Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:10, 1 November 2014

Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties

This discussion is already more than seven times the length of the article - anything that participants can do to help the "poor wretch who has to discern consensus here" (as Laser brain put it) would be appreciated. Thanks. Bencherlite 15:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

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

• Most recent similar article(s): Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/recent TFAs shows a few books but on completely different topics not related to Freedom of speech and censorship.
• Main editors: — Cirt (talk)
• Promoted: 2014
• Reasons for nomination: Educational book about freedom of speech and censorship.
• Date requested: 15 December 2014 — 223rd anniversary of adoption of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution — a topic focused on in the book and included in the book's title itself ("...First Amendment liberties").
• Featured Article in the Chinese language Misplaced Pages.
• My prior Featured Article quality contributions on the topic of freedom of speech and censorship include: the article on the book Freedom for the Thought That We Hate and on the documentary Fuck (film).
• Note: See also similar prior discussion for Fuck (film) at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests/Fuck (film).
  • Notifications given: Using exact same notification text used by Bencherlite for Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests/Fuck (film), I've left notice of this nomination at Talk:Main Page, Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates, Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous), Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard, User talk:Jimbo Wales, talk pages of WikiProjects related to the article, my user talk page, and I've added the nomination to {{Centralized discussion}}. — Cirt (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support as nominator. — Cirt (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support - fine article, good choice of date, Misplaced Pages is not censored. Ivanvector (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support Article quality is good, the similar featured article was 10 months prior to this one. Date seems like a good match. 0x0077BE 22:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support, for the reasons cited above. Regarding potential controversy, I'll note that in the case of Fuck (film), the catastrophic fallout predicted by some never materialized. We saw the usual handful of "Think of the children!"-type posts (and little more). —David Levy 22:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Misplaced Pages is not censored, but as argued eloquently in this post, we still can and should exercise editorial judgment. Most readers will not be expecting to encounter the word "fuck" featured prominently on the main page, and we should avoid shocking and offending them unnecessarily. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  Discussions of this nature invariably draw comments similar to the above. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, but I've never understood the logic behind this one. To me, the argument seems to be "Misplaced Pages is not censored, but to avoid offending people, we should use our best judgement to decide when to censor Misplaced Pages." The exception swallows the rule. —David Levy 23:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  I suggest reading Sue Gardner's blog post here. I think it clarifies the distinction between censorship and editorial judgment pretty well. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  I read it in 2011. I agree with parts of it, while others mirror the scare-quoted statement above. Gardner touched on some real problems that exist within the Wikimedia projects, but in discussing a solution, she failed to consider that for most, neutrality is a fundamental principle. Certainly, we shouldn't display content for the purpose of upsetting people. But when we reject otherwise-suitable material purely to avoid causing offense, that type of "editorial discretion" is non-neutral – particularly when it's based on the cultural standards of the editors themselves and the readers whose nationalities/religions fall within the "majority" (which, in our case, really means "majority of native English speakers").
  In the image filter debates, people wrote things to the effect of "This is simple. Just set up filters for images containing nudity, violence, gore, etc. You know, the stuff that people find objectionable. What's the problem?" The idea that what's "objectionable" is culturally specific was either overlooked or addressed with suggestions such as voting on what's "objectionable" and doing whatever the majority wants. It should come as no surprise that this hasn't come to pass. —David Levy 21:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support: We ran the article on the movie and had no problems. This is an article on a serious scholarly work that just happens to have a shocking title. My only beef with the article at this moment, and I'm not sure this is quite the place to raise it, is the use in citation templates of via fields where there is no url, and the phrase "Accessed via" in publisher fields (especially where the actual publisher of the cited work is different). The latter particularly may pollute the COinS metadata that those citation templates generate. I think it's an effort to somewhat help guide people to finding offline sources, but my understanding has been that first you try to use ISBN or ISSN, and fall back on OCLC numbers. I don't think it's necessary to state the service the editors who wrote the WP article used unless there's a particular reason to do so. I think that's an easy enough fix, but I thought I'd mention it. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 23:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  @Mendaliv:Thank you for the Support -- I'd rather leave the citation style as is because it was specifically requested at the WP:FAC to improve accessibility by noting the database archive one could use to check sources. I have, however, modified the cites to use the "via" field, instead of the "publisher" field. — Cirt (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not being censored means we don't prohibit the article from Misplaced Pages or hold back obscene language from one. It doesn't mean that we must advertise and promote offensive language on the Main Page. As Granger said above, this sort of thing is not what is expected to be found when one first arrives at Misplaced Pages. 331dot (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  I must say, it doesn't seem like either you or Mr. Granger is adding anything new to the "oppose" discussion that wasn't brought up and eventually found unpersuasive in the previous discussion for Fuck (film). I think most of us on the "support" side would say that the complete lack of negative response to the featuring of that article is a vindication of our position. I think if you're going to oppose this on editorial grounds, you need to address that there's a very strong precedent on that front and that everything turned out just fine. 0x0077BE 23:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  I was not aware of a prior discussion on a similar issue; I was commenting on this specific case.331dot (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  Firstly, past discussions have shown that the community at large doesn't share that interpretation of WP:NOTCENSORED. The main page is just as much a part of Misplaced Pages as anything else, and suppressing material on the basis that it's "offensive" is censorship.
