. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please note,, that I replaced the prior cartoon image, with File:Fuck film interview grid.tif. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 *  Support  Wikipedia's not fucking censored, so why the fuck not ? KoshVorlon . We are all Kosh   17:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Precisely because Wikipedia is not censored. Don't glamorize " affirmative censorship " under the macho guise of refusing to be censored. They are mirror images of the same despicable beast!—John Cline (talk) 09:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support as it is a fine article about an educational film. Opposes are unconvincing. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Am I the only one seeing a potential disaster here. Yes Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and its a film about free speech however Do we want to Drop the F-Bomb on the main page. It could get very nasty and lose wikipedia lots of credibility.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Gropecunt Lane has previously been a front-page feature. There were a total of two pieces of media coverage that I know of: Popbitch and an approving tweet from Stephen Fry. And that was early September, at the tail end of silly season. The ComCom list collectively cringed, but there was no measurable impact on reputation and I literally haven't heard about the fact of it being featured since (externally, anyway; it was mentioned in passing during the image filter discussions). It's only a single data point, but I don't personally expect a disaster.
 * Note - this is just a comment on the "disaster" question, not whether it's a good idea for a feature, I'm personally neutral on that - David Gerard (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think there is a difference between gratuitously dropping an f-bomb (which several comments thus far have done), and using the word in context. This is a very good article about an important topic. Yes, people will complain, and while they will do so because they can't move their mind past the word and focus on the message, I don't find this to be a credible reason to prevent it from running. Resolute 22:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support running this as a TFA, possibly for a July 3 anniversary of FCC v. Pacifica. However, because the film used posters with "F&#9733;ck" (or "F٭ck", etc. - some tinkering may be required), it seems acceptable to me to use this bowdlerization of the title in the TFA to be a bit less shocking to some.  However, it would still contain one unambiguous reference to Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties (a title I'd prefer to see reproduced in full) as well as one or two to "fuck" as an English word.  If that trips off stupid censorware ... well, we already have some issues with that; it wouldn't be anything new.  We shouldn't pretend to parents that Wikipedia is 'child safe' when anyone in the world can edit it and arrange via talk page or email to meet with your kid at the local art museum or library.  So an occasional shot over the bow like this, I think, can actually be more helpful than harmful. Wnt (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, much appreciated. I've tweaked the blurb to include the full title of the book Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties, per this suggestion by . The blurb total characters is still within satisfactory guidelines. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As explained in the article, "F★ck" is not an actual alternative title; its appearance in some marketing materials (necessitated by outside restrictions) is an example of the very type of censorship that the film's producer/director opposes and seeks to criticise. (This was discussed at User talk:Jimbo Wales, with Wnt's position shifting away from favoring such a solution.)  —David Levy 19:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - I don't actually say the word fuck in real life but that doesn't prevent me from supporting this for a shot on the main page. Though I may also a bit excited to read the talk page comments on its big day. A bit something to look forward to on a stressful day. GamerPro64  04:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, after much thought. The "opposes" have merit, and support-rationales like: "Wikipedia's not fucking censored so why the fuck not?", are IMO unhelpful, and misrepresent WP:NOTCENSORED. That said, I have been swayed by the talk-page discussion. This is a high-quality article about a serious topic. As for the WMF, while I suppose they theoretically could put a stop to this, I reject the notion that their prior approval is required here. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Why ever not? Sure, we have no obligation to exercise our right to free speech, but that doesn't mean we have an obligation to censor ourselves, right? Double sharp (talk) 10:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak support, decent article, we're not censored, it should technically be fine. My main concern as Iridescent intelligently puts across though is the possible backlash. It could result in thousands of schools or whatever banning wikipedia for their students which I think in terms of our wider goal to make knowledge universally accessible would be very disappointing and damaging to education. Obviously we can't hold off putting any article on the front page which contains a naughty word, but I do think this requires more thought on possible effects. As Wnt says though perhaps using the same approach as the posters F★ck would be the best way to approach it.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Article of high quality.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - High quality article. Freedom of speech. Period. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - I find the argument about triggering filters to be unconvincing-- WP contains adult content and should already trigger such filters.   The article has high encyclopedic value.  Let it run. --HectorMoffet (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Do all visitors go through the Main Page, even? I don't always. (And also, it's going to be a fun day looking at the comments...) Double sharp (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support with the current blurb. If the blurb used "fuck" in every sentence, or if we had just run Dick (film) the week before, this would be an oppose. - Dank (push to talk) 15:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support – Wikipedia should not be censored.   Cassianto Talk   16:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: As an unusual topic, would it be appropriate to be the one for April 1 this year? Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I could support that. - Dank (push to talk) 17:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply: I'd rather not have it for that date. The article treats the topics of freedom of speech and censorship in an insightful manner. Also, there are other dates available before that one. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Definitely not. It is incredible that it is even being contemplated. Extremely poor judgement by all concerned. 86.160.223.11 (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support School censorship/filtering facilities quite regularly block access to Wikipedia (or parts of it) for all manner of bizarre and incoherent reasons, and it's not like this will make any difference. The solution to the filtering/censoring issue is addressing those who make the censorship decisions, not self-censoring ourselves because we're afraid of the censors disapproving of us. There is simply no substantive or clearly articulated disadvantage to having this article as a TFA. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Blatantly obvious troll. Carrite (talk) 04:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply: I strongly dispute this WP:NPA comment. My quality contributions on the subject matter of freedom of speech include the WP:FA quality article Freedom for the Thought That We Hate and the WP:GA quality article Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support WP:DGAF. I'm not a usual TFA participant so take my !vote only as thinking that it's no big deal for this to be on the main page; but I have no comment on the actual article's suitability.--v/r - TP 04:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In all the commotion over the appropriateness of the article, there are dead links in it. --Rschen7754 04:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply: Thank you, no more dead links. :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I support that Wikipedia is not censored, yet I echo the sentiments above that this could be a PR disaster as far as schools blocking Wikipedia or parents banning their kids from using it, etc. Even if that happens just once, it inhibits the ideal that Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia from which anyone can access knowledge. Moreover, I have considered the arguments in favor of support, and though there are some that have merit, a lot of them seem to essentially say Wikipedia is not ___________ censored, so why the ___________ not. This could have wide-reaching consequences, and though some would say that is the price we pay, we can avoid paying it. If this article must run, I would support suggestions made by Dr. Blofeld to "bleep" out the word; at least it would cover Wikipedia's rear end and offer some consolation to an angry parent. Let me close by saying that I support free speech, and applaud Cirt's efforts on improving its coverage, but to me the negative consequences of inhibiting free dissemination of information to everyone outweigh the value of plastering the f-bomb on the front page of the world's sixth most visited site, and one widely used by the entire world, including elementary school kids.  Go  Phightins  !  04:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As noted, above, TFA has already featured high quality articles with naughty words and/or concepts, including Gropecunt Lane, The Human Centipede and Frank's Cock. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, I do not believe that it is a good idea to put this one on the main page. Moreover, I did not comment on the prior two, and am not sure what I would have said. To me, plastering the f-bomb on the main page, though I understand and support your tenacity in maintaining free speech, inhibits the free culture movement we try to promote.  Go  Phightins  !  05:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose for a random day/Support for 225th anniversary of the first amendment on September 25 This is not a random TFA and it should not be presented on a random day. If there is not a "Freedom of Speech Day" then put it on the main page on the 225th anniversary of the first amendment in September.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I really think the article should be available to appear on a non-specific-date, which is why I nominated it for consideration as such. It's not a random TFA but it is a high quality FA page and should be allowed to appear at TFA, particularly with regard to the amount of Support shown, above. That being said, there are several relevant dates related to freedom of speech, including the U.S. Supreme Court ruling of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which was decided on 9 March 1964. