Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/The Human Centipede (First Sequence)

The Human Centipede (First Sequence)
This nomination predates the introduction in April 2014 of article-specific subpages for nominations and has been created from the edit history of Today's featured article/requests.


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

The result was: scheduled for Today's featured article/October 31, 2011 by Raul654 (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2011‎ (UTC)



The Human Centipede (First Sequence) is a 2010 Dutch body horror film written and directed by Tom Six. The film tells the story of a German doctor who kidnaps three tourists and joins them surgically, mouth to anus, forming a "human centipede". It stars Dieter Laser as the villain, Dr. Heiter, with Ashley C. Williams, Ashlynn Yennie, and Akihiro Kitamura as his victims. According to Six, the concept of the film arose from a joke he made with friends about punishing child molesters by stitching their mouths to the anus of a "fat truck driver." Six also stated that inspiration for the film came from Nazi medical experiments carried out during World War II, such as the actions of Josef Mengele at Auschwitz concentration camp. When approaching investors prior to filming, Six did not mention the mouth-to-anus aspect of the plot, fearing it would put off potential backers. The financiers of The Human Centipede did not discover the full nature of the film until it was complete. The film received mixed reviews from mainstream film critics, but it won several accolades at international film festivals. The film was released in the United States on a limited release theatrically on 30 April. A sequel, The Human Centipede 2 (Full Sequence), also written and directed by Six, was released in 2011. (more...)

Minus 1 Point - I am the main contributor to this article which is a point, however, a film related article appeared on the main page on October 2, so that takes 2 points away leaving a total of minus 1 point. The film is about a horror film and it's Halloween, so I've been told I should give it a point for the day making a nice round zero, but I'm happy enough with a minus score.

I nominated this article earlier this month and it was quickly shot down with six very quick opposes, most of them because of the timing of the nomination which was to coincide with the US release of the films sequel (which features graphic sexual violence, torture and rape and was initially banned in the UK). I was asked to leave wikipedia "for my own good" which amused me no end. It was suggested that the article should go on Raul's banned list, never to be allowed anywhere near the main page ever again. However, a few editors suggested the nomination might be more suitable for Halloween. It seems that they still think this and therefore at the urging of the community I present The Human Centipede (First Sequence) as a nomination the Halloween 2011 Main Page Featured Article!

The film is one of very few FA class articles about a Horror Film on Wikipedia. It's an incredibly popular article, in the top 1,000 articles by page views and frequently tops 10,000 views a day. In fact in the past month it has received 400,000 page views. I've checked with Raul and it is not banned from the main page! Finally, the date does not coincide with the awful sequel. I hope editors will agree with me that this is a perfect article for Halloween this year.

The article is about a film that certainly is a little distasteful. But in reality, this nomination is no more offensive than a lot of other things that make it to the Main Page, which have included extreme Horror films such as Cannibal Holocaust and nasty homophobia trolling websites like 4chan. Featuring The Human Centipede will no doubt grab the usual mock outrage from Richard Littlejohn or Bill O'Reilly types who want to claim the world is going to hell in a hand-basket, but in reality the fact is that the vast majority of people see this film as a stupid joke gone a bit too far, not an assault on basic human decency, and something they can just ignore if they want to. I also feel that younger readers will think this is "gross" in a sort of "eeeew I saw some road-kill!" way, but they're not going to be upset, and I think we're putting adult thoughts in childrens minds when we assume otherwise.