  Secondly, how are we to determine what words and concepts are "offensive"? Whose cultural standards do you consider applicable? Yours? Should we abandon WP:NPOV in favor of content tailored to the nationalities and religions most prevalent among the English Misplaced Pages's readers, or should everything widely considered "offensive" within anyone's culture be banned from the main page? —David Levy 23:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  I was directed to this page to give my opinion, which I have done. I don't seek to establish a regime to make broad judgements or restrictions. I respect your view but I stand by mine.331dot (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  Likewise, I'm not expressing disrespect. I'm attempting to engage in discussion, in the hope of better understanding your view. A statement that we should bar "offensive language" from appearing on the main page carries little meaning when "offensive language" hasn't been defined (apart from a single example). —David Levy 01:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  It carries all the meaning it needs to. It's not necessary to nail down every detail of the definition of "offensive language" for the purpose of this discussion; a single example is enough, since this discussion is about that single example. GoldenRing (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  In that case, I support the article's TFA appearance because it's snarfleticious. That's my new rationale. Don't ask me to explain how I arrived at that determination or how it's a workable measure of an article's TFA worthiness. All you need to know is that it's a good thing and the article under discussion is an example. —David Levy 03:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, I never thought you were disrespectful in any way. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose As a reader and an editor, I do not want material that may be constructed as offensive by a large number of readers on the main page without a very good reason. It's most certainly not against our policies to have it there, but I would, as a member of the community, oppose having this on the main page on the grounds of editorial discretion. wctaiwan (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  You "do not want material that may be constructed as offensive by a large number of readers on the main page without a very good reason". I assume that this includes content related to LGBT topics, abortion, and unveiled women (particularly photographs thereof). Right? —David Levy 01:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  Nice strawman, and the answer is absolutely not. We can easily address freedom of expression without putting "fuck" on the main page, whereas you can't discuss LGBT topics or abortion without mentioning them. As for unveiled women, it's thankfully a non-issue as far as our readership is concerned. Misplaced Pages is clearly not censored; there is no need to make a point of it. wctaiwan (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  Not a straw man. I can't read minds, so I didn't realize that by "very good reason", you apparently meant "inability to cover a broad topic otherwise". I understand that argument, but I don't see its applicability to this case. We certainly shouldn't place material on the main page (or anywhere in Misplaced Pages) for the purpose of offending people (or proving the point that Misplaced Pages is not censored). That doesn't describe this situation. The matter at hand isn't whether to pick this article or a different one on a subject related to freedom of expression. The question is whether this article qualifies on the merits. Of course, if you have a different date-relevant featured article in mind, feel free to propose that it appear as TFA instead. (I'm serious, by the way. Maybe there is one! If so, I certainly want to consider it.) Otherwise, perhaps you should have gone to the effort of improving such an article and getting it featured, as Cirt did in this instance.
  I'm interested in reading your explanation of why displaying photographs of unveiled women is "a non-issue as far as our readership is concerned". —David Levy 03:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  Photographs of unveiled women is a non-issue because the vast majority of our readership don't see it as an issue. My opposition boils down to "I don't think we should do this" and was never meant to be that strong, so I'm going to disengage. wctaiwan (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  Photographs of unveiled women is a non-issue because the vast majority of our readership don't see it as an issue.
  I suspected that was what you meant, but I didn't want to put words in your mouth. I addressed this attitude above, when I asked whether an editor advocates that we "abandon WP:NPOV in favor of content tailored to the nationalities and religions most prevalent among the English Misplaced Pages's readers". You can understand, I hope, why I regard that as problematic. —David Levy 01:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support. (edit conflict) It seems like a well-written article, and the anniversary of the US Bill of Rights seems like an appropriate moment to feature it. In response to the opposing voices, I've tried to imagine how I will feel when my young niece sees the link on the front page; I feel pretty sanguine. Discussion about offensive language does not offend me in the way that use of such language might. I realize that opinions vary, but on balance I don't think the likelihood of some people being offended outweighs the value of featuring the article. Cnilep (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not to take anything away from either the author of this book or the writers of our article about it, but, given Misplaced Pages's reputation as a sometimes uncivil, foul-mouthed boys' club, featuring this on our front page is only going to enhance that reputation. This choice for featured article seems "pointy" to me. Our first amendment liberties are about much, much more than the freedom to swear in public. Surely there are many books more deserving of front-page treatment who haven't taken their turn there yet. For example, why isn't our article on Capital in the Twenty-First Century featured yet? Have we put that on our front page yet? That book has more to say about the real risks to our first amendment liberties. Big Money is sucking all the oxygen out of the room that supports free speech for those who don't have a lot of money. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  Are you familiar with the meaning of "featured article"? If so, you should understand why our Capital in the Twenty-First Century article hasn't appeared as TFA. Instead of complaining, why don't you improve the article to make it eligible (rather than casting aspersions on an editor who took the time to do this with the article under discussion)? —David Levy 01:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. As for wanting to censor it as offensive/uncivil this addresses such concerns very well, both by being a quite civil and scholarly use of the word and by being precisely on the freedom of speech issues that are behind our censorship policy. I.e. it's both in line with policy and helps explain it, or lead readers to an explanation.