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The Alien and Sedition Acts expired on 3 March 1801, that'd be another interesting date to use. Freedman v. Maryland was decided on 1 March &mdash; that relates directly to the attempted censorship of certain films. American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland was decided 19 March. Just some other possible date options. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * After looking more closely, I see that Bill of Rights was submitted to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789, and adopted on December 15, 1791. I prefer latter of these two dates, but maybe in the next 34.5 months there might be a better Bill of Rights related FA developed. I am not as intimate with Freedom of Speech as Cirt, but I think this should be date-requested rather than Non-specific date-requested. I'd like to see this on a Freedom of Speech date.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * , - I think if there is a claim of "relevant date" it should be a directly relevant date to the specific subject being nominated--i.e. NY Times v. Sullivan should run on its directly relevant date, not Fuck running on a date relevant only because it's collaterally related to NY Times v. Sullivan by being remotely associated by both sharing the free speech/media category. I think the claim of "well, we can run Fuck on a bunch of dates that are relevant to other free speech subjects is entirely not cogent for me. That being said. Supporting for one date but opposing for others based on such a specious reason is disingenuous. You either support it being TFA or you don't. Given that none of the dates (on either of your sides) are directly relevant, claiming that "I'll support if for date A, but not date B" is an entirely irrelevant argument. By the same logic (reductio ad absurdam), any day can be Fuck's TFA day just because free speech is still the law and used vigorously every day.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright,, you make a good argument, thank you. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * - That's all this barely functional drunk can try to do. :) --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * , disingenuous is a bit strong. I do believe that there have been several things put on the main page only because they made sense for certain dates. Mostly, these were April Fools related, but I believe there have been others. To say, Fuck is related to Freedom of Speech and New York Times Co. v. Sullivan is related to Freedom of Speech. Does not mean that they are related to each other. The fact that they may not be related to each other does not lessen the linkage of either to Freedom of Speech, which is inimately related to the Bill of Rights. That said, I think this is a controversial nominee and would have a stronger case for the main page with a date relation. Because it would be stronger with a date relation, it is not incredible that one could support it with a dater request and oppose it without one. However, since Fuck does not even link First Amendment in the article I am not sure what date I should really be supporting.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * A date relation implies something obvious as a connexion. Claiming "we're celebrating Fuck because of free speech on the date for New York Times v. Sullivan, or because the first amendment was ratified, is not obvious and I doubt anyone would ever see such a remote, loose association. Further, in the Fuck article, you don't see discussion of tangents or unconnected material that such a date relation would be based on in a way that would be obvious or apparent to an average drive-by reader. Now, if FCC allowed the word fuck to be used on television and made an announcement on a specific date, that would be less remote and far more relevant, and entirely suitable date association. However, the date relations proposed are entirely specious and so distant a connexion--making such a vote of opposition or support based on such date relations essentially meaningless.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, you aren't the arbiter of what makes a person "reasonable". LGBT topics offend many readers, so should we bar articles about LGBT people from appearing on the main page? The display of photographs of unveiled women (or even women in general) is highly objectionable to members of some religious groups. Should that be barred too? Or have you deemed such persons/groups "unreasonable"? —David Levy 19:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, per WP:NOTCENSORED and several comments above. I do not believe that this will be the PR disaster that some predict, but even if I did think so, I would still support on principle. I like the idea of a specific day as suggested by above, but I am not opposed to this being up on any given day. And no, this is not trolling,  this is a serious article with much work in it, as anyone should be able to see from examining the article. DES (talk) 08:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it wasn't a well done article or that it was not an encyclopedic topic, only that it is an obvious troll to be running this particular item on the main page. I mean an obvious troll... I don't fucking care about the word fuck, but we should not be running an article with that title on the mainpage. This should be obvious to mature people. But it's all about shock value and "don't censor me, maaaaaaaan!" Which is a really junior high school perspective, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, anyone who disagrees with you on this matter is immature. Sheesh.  —David Levy 19:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * More: Running through the main page is not optional, see. We are forcing content upon people which reasonable people would find objectionable. Someone clicking on oral sex and finding words or images that might offend many or most is one thing; clicking on www.wikipedia.org to be "don't censor me, maaaaaaaan!"-ed to make a point is quite another. Carrite (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Reasonable people" find all sorts of material objectionable. We've run TFA blurbs about gruesome murders and cannibalism, but the word "fuck" is off-limits?
 * I rather think that's the irony people have been bringing up: the film is anti-censorship, and it's being censored. As for how "mature" a subject must be... do you really think this article (or the film itself) is not a mature treatment of the subject matter? Or that the blurb is immature? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about the maturity level of man-children who think this is an appropriate title for the mainpage of the 6th most visited website in the world. The article is fine. The topic is fine. The treatment is fine. Even the word is fine, for many people, including myself. But it's a blatant provocation here... Carrite (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In case there was any doubt that your use of the word "troll" constituted a personal attack, you've now labeled fellow editors "man-children". How, in your view, is this constructive?  —David Levy 19:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's fucking ridiculous. Don't be a fucking baby. You're fucking cool, Cirt, but you're trolling and you know it. xoxo, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ... Sigh. I think the troll here starts with the letter C, alright, but the name is closer to automobile. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, behave. And try harder to AGF, Carrite. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I am glad, I will not make the call, TFAR Director. But I do not think the idea that there will be blowback, is something you can dismiss as easily as others, not in your editorial chair.  Is this "a troll" as in its posting on the main page is needlessly provocative, your call.  I will note, ways have been suggested above that may limit the provocation: character script and timing.  Good luck. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think calling a long-time contributor on free speech issues, and a frequent participant here at TFA/R a "troll" is a needless personal attack. WTF?--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * WTF, indeed. Did you not read my comment? Nothing said in my comment called any person a troll, whether posting on the main page maybe seen as needlessly provocative is what I explicitly referred to.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * - Sorry Dude, but when I read your statement as written, it carries the implication of you passive-aggressively associating the nominator with being "a troll" for nominating something you claim is needlessly provocative--and I usually give people a lot of latitude with heated comments, but this one smacks of a back-handed personal attack. It's the second time someone has used the word "troll" with regard to the character of this nomination. As the Russians say, Nye sluchaino (it is not an accident)--the term is never thrown around lightly, there is always intent, and usually intent to ridicule something or intimidate someone into silence by the term--so watch your tone and word choice.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, if you are sorry, I accept that you make unfounded implications, which deserve apology. "It" as referred to in my post is not any person. But don't try to silence me because of your blatant misreading, which make your lectures on tone worthless. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll ignore your arrogant ramblings, since they smack of the condescension typical of a 14-year old brat.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your ridiculously pompous, hypocritical post is not ignoring. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, yeah, yeah, kick rocks.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your above comments are uncalled-for, ColonelHenry. And I do think that you misread Alanscottwalker's message.  —David Levy 19:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Misreading or not (as his comment, given the word's connotation, can be read several ways), some would perceive it as a personal attack (as I and likely others have read it). ASW should have been a little more cautious with such a loaded word. And the petulance in his attitude for being called out for such an flippant remark is far more uncalled-for. I couldn't care less whether you disagree with my comments.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Carrite's use of the word "troll" was ambiguous (and regardless of whether it was intended to describe Cirt or Cirt's action, it entailed the assumption of bad faith). Conversely, not only was Alanscottwalker unambiguously referring to an action (as the alternative doesn't make sense in the sentence's context), but he clearly was quoting the earlier use of the word "troll" (hence the quotation marks) while explaining that the relevant issue raised at that point is whether running the article as TFA would be "needlessly provocative".