Finally (stats overload!), compare these recent featured article page views with Gropecunt Lane, an "offensive" article, but also one of the most popular Main Page articles ever. Of course I'm not saying Wikipedia should always try and grab attention with an extreme Featured Article, but it's Halloween - on this day at least let's have something that'll be of interest to more than half of one percent of main page readers. Coolug (talk) 10:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - it's just a film. Nobody died, or was hurt, or sacrificed goats.  What an utter nonsense to suggest that an article deserving of FA status should never appear on the front page.  Far worse things that happen in real life appear in articles on the front page every day. Parrot of Doom 10:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Points look good. And like the Jameson article, running it would stop the endless argument.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Perfect material for Halloween and an excellent article to boot. Spells of WP:RECENTISM have been dismissed via the original nomination.  Lugnuts  (talk) 11:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I previously opposed this when it was nominated to coincide with the release of the sequel, because I thought that the subject-matter was probably a bit too offensive for an unsuspecting reader. However, in the time-context of Hallowe'en, I think this is no longer an issue.  Few people would be shocked to see a horror movie article on the main page on that particular date, and this article is one of only a tiny number of Horror movie FAs that has not already been a TFA.  Noting also Coolug's points about the popularity of the article, and the precedent for "disturbing" content on the main page, I think that this makes an excellent choice for the main page.  Finally, I agree that the article itself actually contains very little offensive material other than the concept of the film.  The main page excerpt contains no foul language, graphic descriptions of violence or even any particularly offensive imagery.  In short, the worst-case scenarios are that (a) people look at the excerpt and think "that sounds horrible, I don't want to read it" or (b) children all over the world decide the excerpt sounds cool, read the article and then proceed to smash their parents' teeth out with hammers before sewing them together mouth-to-anus.  I think the Wikimedia legal team could cope with the consequences. Papa November (talk) 11:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per Papa November. I also opposed this before but I think for Halloween it is appropriate and timely. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 12:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as a Halloween-related topic. Wikipedia has put this kind of film (I think you know what I mean by that) on the main page before with Cannibal Holocaust on April 18, 2008. There was one thread at Talk:Main Page about it, and the film article's talk page archives show pretty normal discussions asking for clarity about certain elements of that film. I don't think that there's cause for concern about having The Human Centipede on the main page. Wikipedia should be able to present a wide range of topics to its readers. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 12:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, Coolug, I think you get a point for the "Contributor history" criteria. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 12:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Despite the arguments written above I can't in good conscience support the featuring of a crass torture porn movie. It may have been a mistake to put Cannibal Holocaust on the front page but at least it's an old movie that is not easily available and the article has value as a look back on the era of the exploitation movie genre (Gropecunt lane is not comparable to these two at all). That the movie is so recent puts the featuring uncomfortably close to promotion for me. One could argue that this is always an issue when a product/an artist is featured, but we hardly feature things that can give grown people nightmares (and are praised by their creators as "the most horrific [X] ever made"). Let people who want to read it find the article for themselves - as the nominator said, it's already popular enough with people who are into this kind of "entertainment". Hekerui (talk) 13:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you think it was a mistake to feature Cannibal Holocaust? There was barely any negative reaction over it, and it appears to be much more visceral than this film, which has a screenshot explaining, "The use of bandages... allowed the filmmakers to imply a more graphic and disturbing idea than is actually shown on screen." Wikipedia's main page is not intended to be solely of refined taste; it has shown funny topics, timely topics, WTF topics, cute topics (e.g., Knut), etc. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 13:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - If people dont see the irony in this film its their problem,and shouldnt be a reason not to add this at TFA.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support for all of the reasons listed above. I think it'd be great for Halloween.   AgnosticAphid  talk 17:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Whew, that imaginary creation of the creator is one nasty, gross bit of sadistic torture to be highlighted in Wikipedia's most prominent place!  North8000 (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Agree with above "Supports". Excellent, FA article that is also popular (high traffic); that's  unusual. A fictional story that is not as "inappropriate" or "gruesome" as many articles on real events or other topics featured on the Main page.  AlbertBowes (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Page views: AlbertBowes (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose This just doesn't belong on the front page, on any date. Zacktar (talk) 12:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - It's an interesting article, and WP:NOTCENSORED. It's certainly not as bad as it's successor.-- Tærkast (Discuss) 12:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - It's a well-written article on what has surprisingly proven to be a notable film.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Per above. There's nothing else to say but approve it for Halloween. GamerPro64  23:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)