--JohnBlackburne_deeds 01:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support This is a perfect example of what a properly uncensored, quality encyclopaedia can be and should do. To those in the "not censored unless I don't like it" camp, I say that I don't regard Misplaced Pages "as a sometimes uncivil, foul-mouthed boys' club". Given our very public policy of not being censored, those who do see it that way are clearly looking in the wrong place. They should take their concerns to those articles that show images of Mohammed, or images of dead Australian Aboriginal people. Both are very offensive to the respective interest groups. I must also note that the Opposes here are almost all framed in terms of what some unnamed other might think. In the vernacular of the language of my country, that's gutless. If you can't deal with the word "fuck" yourself, have the guts to say so. Stop claiming this is all about what someone else might think. HiLo48 (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose ooh, he said fuck! Juvenile, attention seeking title of article published in second rate law review. It has nothing to do with "freedom of speech" or censorship, it has to do with relevance. Google scholar gives it seven citations; Robert Bork's Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems has three thousand. I don't think readers will be offended, I think they'll be bored. NE Ent 01:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  @NE Ent:FYI, those are search results for the 2006 article, not the 2009 book. — Cirt (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  No, NE Ent is correct. See --Fangz (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  I think you're discounting sources simply because you can't view their full text on the Internet. That's completely inappropriate. — Cirt (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as bad editorial judgement and bad taste. GoldenRing (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  Other editors' similar sentiments notwithstanding, you're the first whose rationale for opposing this article's TFA appearance literally boils down to nothing more than "I don't like it." —David Levy 02:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  And is that invalid? Many things are down to editorial discretion, from article structure and the weight given to different aspects of a subject to the choice of which images to put in an article. Some processes are very much based on ticking boxes in policies, but I don't see why deciding what to put on our front page shouldn't incorporate personal opinions of individual editors. It might not be a convincing argument, as phrased, but it's a valid one in this context. wctaiwan (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  "I don't like it." (or similar) can be a valid rationale, depending on the context. In a discussion of whether to use a "prettier" color in template, it would be highly relevant. In this instance, we're discussing whether an article should appear as TFA – a decision on which users' personal like or dislike of its subject has no bearing. —David Levy 03:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  A curious argument, since, as you well know, there is no policy regarding what articles appear as TFA. So most arguments made boil down to editorial discretion - the only exception being where a nomination violates some more general policy. GoldenRing (talk) 04:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  Do you believe that a description of Misplaced Pages's conventions isn't valid until it's been placed on a page with a green check mark at the top?
  I don't assert that you can't oppose the article's TFA appearance because you dislike its subject. (There's no rule against it, after all.) Just don't expect that rationale to win the day. —David Levy 05:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  What conventions? Misplaced Pages operates by consensus, not convention, as, again, you well know. This process here is establishing a consensus and I've had my say in it. We've got the message, by now, that you disagree. GoldenRing (talk) 00:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  Indeed, we operate by consensus, through which various practices are established by usage. (These are called "conventions".) The concept of rejecting a TFA appearance due to editors' personal dislike of the article's subject isn't part of any Misplaced Pages consensus of which I'm aware. It's doubtful that this will change now, but yes, you certainly are entitled to weigh in. (Likewise, I'm entitled to respond.) —David Levy 01:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support There are some accusations that the article is a shock piece that serves no other purpose than upsetting and unnerving readers. Looking at the actual contents demonstrates that this is a well-written and encyclopedic article about a legitimate academic work that just happens to contain a socially frowned upon word in its title. At the end of the day, Misplaced Pages is not censored (and we make this quite clear under our general content disclaimer). We are above all else an encyclopedia, and should not refuse to recognize good work just because it contains a socially frowned upon word. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support. This is indeed not a shock piece, but a mature, FA quality article. WP:NOTCENSORED still applies to our main page too. When we featured Fuck (film), the sky did not fall. Our confidence in the sophistication of our readers was not misplaced then, and I trust it shall not be again. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 08:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support The multiple claims that the world would come to an end when Fuck (film) was on the main page in March 2014 turned out to be wrong. This is a Featured Article and should not be treated differently from any other as long as it reaches the required standard.--♦IanMacM♦ 09:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support - The previous TFA has shown that our readers are more mature than we give them credit for. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, it's a decent article and I don't want to be seen like I don't appreciate the effort in bringing it to FA quality. But I don't think that risking negative press and reputational damage to the project by putting swears on the front page, either as a political statement on censorship or a juvenile desire to show naughty words to the unsuspecting, comprises good editorial judgement. Lankiveil 10:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC).

These are the same arguments that were made in the discussion about Fuck (film), and there was, as far as I can tell, no negative press or fallout from that, or from any of the previous articles featured on the front page that were opposed for similar reasons. I suggest taking a look at that discussion. 0x0077BE 11:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Just because you smack yourself in the face with a hammer once and suffer no permanent injury, does not mean it's a good idea to keep doing it. Lankiveil 14:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC).