 * Keep in mind that I support the nomination. But lashing out at editors who disagree is highly counterproductive.  I find it remarkable that you questioned Alanscottwalker's maturity (by comparing him to "a 14-year old brat") and then replied with "Yeah, yeah, yeah, kick rocks."  Does that strike you as a mature response?  —David Levy 20:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, for your kind comments about my contributions along the topic of freedom of speech, much appreciated. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose because it's a hastily thrown-together attempt to make a point (which isn't the purpose of the main page) and in my view the point, freedom of speech, is lost in the shock value. WP:Otherstuffexists isn't a valid argument here, but WP:Commonsense is. Furthermore, 's point is valid as are those of the other opposers. Why alienate academia and schools and undermine the outreach efforts of those who are trying to convince that Wikipedia is appropriate in schools? If the main page is to be used to make a point about freedom of speech, then other articles (George Orwell's 1984, say) would be better - only problem is they need to be worked to FA status! Finally, the "fuck yes" !votes aren't convincing and the irony isn't lost when in our own house the word often elicits blocks. In other words, not a good idea. Victoria (tk) 17:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Intersting. Could you please show me evidence that this is a "hastily thrown-together attempt to make a point"? Thanks, Resolute 22:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that this entry was chosen with the aim of highlighting WikiProject Freedom of speech. The article passed FA and so is clearly eligible for TFA, and I don't have an issue with the article or the word itself - it's quite an interesting article. I've not articulated well, but in my view, the shock value of the word could very well overshadow the more important issue of freedom of speech, and so, again in my view, a better candidate might be found to highlight the issue. That's all I'm trying to say - and not saying it well. But I can live with that. Victoria (tk) 22:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * , thank you for highlighting my efforts to improve the coverage of freedom of speech and censorship on Wikipedia. Among my quality contributions on the subject of freedom of speech and censorship include the book Freedom for the Thought That We Hate, which appeared on the Main Page as TFA. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't deny that running this article as TFA would trigger controversy and criticism. As I noted below, I regard this concern as valid. But having weighed the pros and cons, I believe that suppressing the article from TFA would be more detrimental than beneficial. —David Levy 20:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC) , which expounded on what you wrote above, was "I'm not changing my opinion on this, I don't see why you continue to ask me to." I'm not asking you to change your opinion. I'm explaining my disagreement (and not purely for your benefit, as others will read this discussion). —David Levy 20:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Had you only written that (rather than simultaneously asking "why [we should] run this when we can run one of the other thousands of Featured Articles we have on the site"), I'd have had no reason to reply.
 * Support running it on a specific day related to censorship / freedom of speech as mentioned by Tony. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support The article itself is fine. If it attracts the attention of the media and schoolkids then that's a good thing as they'll be directed to sober, well-written content that might actually make them think about freedom of speech and censorship. Heck of a lot better than how everyone (including kids) usually hears the word used. -- Neil N  talk to me  18:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - TFA is for Featured Articles, and this is a perfectly fine Featured Article. However, putting this on the main page would be kinda like ABC changing the name of their show to "Good Fucking Morning America" for one day. I mean, the FCC has restrictions for a reason. T  C  N7 JM  19:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Mentioning a notable film titled Fuck isn't analogous to arbitrarily inserting the word "fuck" into a preexisting title for no apparent reason. A better analogy would be one in which a US broadcast network airs the film Fuck without censoring the title.  But that still doesn't hold up, as Wikipedia isn't a US-specific entity and explicitly lacks such restrictions.  And even the FCC permitted NBC to run the film Schindler's List "with full-frontal nudity, violence and profanity" intact.  —David Levy 19:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And look at all the controversy and criticism that stirred up. Besides, that isn't even the same thing; parents can prevent their children from watching Schindler's List, but putting a random profanity on the Main Page would be unexpected to many parents. I have absolutely no problem with this being a Featured Article, and I would like it to be on the Main Page, but I'm just afraid it would backfire too much. T  C  N7 JM  19:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It isn't a "random profanity". It's the film's title.  If this were a proposal to place the message "Welcome to fucking Wikipedia" at the top of the main page, I'd be the among first to express opposition.
 * Sure it's random. Why run this when we can run one of the other thousands of Featured Articles we have on the site? But it's obvious we disagree with each other, so I'll just agree to disagree with you. T  C  N7 JM  20:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I meant that using the word "Fuck" in reference to a film titled Fuck isn't random. The argument that we "can run one of the other thousands of featured articles we have on the site" is applicable to any article.  You're applying it to this one on the basis that some readers find the word "fuck" objectionable.  As I noted elsewhere in this discussion, people/groups find all sorts of material objectionable.  (I cited specific examples above, and I'm curious as to how you would react if someone applied the same argument to one of them.)  —David Levy 20:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, using "fuck" in this context isn't random, and while it is our right to do so, and I don't find this offensive whatsoever, I just don't think emblazoning this word on the Main Page is in the best interests of the encyclopedia because too many people are going to find it offensive. And you know how Wikipedia reacts to even non-offensive TFAs; I remember this past summer when people would go insane just because they thought TFA was US-centric. I see it this way: it's our right to run offensive content, but it's also the right of other readers to stop using Wikipedia to find information if it offends them, and this isn't something that just one group or a few people here and there find offensive, this is something that the wide majority of people probably would not want children to see upon opening up Wikipedia. I'm not changing my opinion on this. T  C  N7 JM  20:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know what percentage of readers would find the proposed TFA blurb offensive. I do know that many people (not just one group or a few people here and there) find homosexuality highly objectionable and wouldn't want their children to encounter anything related to it on Wikipedia's main page.  So why run an article about a gay person when we can run one of the other thousands of featured articles we have on the site?
 * And didn't I already say we should just agree to disagree? Why are still having this conversation? T  C  N7 JM  20:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to disengage from the discussion, feel free. If you prefer to ask questions and argue your position, please don't complain when I respond in kind. —David Levy 21:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Just last month, Cirt and I were on opposite sides in a debate about whether to run certain material on the main page (which Cirt supported and I opposed). Despite our strong disagreement, at no point did I doubt that Cirt was acting in good faith. Do you know what offends me? The suggestion that nominating an article whose subject matter "reasonable people would find objectionable" constitutes a "blatantly obvious troll" (i.e. that Cirt's motive clearly is to ruffle feathers, not to improve the encyclopedia). I didn't intend to participate in this debate, but after reading that, I felt obliged to speak up. A while back, someone included the word "fuck" in a DYK item to which it was only tangentially relevant, apparently for the reasons that Carrite has described (shock value / a desire to prove that Wikipedia isn't censored). This is not such an instance. We have a featured article about a notable work titled "Fuck". The word "fuck" is an intrinsic element. Wikipedia (including the main page) unavoidably contains all sorts of material that "reasonable people" find objectionable. Regarding the date, one relevant to the topics of free speech and censorship might be appropriate, but I don't regard this as essential. And I don't think that it would lessen the potential backlash, as it might leave the impression that Wikipedia has decided to mark the day by deliberately selecting special material for the express purpose of provoking controversy. (Conversely, running the article on an unrelated date would help to convey that we're treating it like we would any other encyclopedic topic.) —David Levy 19:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support I Think some people are overreacting. Like seriously, the article is good. And I think its a bit mean to say that Cirt is trying to troll Wikipedians by having a possibly controversial article on the main page. Really, people will have to accept it, the world wont explode. Beerest 2 talk 19:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. As one of the authors of Gropecunt Lane, which appeared on the main page a few years ago, in 2009 I think, I really don't see the problem. Eric   Corbett  19:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. As I noted on Jimbo's talk page, concerns regarding unintended fallout are not without merit.  But some of the other opposition (particularly Carrite's) has convinced me that supporting this is important.
 * Support. The principle that Wikipedia is not censored (that is, that we don't omit content because some may find it morally or otherwise objectionable) applies to all parts of Wikipedia, including the main page. The article is appropriate for readers of all ages. No other arguments for not using this as "today's featured article" have been presented.  Sandstein   19:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support I can't see a good reason why an article worked up to FA quality(!) should be censored from the main page.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  19:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Mostly per Carrite, though I wouldn't accuse the creator of trolling. Who doesn't want there article on the main page? But, as many people won't read past the title: (a) WP:NOTCENSORED is not as relevant here as is WP:ASTONISH. The main page is Wikipedia's equivalent of a title page. People read it whether they like it or not. (And yes, I would have opposed any of the other examples given above.) Put it anywhere but on the main page. (b) Whatever the article's writers' intentions, putting this on the main page looks like advocacy at first sight, and that, frankly, seems to be why many of the supporters supporting. The free use of profanity is a very divisive issue, and Wikipedia should not be choosing sides. (WP:NOTCENSORED, in my view, is an extension of the only legitimate advocacy on Wikipedia: the dissemination of knowledge.) (c) Consider Wikipedia's reputation, especially if the media catches wind of this, per Iridescent 2 and Frecklefoot. (d) Please consider the discomfort of Wikipedia's editors. The few people who know that I edit Wikipedia are likely to make nasty remarks if this hits the main page, and I can hardly be unique in this respect. Your Very Humble Sock, vshvsh, a legitimate sockpuppet 19:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC) P.S. I am commenting here with my sock per point (d) above.
