Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/January 7, 2011

I'm getting a bit tired of those who want to change the word "mad" with reference to King George III. I fail to understand the objection, and would be grateful if someone would lay out their concerns. The man has been dead for some time, you know, it's not a BLP situation.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Diff of WP:ERRORS discussion before my change here. Suggest you take it up with directly or on the article talk page rather than complain here, where very few people will see this discussion. BencherliteTalk 13:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've reverted it on the article page. Really, Bencherlite, given that I'm the principal editor of this eyesore, it might be at least courteous for either you or Kevin to notify me.  In addition, Kevin was told to build consensus on the article talk page.  He did not do that, instead he treated that as "go change the article page and then change the TFA".  While Wehwalt slept.  You know, I do put a little work into these things and am not a totally unreasonable person.  I do object to having it done in this manner, and then the discussion on the errors page (which I certainly monitor on a TFA day) deleted?  I would like to think I would follow a more courteous path were I in Kevin's shoes.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope you are not suggesting that edits should only be made at times of your convenience. You might also wish to rephrase the above so that it does not look as though you are accusing me of deletion of discussion. An unprotected article can be edited: that is the essence of Wikipedia. I didn't vandalise, editwar, or go against any consensus discussed on the talk page of the article in question. What I did was to replace archaic judgemental phraseology with modern, accurate, profeesional-tone language, and provide specific rebuttal of the objections that had been presented. The article on George III does not describe him as mad, nor does the article on Porphyria describe the illness as a cause or form of madness. By what modern definition, current in reputable, professional documentation, do you apply the word "mad"? Just because he is dead, that does not mean that it is alright to use imprecise language. Are you saying that it is OK to publish inaccuracies or unverifiable information about a person in an encyclopaedia, so long as we are safe from libel prosecution? You say that we ought to use the word "mad", but present no reason as to why it is the best option. Kevin McE (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, I suggest you take this up on the article talk page, rather than in venues all over Wikipedia that I had to hunt to track down and that other editors are most likely unaware of.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm commenting on the talk page of the piece that I believe ought to be changed, and changed urgently. I am also replying to your comment on the page on which the comment is made.  You have not replied to my substantive points.  Kevin McE (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree on the urgency. A number of editors had a role in shaping this article, I am anxious to hear from them.  This will not happen in minutes, and it may not happen in the remaining nine hours of TFA day.  This article has been scheduled for a week, you had plenty of time to go through the January queue.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I did go through the January queue, and made a change for which I gave clear reasons. You reverted it before it reached the main page, with reasons that I rebutted at WP:ERRORS.  Kevin McE (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)