Well it's just that this has come up several times, with Fuck (film), a DYK hook for The finger (with photo) and Gropecunt Lane. Each time the "oppose" votes predicted dire consequences and the "support" crowd felt it was overwrought. So far, we've never had the predicted problems materialize. There are plenty of people walking around who have been injured by getting hit with a hammer, but so far we have no examples of this sort of thing causing problems. So even if all you care about is preventing any kind of backlash or negative attention (which many of us would not find to be in keeping with the spirit of WP:NOTCENSORED, which is that sometimes you need to endure a bit of heat if you want to make a quality encyclopedia), the argument that this particular action is likely to be harmful is getting less and less plausible each time it fails to happen. 0x0077BE 14:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has already ran a Featured Article with the F-word in it on the front page. I checked and the only attention it got was a reaction or two from a non-notable blog. There was no media coverage to speak of. I feel that the risk of negative press is being really exaggerated. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, as per Wbm1058. Certainly folks took a good deal of time and effort to make this a quality article, I just don't want to see it on my desktop when I'm looking stuff up. By choosing the photo of a man smiling, instead of the front cover of the book, its pretty clear that the intent here is to re-enforce the "foul mouthed boys club" atmosphere. But hey, I'm a woman, and I've already been told that if I think it's too rude here I should leave. Sometimes all this in-your-face sexual content is just tedious and wearisome. There's a difference between viewing this sort of stuff when you're looking for it, and having to see it when you're really not in the mood, or when a co-worker is looking over your shoulder. When sexual content is no longer optional, it stops being fun. When I'm asked repeatedly, "you can participate, what do you think? Join Misplaced Pages! and this is the kind of discussion that is here, I feel like I am being cynically exploited by volunteering on this site. Come for the culture, stay for the swear words, and if you get pushback in real life for running with such a crew of barbarians, well hey, shut up and write more articles about women scientists, the cool girls like to swear and say sex stuff, if you don't, clear out! -- Djembayz (talk) 11:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The cover of the book is the word "Fuck", clearly visible, with some white out wiping out some of it. I'm thinking that the photo of the author (a respected law professor) was chosen for two reasons, 1.) the principle of least surprise and reasonable deference to those who would be offended 2.) the photo of the author is released on a free license, while the cover image is fair use. 0x0077BE 11:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@0x0077BE:You're correct, I unfortunately was unable to obtain a free-use-licensed image of the book's cover, but was able to obtain one of the book's author, confirmed via the WP:OTRS process. I'm glad I did because it appears it's been used on multiple pages in the Chinese Misplaced Pages. — Cirt (talk) 12:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, upon reflection, it's actually the juxtaposition of an image of a man smiling that causes strong offense, not the content of the article itself. A perfectly ordinary photo of someone smiling for the camera suddenly takes on a different meaning in context. If it's possible to make arrangements to use some version of the book cover, you might consider resubmitting this request with a different image as an experiment to see if the image chosen makes people react differently. The book cover really makes the point about censorship in a graphic fashion. The image of the author makes a strong point too, but possibly not the point you are intending. -- Djembayz (talk) 12:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Djembayz:I will attempt, again, to obtain free-use licensing for the image as you suggested. But I think it's totally appropriate to have a picture of the author along with the blurb of the book by the author. — Cirt (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Djembayz: I do have to say, I'm not quite sure I understand the objection here. What is offensive about a smiling photo of the author of the book? Maybe if it were an article called "Fuck (sex act)" or something, but the article title includes the book's subtitle, which mentions first amendment liberties and academic subjects. A picture of a lawyer-looking guy next to that seems pretty mundane to me. 0x0077BE 14:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Uh, well, guys don't smile at gals and use language like that without, uh, suggesting that perhaps someone has something in mind, uhmm, that um, isn't exactly, uh, "writing an encyclopedia." Sorry I can't be more explicit here, I don't know you well enough. Images, and especially facial expressions, modify the emotional impact of textual content. You may not realize this, but "looking like an attorney" is not a disqualifying factor with regards to amorous intentions. And you may be surprised to discover, if you ever visit DC, that even lawyers do things in their spare time with women that do not involve "writing encyclopedias." Sometimes double entendres like a smiling fellow next to an article like this get taken the wrong way, causing considerable offense and distress. Perhaps causing offense and distress is the intention here-- that's certainly been part of my experience as a female editor. Painful and demeaning experiences tend to discourage volunteers, and it's increasingly painful to be told to "move on", assume good faith, develop a thicker skin, stop being offended, etc., and just get back to work. In contrast, if you used the book cover, the point about censorship would be crystal clear. If you used the article alone, the point would also be clear. People might still take exception to featuring the article, but not on the basis of it being a double entendre. -- Djembayz (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if maybe being shown the photo with the implicit question, "Is this too offensive to be featured on the front page" has maybe biased you towards thinking that way in a way that a casual glance at it would not, I think it's taking things a bit far to imagine that he's saying he wants to fuck you or something, it's a portrait photo - I doubt he had any amorous intentions towards the cameraman when it was being taken. I imagine the worst that will happen is people will find him creepy and/or awkward-looking, since it's a posed photo which doesn't always read as natural, but I've never known anyone to be offended by someone looking creepy. Either way, I don't think it's fair to pre-emptively level charges of dismissiveness. I think Cirt has gone above and beyond in soliciting input on this topic (given that he probably could have soared through on precedent from Fuck (film)), and he's even gone so far as to try to secure rights to the book cover (which I think is very unlikely since these things tend to be tied up with multiple rights-holders, almost none of which have any incentive to pay a lawyer to determine how releasing their copyrighted materials on a free license could affect their business). 