 * Advocacy? Seriously? We are advocating for every topic we put up at TFA? There goes any chance of any military article becoming a TFA. -- Neil N  talk to me  19:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, people offended by profanity will probably not read past the title, and will walk away with the impression that Wikipedia wantonly puts profanity on the main page. There are very few topics whose names look like advocacy. vshvsh, a legitimate sockpuppet 19:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Vshvsh...would you rather live in a world where the Philistines determine what people who may want to learn something have access to? Because that seems to be the very mentality the film points out...People who judge a book by its cover or an article by its title probably should be cleaned out of the gene pool...they aren't the people for whom dedicated edtors write articles and strive to get them up to FA status.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Vshvsh, that's not what you implied. You seemed to say Wikipedia was knowingly advocating for a position. -- Neil N  talk to me  19:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read the first line of my original post. (Admittedly, I did not make my point clear. I added the comment about not reading past the title immediately before posting and well after drafting my oppose, due to multiple edit conflicts. Hence the unclear writing.) vshvsh, a legitimate sockpuppet 20:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that small minded fools exist is not in and of itself a reason to censor an article's appearance on the main page. Likewise, I don't find the rest of your complaint credible either.  I don't buy WP:ASTONISH because the basis of a TFA appearance has always been article quality and diversity of topics.  Any FA does (or should) be eligible and it would be more astonishing to me to prevent the article from running.  The advocacy argument is equally absurd. Running a Final Fantasy themed TFA does not advocate in favour of that video game series, for instance.  Wikipedia's "reputation" seems to be incredibly malleable.  It is as good or as bad as any complainer wants it to be.  Not to mention that the arguments about reputation, schools, academia, etc are all rooted in a begging the question fallacy. Resolute 22:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support: Why not? WP:NOTCENSORED.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 21:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support I, for one, am accusing Cirt of being a troll. The thing here is, Cirt made efforts with the understanding that FA's are featured on the Main Page. The community has no business ignoring our usual practices because someone might be offended. If the consensus is to institute censorship on the Main Page, the start an RfC. You don't currently have an option to not feature this article.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Would File:Fuck film interview grid.tif or File:Fuck film poster.jpg work best for the blurb? They could tie in to discussion of attempts to censor the film and (as an added benefit) not offend as many people as the current illustration. Those of you saying Cirt's trolling: I must be a troll too, having gotten Frank's Cock through FAC. So admins troll now? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That rhetorical question sounds like an invitation for the Wikipediocracy messageboard crew to stop by en masse and air their whiny grievances. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, for your recommendation to change the blurb image. Per your suggestion, I've swapped it to File:Fuck film interview grid.tif. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Oppose and trout whoever thought that making this article a featured article on any day would be a good idea. Unless you plan on full protecting the article (and thereby breaking the encyclopedia that anybody can edit) for ~3 months before and after the FA gets it's day in the sun, all you do is invite juvenile vandalism and all sorts of invitations to use the word out of context. Hasteur (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Might want to use that trout on yourself. "Breaking the encyclopedia..." Overdramatize, much? -- Neil N  talk to me  02:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Misread (and assume bad faith) often? I said Break the encyclopedia that anybody can edit to harp on the current argument de jour that the most sacred policy is that we're supposed to let anybody edit anything they wish. Hasteur (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine. "Break the encyclopedia that anybody can edit". Overdramatize much? First, you have no proof the article would require full protection for that long (if it all). Fuck, the top hit on Google for that word, has gotten by on semi for years. Second, I doubt that any reasonable editor would consider fully protecting one article as "breaking the encyclopedia". If this idea had any support, we'd have ANI threads every time an article was fully protected to stop edit warring or salted. And rumblings every time something was semi'd. -- Neil N  talk to me  15:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Regarding the date, and the reason to go with a non-specific date, I agree with this comment by : "Regarding the date, one relevant to the topics of free speech and censorship might be appropriate, but I don't regard this as essential. And I don't think that it would lessen the potential backlash, as it might leave the impression that Wikipedia has decided to mark the day by deliberately selecting special material for the express purpose of provoking controversy.  (Conversely, running the article on an unrelated date would help to convey that we're treating it like we would any other encyclopedic topic.)" My thanks to  for this clear and cogent rationale for a non-specific date. Thank you, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I feel like it's very unlikely that there will be any significant "backlash" either way and I'm not sure a decision should be made based on second-guessing how people might feel about it anyway, but this is a pretty solid point. I'd counter, however, by saying that it's not like we're nominating Fuck, which is just about the word itself - this is a film about censorship that has a deliberately provocative name, and is honestly a very good fit for the FCC vs Pacifica anniversary. Waiting for an appropriate anniversary like that could at least be taken as a gesture that we're allowing the anti-cursing squads to save face in some way, since it is more explicit that it is being posted in spite of its (wholly appropriate) name, not because of its name. I think that 's argument is more appealing to us Free Speech types who by our nature likely think, "As a rational adult, I don't care whether the word 'Fuck' is in this article, I should analyze it independent of that." 0x0077BE (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I don't believe in censoring Wikipedia, but I also think running this on the main page will be counter-productive to our mission, as it will certainly cause a backlash in some communities and result in calls for Wikipedia to be blocked. If you oppose censorship, why would you want to instigate it? Ultimately, being able to provide free knowledge to more people is more important than what we run on the main page. Kaldari (talk) 03:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - It's not 1950 anymore. It's a word. Who cares? People that still refer to body parts as "Mr. Tinkle" and "hoo-haa". If governments in Africa and Asia block Wikipedia for it, it's their loss, not ours. They can continue to live in the dark ages and have few if any topics covered by this encyclopedia for the sake of a four-letter word. -  Floydian  τ ¢  03:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I find it rather disturbing that you consider "us" to exclude Africa and Asia. Who exactly is "us"? Kaldari (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I read that as "us" = "Wikipedia" and "them" = "governments ... [that] block Wikipedia". I didn't read his comment as the "us" excluding people from other continents.  Imzadi 1979  →   21:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - it's a good article and anyone who opposes this must be a prude Hierophant443 (talk) 06:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: If this does go ahead to become a TFA, it will be interesting to see if the sky falls down in the way that some of the oppose votes have suggested. Wikipedia already contains many articles with controversial content (sexual material, swear words, cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad etc) and the sky has not fallen down. It is therefore hard to see why having an article which already exists as the TFA is such a big deal.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's one thing to have articles and featured articles on controversial topics. It's another to deliberately jab a stick into someone's eye because you're trying to make a WP:POINT by having a controversial topic be the featured article for a day. Hasteur (talk) 15:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is effectively the same as saying that there should be a two-tier system for Featured Articles because somebody might be offended by seeing something on the Main Page. The implication that Cirt has acted in bad faith by nominating this for TFA is wrong and should be rejected. A lot of the oppose votes are WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT rather than policy based.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, much appreciated, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Can those of you alleging bad-faith motives please explain why? I haven't always agreed with Cirt, but I've observed nothing but courtesy, collegiality and dedication to Wikipedia's betterment.  Have your experiences differed from mine, or are your assumptions based on the premise that this nomination has no conceivable good-faith rationale?  —David Levy 18:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support No issues here, concerns about "blacklists" and super-sensitive filters are misplaced. If you think schools blacklist any page containing a naughty word, you haven't spent much time fighting vandalism from school IPs. benmoore 18:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, but maybe they only censor incoming naughty words, not outgoing ones? Just think, if that were true, it means vandals who add naughty words to articles quite often never even get to see the results of their work, and maybe even think that their edit failed when it didn't... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm also curious as to how far you believe we should go to ensure that "offensive" material doesn't appear on the main page. For example, many individuals/cultures regard homosexuality as highly objectionable. Does running an article about a gay person demonstrate "very bad taste"? —David Levy 23:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Naughty words don't belong on the main page. Let someone be surprised by WP:NOTCENSORED later.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 21:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Censoring the Main Page is a form of censorship - not as severe as censoring content from the whole encylopaedia, but nonetheless contrary to the spirit of WP:NOTCENSORED. This article should be treated no differently to any other FA. As David Levy has pointed out, offensiveness is culturally relative, so if we start making judgements about it then we will be getting into a minefield. Indeed attitudes to the word "fuck" vary between societies. I was rather surprised by the suggestions that this will lead to widespread outrage - I find it hard to imagine that it would cause such outrage here in New Zealand. Perhaps it's more of an American thing - attitudes to swearing seem more conservative there, from what I've read. But we shouldn't be imposing one country's values on the encyclopaedia. As for the kids, I'm pretty sure they'll already be familiar with the word. Neljack (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. It is not a matter of supposed censorship, or even of prudity, but of very bad taste. And even unwise, in that excessive enlightenment at Wikipedia makes the word no less offensive elswhere. As Hasteur said, the proposal seems to be deliberate jab to make a WP:POINT about WP:NOTCENSORED.  ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As I've done above, I request that you explain how you've arrived at this conclusion regarding Cirt's motive.