0x0077BE 15:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Djembayz:Per your recommendation, I've contacted the book publisher. They've agreed to license the image of the book cover by a free-use license. I've uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons. I removed the image of the male author smiling, from the blurb text. I've added the image instead of the (now free-use licensed) book cover to the blurb text. I hope this is now satisfactory to you, Djembayz. — Cirt (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Holy crap! I feel like that never happens. Great job Cirt! Awesome of the book publisher to release it, too. 0x0077BE 17:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Query I've already !vote-d, but it occurred to me, in the discussion of Fuck (film), it was decided that in the "recently featured articles" links, it would be stylized "F-star-C-K", because the film itself was occasionally stylized that way in marketing materials, and it was deemed a sort of compromise. Given that this book does not have a convenient "out" in that way, is the proposition to just leave it be, or is some sort of accommodation planned again? Personally, I think it will be fine, given how well everything went last time (no significant negative feedback, that I've heard about, mostly just positive things), but it's pretty much the main thing that will be different from the last time. 0x0077BE 11:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@0x0077BE:I don't recall any negative impact the day of the TFA for Fuck (film), so I think your analysis is correct. — Cirt (talk) 12:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support free speech and the discussion of words vs. attitude when we talk about civility. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support Misplaced Pages is not censored. That includes the front page. I got The finger to DYK a couple years ago with the lead picture as the image. So, this TFA request should be based on quality issues alone, and this one seems fine to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Nominator did not supply adequate reason for making the article featured, but instead offered a subjective opinion of the subject matter (that the book is educational). This, together, with the proposed date, marks a clear attempt to use the front page to advocate for a particular (albeit laudable) political cause, which is not the purpose of FAotD. This also smacks of self-congratulation. WP:NOTCENSORED is a rebuttal to one counter argument, but is not in itself a positive reason. WP:SOAP applies.-Fangz (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  To expand, I question the notability of the article in the first place. My google searches show up a grand total of 81 entries for 'christopher fairman fuck book -wikipedia' and 52 entries for 'fuck "word taboo and protecting our first amendment" fairman' (both not in quotes) . This points to a minor work of low interest, that could well fall afoul of the notability brigade if rigorously applied. Are we judging the appropriateness of this TFA nom on a fair basis, or do we just want an excuse to get something very mildly offensive on to the Main Page again? --Fangz (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  @Fangz:The book was the subject of reviews in publications including: Library Journal, Publishers Weekly, Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, and The New Yorker. — Cirt (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  @Cirt:The New Yorker is the only mainstream publication in that list. Where is this review you reference? The only citation of the New Yorker is to this article (posted in the New Yorker's online blog) which does not in fact discuss the contents of book itself at all, but has a single sentence describing its cover, as part of a slide show gallery of books with Fuck in the title. Hardly a sign of impact. In reference to the article itself, I'd suggest it's also kinda messy. The lead paragraphs are filled with unreferenced claims. Other parts confuse discussion of the 2009 book with a 2006 academic paper Fairman wrote. IMHO, if this article was not called 'Fuck', there is no conceivable reason it would be considered for TFA.--Fangz (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  @Fangz:The lede is cited later in the body text, per WP:LEADCITE. The reviews are referenced in full citations in the article. The other reviews are all mainstream publications. They are all major book review sources. — Cirt (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  @Cirt: "Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads." The lead here for example refers to 'favourable reception from news sources, despite the fact that no citation is given - and as far as I can see, such reception from news sources simply does not exist. Library Journal, Publishers Weekly, Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries are not mainstream publications, they are all trade publications aimed at librarians and academics. The linked to reviews also do not discuss the book in any great depth, in general. The degree of confusion between the book, and the article, and Fairman's advocacy activities, to me makes a reasonably strong case that really, the entire article should simply be merged into Christopher Fairman.--Fangz (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  @Fangz:With respect, you're mistaken, those sources are indeed mainstream publications, and especially so for articles about books. I'm not sure if you've actually read those book reviews themselves. — Cirt (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  @Cirt: Please link a non-trivial work focusing on the book then, as per Misplaced Pages:Notability#Self-promotion_and_indiscriminate_publicity. None of what I have seen linked on that article satisfies that.--Fangz (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  @Fangz: Library Journal, Publishers Weekly, and Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries are most certainly not trivial works, and they definitely focus on the book. — Cirt (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  @Cirt: This is the entirity of Publisher Weekly's review , the only one that is available online. It is a single paragraph rewrite of press release material, of a standard form used for many, many books each day, and can be obtained for a simple payment of $149. It gives little sign of the sort of wider recognition that the notability criterion demands. I do not have access to the other reviews. Ultimately I see nothing that sets this book aside from the many, many academic articles and niche books that are published, that quickly sink without a trace in the mainstream. It's just not notable.--Fangz (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  @Fangz:, this is not a deletion debate. If you truly believe this article does not meet the notability threshold, please take appropriate action elsewhere. If not, please drop this line of discussion -- it's not relevant to the present discussion. -Pete (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  TFA status is contingent about the article being a featured article. Featured article status is contingent on the article fulfilled Misplaced Pages requirements on content. If there is an argument that an article should not exist in the first place, that is an argument that the article should not be FA, and hence should not be TFA. It would be ridiculous for the article to be both accepted as TFA, and then deleted. I think the appropriate course of action is to firstly reject the article as TFA, and *then* to proceed to consider a potential merger with Christopher Fairman.--Fangz (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  "Nonfiction Book Review". — Cirt (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  @Fangz: You're entitled to your opinion. I suspect that most Wikipedians will, like me, decline to engage with arguments that are not germane to a TFAR decision on a TFAR nomination page. -Pete (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose You're just asking for trouble by having this be featured on the front page of the site. Yes it's great we can say the word, yes it's great there's an article about the book, yes it's great that the article is a FA, but to have this shoved in people's faces is like asking them to read a TFA about the Muhammad cartoons. It's just a bad idea. Hasteur (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too bad no one thought to get United States Bill of Rights up to FA status so it could be featured on this date instead. But there would be no shock value in that. -- Calidum 16:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  You could be that editor. The status of that article has nothing to do with the status of this one. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  Indeed, Calidum, why didn't you get United States Bill of Rights up to FA status so it could be featured on this date instead? Because it's easier to complain about others' contributions to the encyclopedia? —David Levy 01:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  Why don't you go fuck yourself, since you seem to like the word so much that you've now badgered every editor who disagrees with you here. -- Calidum 14:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  Nice civility there. I hardly think that responding to well-trodden (we went through basically the exact same discussion for Fuck (film) and everything turned out fine) and low-quality arguments that often amount to little more than I don't like it is "harassment". 0x0077BE 14:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support. This appears to be a valuable exploration of a worthwhile topic, and the anniversary date is a relevant tie-in. I don't see any downside to this; I think alleged "shock value" that seems to concern some people is minimal. -Pete (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Gropecunt Lane. Lugnuts 20:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Just reinforces image of Misplaced Pages as a bunch of 15-25 year olds who've never gotten laid and may never get laid, and thus go in for juvenile jokes about sex, their hand, "tw*t", "c*nt", etc. Now that's the kind of freedom of speech on Misplaced Pages I'm talking about! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  The author of the book looks older than 15-25. As for the rest of your comment... – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose I couldn't care less about the supposedly controversial or allegedly "shocking" nature of this article. The most important indicator of the worthiness of being featured for a FA should be the number of interwikis. This article has none except a traduction in Chinese. Okay maybe, this happens to create somewhat of a controversy in the US, but who cares outside the US ? Nobody, judging from the number of interwikis. This article has no international interest. We should almost never feature an article on a subject that is of interest only in a single country, when it happens that this country is already over-represented at TFA (for understandable reasons). And to top it off, this extremely narrow subject has actually already been covered on the main page a few months ago : Fuck (film). This ludicrous ultra Americanism in TFAs has to stop now, this is a fucking shame. If I am stating this now, it's because there's a link at WP:CENT and I happen to be active at the moment. My rationale would have been identical if the article were 2007 ACC Championship Game instead. I am serious, this is totally unacceptable on a project targeting a global audience. Cenarium (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  @Cenarium:The article hasn't been around as long as some others that have more interwikis. But it's not just in Chinese Misplaced Pages, it's Featured Quality in Chinese Misplaced Pages. That alone indicates a strong international interest in the subject matter. — Cirt (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  No, it does not. This article has been translated by an editor who specializes in translating high quality articles from en.wikipedia en masse. All the sources provided are the same as the ones in the en.wp article, all of them being from the US. There is not an ounce of international interest, not even from the UK or other English speaking countries. Cenarium (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  @Cenarium: When I did the math, I think it was 10 months between when Fuck (film) was featured and when this would be featured. Given that there's a relevant date (which a lot of people wanted for the Fuck (film) TFA), I don't see the big issue. It's not like there's a huge backlog of FAs, so it's not like this is displacing something with a huge international interest. How long would be an appropriate amount of time between the previous article and this one? (By the way, I have to say I appreciate that you have an oppose position that's based on something other than generic offense/self-censorship. It's quite refreshing.) 0x0077BE 22:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  Ten months still seems like a very short period to me on an encyclopedic scale. There are plenty of articles of international interest in various areas yet to be featured, as a cursory search of WP:FANMP indicates. There are also numerous articles of local interest but from countries that are not over-represented at TFA (more like vastly under-represented). Those articles may have few interwikis due to the specificity of the subject (rather than the lack of global interest), and they are worthy of being put on the main page for diversity reasons. As an example among others, we have Vijayanagara literature in Kannada, which is featured since 2008 while the present article has been featured for only a few months. It doesn't seem fair, does it ? Whether there's a relevant date or not doesn't really matter in the decision to put an article on the main page (especially when this relevant date is recurrent on an annual basis, maybe it would have if it had been once in a century). It should come after the decision has been made, otherwise all of the articles for which there cannot be any relevant date, due to their nature, for example ... Vijayanagara literature in Kannada would be at an unfair disadvantage. Cenarium (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  I agree that other things should also be featured on the front page, but consider that only about 20 articles are currently already in the queue. If you look at the TFAR archive, you'll find it's basically a sanity check/rubber stamp at this point to make sure that the article is still FA quality, stable, etc. Presumably the only reason Vijayanagara literature in Kannada hasn't been featured is because no one nominated it. We need more nominations so we can get the kind of variety you're looking for, but we don't have so many nominations that we need to be picky about what gets featured right away. At least that's my read on the situation. 0x0077BE 02:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose sure WP:Misplaced Pages is not censored (though of course it is), but also WP:Misplaced Pages is not stupid. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC).
  

  I have to hand it to you, Rich. I didn't expect anyone to top the "I don't like it." rationale discussed above. But here you are with the rationale "It's stupid." Impressive. —David Levy 01:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  Rich is exactly right. Misplaced Pages is Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties not censored. A newspaper is not censoring a story when they bury it in the "Book reviews" section rather than putting it on the front page. Censorship is when the story is not printed at all. Kind of like some of the things that celebrity scientist said about G. W. Bush. – Wbm1058 (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  Firstly, Rich stated that Misplaced Pages is censored, so I'm unclear on his message's relevance to yours. Secondly, please see initial reply to 331dot. —David Levy 04:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  1. Misplaced Pages is censored. Example: Any mention of this has been censored. This is editorial judgement by a consensus of editors. WP:TE editing often plays a role in determining consensus. Seems like it may play a role in determining the consensus here. I'm not saying that censorship is always bad. Sometimes it's best to use some discretion, and the example I cite may be one of those times. These calls sometimes aren't easy to make.