 * I am more curious to know how it is bad taste to run an article about a movie that deals with censorship. I am, of course, not surprised since I predicted very early in this debate that many of the responses would prove to be ironic. Resolute 03:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - On the contrary, not publishing the article just because of the word fuck would reflect badly upon Wikipedia. P. S. Burton  (talk)  01:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Opppose per NOTCENSORED and the Main Page. And also because... you are being trolled, people. Trust me on this one. I don't like that and neither should you. Since we don't really need to feature the article -- it's not like if we don't promote this article there's going to a big blank space there -- let's not. That it's controversial and distressing to many is a bad sign in itself. Even if you think that people who are or would be distressed by this are morons and egregious prigs, they're still your colleagues and our readers, so let's not do this. Herostratus (talk) 03:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Even if you think that people who are or would be distressed by this are morons and egregious prigs, they're still your colleagues and our readers, so let's not do this." - Without approving of your choice of words, I should note that this could be used to justify anything. "Let's not run hamburger! Vegetarians, Hindus, and Jains would be offended." "Let's not run Mike Hoolboom! Conservatives would be offended." etc. Where do we draw the line? Also, why is it Cirt is being called a troll for this and nobody brought that up when I proposed Frank's Cock back in November? Double standards much? Or is ABF the name of the game? Also, Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED and the Main Page is an essay. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, "this could be used to justify anything". Anything could be used to justify anything. So what? We're intelligent literate people and we can work these things out. Where to we draw the line? How about here. Lines have to be drawn all the time. It's OK to go 5 miles over the speed limit, it's not OK to go 50 miles over the speed limit, we draw these lines every day. Life is complicated! Get used to it! Cirt is being called a troll because everybody understands that Cirt combines stretches of productive editing with mad bouts of Beavis-like trollery. Who knows why. He's been doing this forever, take my word for it, or look up the Santorum thing and his work on the other WMF projects and yadda yadda. It's his prerogative to do this I guess but my prerogative not to care for having my chain yanked. Herostratus (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunately true I got into some kerfuffles prior to recent productive editing. I've shifted my focus towards generalist quality improvement projects related to freedom of speech. My successful quality improvement projects on the subject of freedom of speech and censorship include the Featured Article, Freedom for the Thought That We Hate, and multiple WP:GA pages including Beyond the First Amendment, Free Speech, "The People's Darling Privilege", and Freedom of Expression. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - My deference to my respected colleagues, but I believe this is perfectly acceptable for the main page. To quote Harry Potter (or, rather, Hermione), "Fear of a name only increases fear of the thing itself." That's what we're doing here. We're so worried that a name (Fuck) will cause "the end of Wikipedia" or issues with censors that we are increasing the mystique of the word fuck itself, making it seem even scarier than it would be otherwise. Ironically, that's what this film was made to combat: "fuck" is a word, one often censored but highly evocative (and provocative), one which has lost much of its impact in the past 30 years. For those of you depending on a think of the children argument, it's been established numerous times that Wikipedia is not meant for children, but rather as a general reference work: this will, by necessity, include topics which parents may not want to expose younger children to, including the Holocaust, sexuality, torture, rape, and swear words. Preventing these topics from reaching the main page will not prevent children from learning about them, or looking them up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually I think you'll find that was Dumbledore's line! Neljack (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought! (Opens Philosopher's Stone again). Although IMDB has her saying it in the film of Chamber of Secrets, so that might be what I (mis)remembered. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Fuck no!—per Freedom of Speech.—John Cline (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support but would prefer to see [[Media:Fuck film interview grid.tif]] used as the image instead of the "cartoon" one currently selected. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 03:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. I've changed to the image you suggested. Thank you,, for this helpful recommendation, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You noted that many people find the word "fuck" offensive and therefore won't expect to find it on Wikipedia's main page. But as noted elsewhere in the discussion, Wikipedia's main page frequently includes subjects that many people find offensive or otherwise objectionable. What else should be barred from appearing? —David Levy 17:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC) So while we probably would receive complaints (as we did in some of those instances), I see no reason to believe that the fallout would be especially severe. —David Levy 18:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - It brings an attention to an educational film reasonably well-written. And children know this word before they can read wikipedia. In fact it will be good for them to learn from a neutral reliable source what they learn in kindergarten from peers. - Altenmann >t 04:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A fine article, an interesting subject, and one, I should note, that I don't find offensive myself. However, I feel the subject is too controversial to put on the main page, for much the same reasons as Kaldari. Herostratus also has a good point about NOTCENSORED and the Main Page. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 05:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 *  Support  for a specific day ( Weak Support  for arbitrary day). I'm a big time free speech advocate and I'm especially puzzled by the fetishism people put on specific words, but this seems like a controversial enough choice that I think it'll be more well received if it's done to draw attention to something timely. (Edit: Reading more carefully, I want to second the July 3rd date to coincide with FCC vs Pacifica. Very appropriate)0x0077BE (talk) 06:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Mainly as per vshvsh (points a and d), Frεcklεfσσt, and iridescent. I don't think there is any dispute that if we want this can be TFA, but the question is whether we think it should, and whether it would harm the project. I see no point in offending people just to prove that we can do so if we wish (this whole thing seems a bit WP:POINTY to be). wikimedia:Resolution:Controversial content makes clear that wikimedia projects are not censored, but also that content on Wikimedia projects should be presented to readers in such a way as to respect their expectations of what any page or feature might contain. Many people are going to open the main page not expecting Fuck -- which many people find offensive -- to be plastered on it. If someone were to put "Fuck" into Google or the search box, then they can't complain when Fuck (film) comes up, but on the main page we're not giving them the freedom to decide whether they (or their children) are exposed to such content. -- Shudde  talk 08:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Despite my continual requests, no one alleging that Cirt's motive is to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point by "offending people just to prove that we can do so if we wish" has explained why he/she believes this. Perhaps you can explain this assumption of bad faith.
 * Support - Frank's Cock and The Human Centipede have appeared on the front page, so this has every right to as well. If this was the first case of a potentially offensive title going on the main page, then some of these people complaining here may have a case, but as it stands, they don't really seem to. The film is all about censorship, so it's ironic that people are trying to censor it to some degree here. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 11:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, but I don't really care that much. I'm not arguing higher principles here. I'm just stating my opinion, because editor opinions are being asked. In my opinion, I don't like the way it would present the project on that day. Take that for whatever it's worth. But nobody is going to die, either way. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Wikipedia is not censored, but we shouldn't be provoking fights either. Although not fatal, I suspect there will be negative consequences (such as possibly a corporate donor to the project who pulls their donations etc.) Dave (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Many subjects are widely regarded as controversial. What else should be barred from appearing on the main page to avoid "provoking fights" and irritating corporate donors?   Articles related to religion, homosexuality, recreational drug use, abortion, etc.?  —David Levy 17:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not so much that its a controversial topic. Freedom of speech isn't controversial in theory, only practice. It's more that it's likely to generate publicity that is not the kind of publicity a site whose goal is to become a respected encyclopedia of the people, by the people and for the people should be seeking. Were we to run, say abortion, on the front page, it would similarly generate publicity. Hopefully most of it would still support our mission of being an encyclopedia, and not result in a negative backlash, presuming the article was balanced (as I'd expect an FA to be). In this case, the publicity would focus on areas that would surely have negative consequences for Wikipedia's reputation. Dave (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I find your position rather curious. The dictionary I have close to hand contains entries for not just fuck but also for fuck about, fucking, fuck off, fucker, fuck up and fuckwit. Was there any public outcry when these words were added to standard dictionaries? Did schools suddenly prevent their students from having access to dictionaries? Eric   Corbett  18:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What's so special about the word "fuck"? As discussed above, we've run Gropecunt Lane, The Human Centipede (First Sequence) and Frank's Cock.  We've run Murder of Julia Martha Thomas, whose blurb indicated that the killer "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" and that "her severed head was only found in October 2010".  We've even run  about a work whose title contains the word "fuck".
 * Support. It's a Wikipedia FA having its fleeting moment of glory. Not to put it on the main page would be censorship. I don't much like the word, but it's common parlance - like it or lump it. If a certain community or cult don't like it, that's sad, but we are all forced to live in the 21st century.  Giano   19:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not censorship, sheesh. It's editorial judgement. There's no outside entity imposing its will here. Really, is "censored" the most overused word or what? We definitely need two words here, one for Czarist goons busting up your printing press with axes and one for when the LA Times decides not to run a picture of a traffic victim in their own paper or whatever. They're pretty different things. For the latter I suggest "editorial discretion" or something. Herostratus (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about a traffic victim here. Not using this on the front page would be self-censorship, which is the strongest form of censorship. --John (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the strongest form of censorship is a Cossack with a machine gun. Herostratus (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, self-censorship is still stronger. A "Cossack with a machine gun" has physical strength, sure, but it won't change who you are... the ethereal self stays untouched. Self censorship, however, destroys the self, making one "the many" and erodes any individuality whatsoever. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * He'll change who you are if he pulls the trigger. That is actually an effective way of destroying the self. This is why Cossacks carry machine guns and not copies of Being and Nothingness. I'm not overly concerned that, if we decide to exercise editorial judgement here, we'll become alienated from our ethereal selves, lose our individual sense of selfhood, and merge into some unspeakable collective lumpenconsciousness, especially considering that anyway the "self" is a construct and doesn't exist as a thing-in-itself, and... and I think you should spend less time at Cambridge wine parties and more time in a cellar in 19th century Poland. Then you won't trivialize the word "censorship". Herostratus (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Cambridge wine parties"? That's... a far call. I appreciate that the threat of physical violence is often an effective one for censorship, but I fail to see how it changes the "self" (not the body, but the mind). Death just means one is not living; most modern religions would not see the manner of death (shot in censorship rather than old age, assuming neither is sinful) as affecting where one goes after death, and for atheists/apatheists, etc., nothingness is nothingness no matter how you die. How one is remembered afterwards, however... that can (in certain cultures) be even more important. Some would rather die and be remembered for standing up for their believes than lose face by complying with censorship under the threat of physical force... self-censorship just means they don't even need to be forced to sell themselves. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support as I hate censorship, hate prudery and appreciate the work that went into making this a FA. Why shouldn't this article have its day in the sun? And if high school teachers are concerned about their students (who all read The Catcher in the Rye) being corrupted by this terrible word, it's an ideal opportunity to teach about the history of taboos and euphemism in the English language. "The F-bomb" indeed. --John (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Oppose (as the article currently stands). On the positive side, there are not a lot of featured articles on linguistic topics, even though this is only indirectly about the word itself. On the negative side, this might be perceived as a lame way of getting the word "fuck" on the main page and reinforce any image people may have of Wikipedia editors as immature males obsessed with certain topics, such as sex and taboo words. It would be interesting to see if it has any effect on vandalism. The article could do with a little more work if it is to be presented as a fine example of a featured article; for instance, I see it currently has Billy Connolly – not generally known as a linguistic authority  – pointing out a couple of things, in particular that "fuck" "sounds exactly like what it is". To me "points out" suggests a statement of fact, or at least a presumption of truth; the cited source uses the more neutral "posits", which seems more appropriate for such a strange claim. And Bill Maher notes that it is "the ultimate bad word", suggesting acceptance of the claim (ignoring any competing claims, for instance from "nigger" and "cunt"). Too many "notes" and "points out" for a featured article, in my opinion. --Boson (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC) [edited after concerns addressed] --Boson (talk) 10:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, for these helpful recommendations on wording changes. I've made the modifications to the article, as you suggested. Thanks again, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Boson, for changing to Support, most appreciated! &mdash; Cirt (talk) 12:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose the image. It only reinforces the idea that putting this on the mainpage is a childish attempt at provocation (and I speak as someone who primarily edits cartooning and comics articles). Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support—the article is no more or less worthy than any other of the backlog of FAs. I don't support the idea of using the article for political or POINTy reasons, even though the politics align with my own.  Running it on a weekend or during summer break may avoid accusations of shoving it into unsuspecting students' (and teachers') faces—though I don't propose to do so.
 * Thank you,, for this helpful recommendation. I've changed the blurb image to File:Fuck film interview grid.tif, per your suggestion, above. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * A most appropriate image, and kudos to Anderson for releasing it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Fix lead - I'm going to admit I can't quite muster up an opinion on whether or not to run this, but if we do, could we reword the lead a bit? Phrases like conceptions surrounding "fuck" read very strangely, and it would work much better as (eg) conceptions surrounding the word "fuck". There's only two uses of the unprefixed word, so it shouldn't lengthen it significantly. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and altogether the blurb has 8 "fuck"s, some of which could change to "the word" or "the film" to soften any potential offence to some readers, and remove repetitiveness. In particular the start: (changes bolded) Fuck is a 2005 American documentary film by director Steve Anderson about the word "fuck". It argues that the word is key to discussions about freedom of speech and censorship. The film features the last interview of author Hunter S. Thompson before his suicide..." Johnbod (talk) 01:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Implemented suggestions by, please see DIFF. Thank you, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 09:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome, ! :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 12:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks both. I don't actually mind the repeated use of "fuck" (the damage is done, if it's problematic!) but it just seemed awkward without the contextual prefix. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Image update: I've changed the image to File:Fuck film interview grid.tif, per TFAR comments about the prior cartoon image, above. Please see DIFF. Thank you, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose for all the reasons already given, most notably WP:ASTONISH. The fact that Wikipedia has a quality article on the subject is great and the author(s) should be commended; however, appearing on the main page is not the "right" of all featured articles, ergo there is no "censorship" involved.  (And the same would apply to DYK, ITN, and OTD.)  This is just vanilla editorial judgement about what's best for the main page, and when you consider the large number of people who would be "astonished" by this, and the fact that Wikipedia has an educational mission which would be interfered with if schools started blocking Wikipedia, the answer seems pretty clear.  Discretion != censorship. SnowFire (talk) 02:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The DYK argument would be incorrect - Niggers in the White House ran less than a year ago.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 02:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And the author of Niggers in the White House was promptly indefblocked as a racist troll trying to use the main page to further his agenda, and shortly afterwards community banned for serial sockpuppetry. Is this really the example you want to be using?188.29.17.115 (talk) 03:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Allow me to clarify: the same should apply to DYK, OTD, ITN, etc. SnowFire (talk) 03:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * John le Fucker ran in DYK on 1 April 2013, and it received some of the fewest complaints (there was also Elvis' Greatest Shit) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You've misunderstood the point regarding past main page content, which we're citing in response to predictions that running this article would have dire consequences. —David Levy 15:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support for, you know, reasons of WP:NOTCENSORED, freedom-of-speech and all that jazz, but Oppose because I don't think it's a very good idea. What does that make me? Neutral? Let's face it, this smacks of activism (and don't get me wrong, I'm love activism) and its commercially a pretty dumb idea for a non-profit which prides itself on being an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Because that means being an encyclopedia that anyone can read (or at least open) comfortably. Do we really want to put parents (and schools, who routinely enforce rules against profanity) in a position where they feel they have to "check" every time their child opens WP to do some basic research. Yeah, yeah, yeah, there's plenty of stuff on WP that parents would want to prevent their kids from seeing and we retain that because that's what an encyclopedia is about - information retention. But at the same time, pushing something onto the front page just to get a rise or prove that we can "stick it to the FCC" gets us immature giggles for about 5 mins, a dressing-down from conservative media for a day and two years worth of paranoid parents refusing to let their children see the rest of the work we all spend time creating. Those who created the movie and those who created the article and got it to FA should get medals, awards and eternal life feasting with the gods in Valhalla. But this probably shouldn't go on the main page and I'd be surprised if the foundation allows it. Stalwart 111  04:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - NOTCENSORED appplies to article content. However, I think it shouldn't apply to the Main page. The point of NOTCENSORED is that we cover all topics, and some can only be covered properly if we keep it with explicit language, references to objectionable ideas, etc. The main page should be clean of that. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The main page should be clean of "references to objectionable ideas"? Would you care to provide some examples?  Off the top of my head, I assume that articles related to evolution, global warming and same-sex marriage are out.  What else?  —David Levy 06:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I've thought about this and I just don't know. On one hand, this is going to offend people, and I can't support it because of that. On the other, it's just the word, and there's nothing else inappropriate about the blurb, so it could be worse. --Rschen7754 06:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Because, fuck it, if we born free, why are we everywhere in fucking chains? fuck. Mrtno (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Wikipedia is not censored, which is a very good thing when trying to learn about any given topic. But not being censored is different from not being classy.  This article obviously has the right to exist in an encyclopedia, but putting it on the home page lacks class.  Many people, including myself, will interpret it as being done for shock value.  Furthermore, an appeal to tradition ("we've featured similar articles before") is a logical fallacy. --Andrew (User:90) (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the point in "We've featured similar content before" was to say that arguments about a backlash or a general policy against featuring "swear words" on the front page are overblown, as there was no significant negative reaction or change in Wikipedia's credibility. The fact that we've featured something else similar is not an argument for featuring something else (i.e. "you featured the article on the pancreas so you MUST feature the article on the liver"), but it is still valid to draw inferences about what will happen if we feature it this time. 0x0077BE (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Now we're allowing only "classy" material on the main page? Whose standard are we applying (yours?) and how is this compatible with WP:NPOV?