  2. wikt:snarfleticious? Wbm1058 (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  Regarding #1, mention of the Neil Degrasse-Tyson statements was not included because there was no consensus for inclusion, with the question hinging on the weight of the statement. That is not censorship, it's a question of what is and is not worth including in the encyclopedia. This is high-quality content that has been chosen as a featured article. Misplaced Pages is edited and curated, not censored. 0x0077BE 14:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  Well, that's just what all the words here boil down to, isn't it? One guy's WP:UNDUE is another's WP:CENSORED, and vice versa. Most of the rest is just noise. @Bencherlite: you probably could just count the !votes, that would save you a lot of time. This one is obviously very polarized. I'll just note in closing that since the last "Fuck" article appeared on the home page (isn't one such appearance there sufficiently due weight?), there has been a high-visibility discussion on Jimbo's talk page about civility, and the use of the "c" word, which while initially promising, seems to have resulted in no resolution of substance, and sadly, a certain brown-haired participant at the lead of that discussion, has now been absent from Misplaced Pages for an increasingly uncomfortable length of time. Maybe some other day, but my opinion is that the timing of this couldn't be worse. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  Well, that's just what all the words here boil down to, isn't it? One guy's WP:UNDUE is another's WP:CENSORED, and vice versa.
  You're conflating separate concepts. WP:UNDUE isn't about deciding whether material is likely to upset people.
  'll just note in closing that since the last "Fuck" article appeared on the home page (isn't one such appearance there sufficiently due weight?),
  That question treats each of the two articles as nothing more than the word "fuck" itself. This illustrates some users' attitudes; they see the word "fuck" and don't bother to look further. (To be clear, I don't mean to suggest that this describes all of those opposing the article's TFA appearance.) —David Levy 21:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  Exactly. Had Neil Degrasse Tyson's statements been omitted to avoid offending people, that situation would be comparable. —David Levy 21:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  The statements were omitted to avoid offending people. The offended people argued quite tendentiously to make sure they were omitted, from my fairly brief (tl;dr) look at the situaiton. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  The statements were omitted on the grounds that their inclusion would constitute undue weight. Irrespective of whether this determination was correct, it wasn't based on the rationale that your "tl;dr" glance has led you to perceive.
  Incidentally, "snarfleticious" isn't a real word; I used it in my analogy because it has no meaning. —David Levy 23:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  So really, we're quibbling over terminology. We can all it "censorship", an application of "editorial judgement", or "Steve". No matter what description we use, the real issue is whether it's appropriate.

  Hey, now you finally get it :o) Wbm1058 (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per editorial discretion. Selecting featured articles for shock value does little to enhance Misplaced Pages's reputation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  Do you know what else is unhelpful? Belittling (and ascribing bad-faith motives to) individuals who work hard to improve the encyclopedia, for no reason other than the subject areas on which they focus.
  Perhaps you're comfortable promoting an atmosphere in which only those who choose to edit articles on "uncontroversial" subjects are treated with respect and encouraged to join (and remain part of) the community. I'm not.
  Thankfully, Cirt's disposition is such that he responds to baseless condemnations by politely addressing his accusers' concerns and going out of his way to appease them (as demonstrated above). Others on the receiving end of such abuse might not have the fortitude to withstand it. How many have been driven away from the project? Do you care? —David Levy 04:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  I disagree with the claim that running this article on the main page will make us look juvenile. If anything, it will demonstrate that we are mature enough to write comprehensive and encyclopedic articles on subjects that would be the subject of laughter and crude jokes on other parts of the internet. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  Oh dear, I seem to have upset the WIKIPEDIA ISN'T CENSORED SO WE CAN DO WHATEVER WE LIKE crowd, who seem to think that opinions contrary to theirs shouldn't be allowed.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  You've transitioned from a baseless accusation about someone's motive to an outright ad hominem.
  You think that running this article on the main page is a bad idea. Obviously, I disagree. All of that is fine. Of course contrary opinions are allowed. That's why I'm expressing mine right now.
  The problem is that you went far beyond disagreement. You didn't object to the article's potential main page appearance on the basis that it would cause shock; you implied that this is why it's been proposed – that the goal is to shock people. You challenged the integrity of an editor whose sole infraction was improving an encyclopedia article whose subject matter apparently makes you uncomfortable.
  Such suspicion is entirely unwarranted. Say what you like about the article itself (and the dire consequences of exposing unsuspecting main page visitors to it), but there's absolutely no need to cast aspersions on Cirt (or others involved in the process). —David Levy 05:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  I suggest you cut out the crap about ad hominems - you've been hectoring everyone who has posted an opinion you didn't like right from the off, and made little pretence at being civil in the process. You are apparently incapable of actually responding to what people say, but instead erect ridiculous straw men - like your facile suggestion that I am made uncomfortable by the word 'fuck' - just so you can regurgitate the same blather, and convince yourself you hold the moral high ground. You don't. Discussions about the appropriateness or otherwise of content need to be based arount the content itself, and the grounds for its inclusion, and not on the same old vacuous slogans about 'censorship' that get churned out whenever someone can't think of a better argument for material.

  And back on topic, I'm quite sure that Cirt is capable of responding for himself - and when he does so, he can explain why, if the proposal wasn't made for shock value, why he chose to discuss a previous FA with 'fuck' in the title in his initial nomination. If the article deserves inclusion on its merits, another article would be of no relevence, one would think. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  I suggest you cut out the crap about ad hominems - you've been hectoring everyone who has posted an opinion you didn't like right from the off, and made little pretence at being civil in the process.
  I won't deny that I'm opinionated and loquacious. I'm aware that I tend to post an excessive number of replies, as I remind myself when trying (and failing) to resist the temptation to post yet another.