 * Indeed. Lets be honest here. "We should censor the main page because this isn't 'classy'" is just another way of saying "we should censor the main page because I find the word offensive".  So no, I do not buy the argument that "not being censored is different from not being classy" in this instance. Resolute 15:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * To take the other side here, I think there is a valid argument from "classiness" to be made. If we decided to feature the article on anal fisting, it would not be the height of tact to have a photo of the act itself in the blurb. That's a completely different story from whether or not we'd be willing to feature the article at all, though. The fact is that some people are uncomfortable with certain topics, and it's courteous to balance their interests against the interests of people who are interested in seeing that content. I think the best road to take is to go the route of minimal imposition - include in the blurb only as much prurient material as is necessary to allow people to make a reasonable choice about whether they'd like more information. Since in this case the title of the film/article is a critical piece of information, it bears including. 0x0077BE (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think NPOV enters into the point I was trying to make. It is not a question of whether there is a specific POV being pushed in the article or in the blurb, such as saying "The film is good" or "The film is bad."  Rather, I think the issue one of good taste.  Is it in good taste to feature this article on the front page of a website visited by all manner of people who will take offense (children, parents, teachers, you-name-it)?  My answer to that question is a definitive "no", which is why I !voted oppose.
 * To David Levy, who said "we're citing [past main page content] in response to predictions that running this article would have dire consequences" - I certainly grant your point there. I was not referring to those of you who are saying "it didn't have dire consequenses last time."  I am referring to those who !vote support with no argument other than "we've featured similar content before."  That is where the appeal to tradition is happening.
 * And one more thing: freedom of speech is a double-sided coin: we are free to say whatever we please, but we are also free to use wisdom in choosing what not to say. Just because we can feature this article on the main page does not mean we should.  If we don't want to be censored (and make no mistake about it, I don't want us to be censored) then we should not handle our freedom of speech in a ham-handed way that is, in my view, bound to lead to cries for various kinds of censorship. --Andrew (User:90) (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The principle that Wikipedia's encyclopedic content is written from a neutral point of view doesn't only mean that whatever individual pieces of material appear must be written a certain way. By that logic, we could simply delete any article that "lacks class".  Then there'd be no "specific POV being pushed in the [nonexistent] article", just as no specific POV will be pushed in the [nonexistent] TFA blurb if it's suppressed from the main page.
 * I ask again: according to whose standard? Yours?
 * Is it in good taste to feature articles about gay people on the front page of a website visited by all manner of people who will take offense (children, parents, teachers, you-name-it)? This isn't a rhetorical question; I'm genuinely interested in your response.  —David Levy 19:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Part 1: I don't have anything to add to the discussion on NPOV other than what I said above, so I will therefore not add it.
 * Part 2: Whose standard of good taste? Mine, yes, but also those of the general readership.  I don't have any statistics to point to, just the general knowledge that there are many people who will find this article to be in poor taste.
 * Part 3: Generally speaking, people offended by a gay-related article would just shake their head and wonder what the world was coming to, whereas someone offended by having what is generally considered obscene language front-and-center would be much more likely to take some kind of action against it: school admins could call for censorship in their district, parents could ban Wikipedia in the home, etc.
 * Yes, we love freedom of speech, but there's no need to do something that comes across as pointy in order to demonstrate our love of the principle. If we love our freedom of speech so much, why would we want to make it look bad by coming across as crass?  As User:SnowFire said well above: Discretion != censorship. --Andrew (User:90) (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that anyone here disputes the claim that "there are many people who will find this article to be in poor taste". The point is that we don't suppress material for that reason.
 * There are many people who will find articles related to violence, sexuality, religion, science, miscegenation, same-sex marriage, and countless other subjects to be in poor taste. Pointing to statistics wouldn't be helpful, as majoritarianism isn't a valid rationale for censorship at Wikipedia.
 * Are you seriously suggesting that persons/groups opposed to homosexuality rarely protest its coverage/depiction in media or attempt to shield children from said material?
 * By the way, you didn't answer my question ("Is it in good taste...?").
 * Why does the main page presentation of this article — rated as one of Wikipedia's finest — come across as pointy to you? —David Levy 21:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Whether a homosexual-themed article would be in good taste would depend entirely on which specific article happened to be up for discussion, so I can't provide a general answer to that question.
 * I am going to bow out of the discussion after re-emphasizing my main point: I do not personally like the movie or the motive behind it. I love freedom of speech, but I hate using shock tactics to defend it.  That just makes those in favor of freedom look bad.  Featuring this article on the main page in order to promote freedom of speech is a tactic that I believe will backfire.
 * I know I haven't answered all your questions, but again, I only intended to make one narrow point. I am simply not a good enough communicater to engage in the broader range of topics that have come up in this discussion.  I am going to step out now. --Andrew (User:90) (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of biographies of gay people. Should you decide to rejoin the discussion, I'd be interested to learn which "homosexual-themed articles" you believe would/wouldn't be in good taste.  —David Levy 22:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, please, which homosexuality-themed articles would be objectionable? Catullus 16, Divine (performer), LGBT in Islam, Oscar Wilde, The Birdcage....from a standpoint of "if these articles were to be promoted to FA...", I don't see a difference in their potential content and think all would be worthy of the TFA spotlight when they get there. For someone who criticized an above argument as "appeal to tradition"...seems to be rushing to claim to speak for a never-existing general will.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Why does the main page presentation of this article — rated as one of Wikipedia's finest — come across as pointy to you? —David Levy 21:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Whether a homosexual-themed article would be in good taste would depend entirely on which specific article happened to be up for discussion, so I can't provide a general answer to that question.
 * I am going to bow out of the discussion after re-emphasizing my main point: I do not personally like the movie or the motive behind it. I love freedom of speech, but I hate using shock tactics to defend it.  That just makes those in favor of freedom look bad.  Featuring this article on the main page in order to promote freedom of speech is a tactic that I believe will backfire.
 * I know I haven't answered all your questions, but again, I only intended to make one narrow point. I am simply not a good enough communicater to engage in the broader range of topics that have come up in this discussion.  I am going to step out now. --Andrew (User:90) (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of biographies of gay people. Should you decide to rejoin the discussion, I'd be interested to learn which "homosexual-themed articles" you believe would/wouldn't be in good taste.  —David Levy 22:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, please, which homosexuality-themed articles would be objectionable? Catullus 16, Divine (performer), LGBT in Islam, Oscar Wilde, The Birdcage....from a standpoint of "if these articles were to be promoted to FA...", I don't see a difference in their potential content and think all would be worthy of the TFA spotlight when they get there. For someone who criticized an above argument as "appeal to tradition"...seems to be rushing to claim to speak for a never-existing general will.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, please, which homosexuality-themed articles would be objectionable? Catullus 16, Divine (performer), LGBT in Islam, Oscar Wilde, The Birdcage....from a standpoint of "if these articles were to be promoted to FA...", I don't see a difference in their potential content and think all would be worthy of the TFA spotlight when they get there. For someone who criticized an above argument as "appeal to tradition"...seems to be rushing to claim to speak for a never-existing general will.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It is quite possible to oppose censorship while also believing in the importance of being appropriate and sensible. I support having this article for anyone who cares to read it, but I object to shoving it in the faces of every reader who visits our main page. That is not appropriate or sensible. A TFA shouldn't be anything that would be viewed as objectionable or obscene by substantial numbers of people. Everyking (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment "A TFA shouldn't be anything that would be viewed as objectionable or obscene by substantial numbers of people." As David Levy has already said, that would rule out evolution, same-sex marriage and many other topics. This is a very poorly thought out reason for opposing.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * - so true...no one is objecting the full frontal nudity in the TFA image for starfish.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not at all. You're confusing what I wrote with "controversial". Everyking (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You wrote that "a TFA shouldn't be anything that would be viewed as objectionable or obscene by substantial numbers of people." You don't think that many people regard the concepts of evolution and same-sex marriage as objectionable or obscene?  —David Levy 20:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Normal people often disagree with ideas without viewing the presentation of those ideas as obscene or objectionable. Would anyone complain if we put up the article on geocentrism? Surely not. But a great many people might find the prominent presentation of the article on a film called "Fuck" to be objectionable. Everyking (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer the question. —David Levy 21:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Or explain what "normal people" are. I've never met one.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. It's an FA-class good article, and WP:NOTCENSORED applies to the main page too. To those who think it wouldn't be classy, I would argue that featuring it would actually show confidence in the sophistication of our readers. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:SOAP seems relevant here. It is fine to support the article as a good wikipedia article. However, supporting the article as Featured Article in order to promote even something as innocuous as anti-censorship and freedom of speech is a poor reason. Indeed, it would be a reason *not* to feature it, if it was seen to be having wikipedia take a particular stand on the censorship issue. In particular, giving the article special precedence on a specific censorship-related day would seem to violate WP:SOAP.--82.45.61.67 (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * TFA isn't supposed to be purely milquetoast things that everyone agrees with, though, it's supposed to feature good articles from across diverse subjects. "We should feature something about Free Speech because it's important" is a bit different from "We should feature this film because it's an important article on the topic of free speech". I also think it's fine to think that censorship is an important topic even from a(n) NPOV, since it is something that a lot of people are interested in and are likely to want to learn more about. Silent Spring is an advocacy book, one which advocates for views I don't particularly believe in, but I recognize that it's an important book on a topic important to many people and wouldn't consider the nomination of an FA-class article on the subject to violate WP:SOAP. If the article is properly NPOV it should be balanced anyway. 0x0077BE (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, that's why I am posting as a comment and not as oppose or support. My issue is not with the decision, but with some people's justification for it. Supporting TFA here should mean that the article stands on its own and is informative, *not* to make an anti-censorship statement. It is inappropriate to use this discussion as a referendum on whether you like freedom of speech or not. I do think that putting up Fuck on a specific censorship related day, especially to make a point about censorship, *does* violate WP:SOAP.--82.45.61.67 (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * A very interesting comment given this discussion on Jimbo's talk page. Eric   Corbett  20:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is interesting. I think a distinction would be between putting up an article that is informative and relevant on a specific day, and putting up an article such as this. I think the issue here is that whilst Fuck might be individually NPOV, putting it up on a specific day creates a context that is not. Like, for example, on bonfire night, putting up an article about Guy Fawkes might be done, but Anti-Catholicism in the United Kingdom would be clearly pushing forward a viewpoint.--82.45.61.67 (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This a nomination for a nonspecific date, so I'm afraid I'm not following you. Eric   Corbett  21:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * IP82...sorry, but I don't see Anti-Catholicism in the United Kingdom as "clearly pushing forward a viewpoint"...if it made FA, it would likely be a balanced article of historical interest--one I would be very interested to read--and would be an apt choice either for a non-specific date, or for a relevant date. Your argument is both nonsensical and rather specious.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - every time Wikipedia TFA does one of these stunts to prove just how non-censored it is, it just ends up looking like a load of kids writing on the back of the vicar's spare harmonium. I think some editors may need to realise that if Wikipedia wants to become a standard and respected reference work, this is a good article for us to have in our FA arsenal, but not to stick on our doormat. Bob talk 21:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yawn...another sanctimonious expression of 'oh, we have to protect our reputation' and deriding someone's serious effort on a worthwhile topic as a "stunt". As if the people who would be pissed off had anywhere else to go. Moralizing on the word FUCK has proven quite tedious.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yawn...another sanctimonious "let's do it for the hell of it" editor. As the article states in some detail, the film's marketing people obviously felt the need to star out one letter on its poster to make it publicly acceptable, so even the film's marketing was censoring itself. Anyway, just my opinion, really - exercising my right to free speech. That's a good thing, right? Bob talk 14:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support This featured article's merits to be on the main page is as high as any other featured article. The authors worked hard such as for any other FA.  Ebe  123  → report 02:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - really couldn't care less about the opinions of people who are offended by the word "fuck". Grow up. Parrot of Doom 18:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support I do not think any of the articles people have worked on so hard should be withheld, and have suggested running the Jameson article just to end the discussion. As for this one, it's the shit.  Fuck yeah.Wehwalt (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Echoing what said above. Feeling conflicted on the matter myself, I asked a couple of older, non-Wikipedians, which helped me to ultimately fall on this side of the debate. I think that a lot of people on both sides of the debate are so involved in Wikipedia that they have difficulty stepping back and looking at how average people view the website. A decade in, and with many an effort to spread the word, a sizable number of reader still have no idea that they themselves can edit Wikipedia. A lot of the assumptions that we take for granted, notably that everyone in the discussion has read NOTCENSORED and ASTONISH, aren't true among our general readers. The nuance of balancing those two schools of thought is lost to people that aren't aware that those pages exist.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  20:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * These arguments about how it will "look" to outsiders are really undercut by the fact that we've had a number of "vulgar-titled" articles before with no significant discernible backlash. It would have been reasonable the first time we ever posted anything, but people making these arguments need to at least account for the fact that the weight of the empirical evidence is against these statements.
 * As for whether people know that we're trying to balance different interests - I don't think that matters at all. That's the editorial philosophy of Wikipedia - people don't need to know it to like it or dislike it. I don't know what the editorial philosophy of The Economist magazine is and I can still judge the results without knowing the interests that were balanced. WP:NOTCENSORED isn't there just for good PR, it's there because it's the best way to make a neutral, high-quality encyclopedia. 0x0077BE (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As for whether people know that we're trying to balance different interests - I don't think that matters at all. That's the editorial philosophy of Wikipedia - people don't need to know it to like it or dislike it. I don't know what the editorial philosophy of The Economist magazine is and I can still judge the results without knowing the interests that were balanced. WP:NOTCENSORED isn't there just for good PR, it's there because it's the best way to make a neutral, high-quality encyclopedia. 0x0077BE (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Personally, I wouldn't feature this on the main page. However, so long WP:NOTCENSORED is policy, I can find no principled basis to oppose featuring. Wikipedia is bound to adhere to its own policies, however misguided I may believe them to be. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)