  But it certainly isn't my intention to "hector" anyone. If that's how my responses to you (or anyone else) came across, I apologize unreservedly.
  You are apparently incapable of actually responding to what people say, but instead erect ridiculous straw men - like your facile suggestion that I am made uncomfortable by the word 'fuck' -
  I referred to the "subject matter", not the word "fuck". And that part wasn't a criticism. I don't know how the article affects you on a personal level, but you clearly aren't comfortable treating it as you would most Misplaced Pages articles, if only because you're concerned that it will upset others.
  Again, that wasn't the statement's critical portion. As I wrote above, say what you like about the article itself. I've taken issue with your assumption of bad faith. The difference between accusing others of causing trouble and alleging that they seek to cause trouble is immense.
  just so you can regurgitate the same blather, and convince yourself you hold the moral high ground.
  This isn't about me. I claim superiority to no one, not that it matters. For the purposes of this discussion, I'm nobody. If you consider me a jerk who enjoys arguing with people just to hear the sound of his own voice, so be it. It has no bearing on the article or its TFA candidacy.
  Discussions about the appropriateness or otherwise of content need to be based arount the content itself, and the grounds for its inclusion,
  Agreed. I'm asking you to discuss the content itself (instead of the unfounded allegation that it's been selected "for shock value").
  and not on the same old vacuous slogans about 'censorship' that get churned out whenever someone can't think of a better argument for material.
  I agree that "Misplaced Pages is not censored" isn't a valid argument for inclusion. (That's what's led us to actual instances in which editors purposely cherry-picked content – including the word "fuck" – and sent it to the main page specifically to engender controversy and prove that "Misplaced Pages is not censored". I've opposed such shenanigans as passionately as I support this article's appearance, so I'm hardly a member of "the WIKIPEDIA ISN'T CENSORED SO WE CAN DO WHATEVER WE LIKE crowd".) But when parties (by which I'm not referring to you) call for censorship on the basis that material is "offensive", it's a valid argument against exclusion.
  And back on topic, I'm quite sure that Cirt is capable of responding for himself - and when he does so, he can explain why, if the proposal wasn't made for shock value, why he chose to discuss a previous FA with 'fuck' in the title in his initial nomination. If the article deserves inclusion on its merits, another article would be of no relevence, one would think.
  He listed his "prior Featured Article quality contributions on the topic of freedom of speech and censorship." He also linked to the previous TFAR, which contains a great deal of discussion about whether to run an article whose title contains the word "fuck" as TFA. He later mentioned that he posted notifications containing exactly the same text used by Bencherlite in that instance (as requested in the past, primarily by editors who were surprised to see "objectionable" material on the main page and upset because the relevant discussions weren't advertised specially). I'm at a loss as to how any of this was inappropriate. Cirt appears to have gone to great lengths to document the situation as thoroughly possible, as opponents of "offensive" main page content have demanded. And now this is being held against him. (Had he not mentioned the other article, someone probably would have accused him of attempting to conceal his involvement in that matter, citing this as evidence that he's out to cause shock.) —David Levy 08:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  If you consider me a jerk who enjoys arguing with people just to hear the sound of his own voice, so be it. It has no bearing on the article or its TFA candidacy. Actually that's where you're wrong. The poor wretch who has to discern consensus here has to wade through (and filter out) all your harangues, which makes his job a lot more challenging. --Laser brain (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  If you interpreted my statement as an acknowledgment that I'm "a jerk who enjoys arguing with people just to hear the sound of his own voice", you misunderstood. If you're expressing agreement with that description, the same "so be it" applies.
  My point is that the objective here isn't to "win". I'm responding not because I consider myself morally superior and seek to prove this, but because I disagree with various statements and wish to address them. (This is a discussion, after all.)
  Bencherlite has to wade through a great deal of text written by multiple editors. I've added more than most have, but that has no bearing on its validity or lack thereof. (My idea of what should be "filtered out" might differ from yours.) —David Levy 21:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support. It's only mildly offensive to some puritans; we should not pamper to the few percent of the population who will feel offensive. We are not censored, and while I'd support not main paging certain topics that would be offensive to most, I don't feel this one would be. As a compromise, I'd suggest setting this up as the next April Fools topic; it wouldn't be as "shocking" at that time. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  Running the article on April Fools' Day would create the appearance of a joke – a calculated attempt to raise eyebrows – thereby reinforcing the perception that this is the motivation behind its selection. Given that such a belief is one of the main objections cited above, that would be counterproductive. —David Levy 04:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support, but not for the reasons most supporters have given. Yes, Misplaced Pages is uncensored: we're not going to title this article F*ck because people find the true title too appropriate. But we still have discretion about what we want to advertise on the main page, and I think it's entirely legitimate to decide that common politeness overrides the desire to educate readers about, say, fellatio. It's all a question of where to draw the line. Personally, I think the simple use of the word fuck in a scholarly context really isn't very shocking—certainly not shocking enough to take the unusual step of banning it from the main page.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 05:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support as a well-referenced and well-written article. Its title shouldn't prevent this from being on the main page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I know Misplaced Pages editors have a tendency toward wanting to push other people's buttons, and featuring on the main page a word that most English-speaking countries censor on television and radio would be a good way to do that, but I strongly feel that this would be harmful to Misplaced Pages's reputation. -- Ed (Edgar181) 10:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  On what do you base this strong feeling? What harm to Misplaced Pages's reputation did the previous "Fuck" article's TFA appearance cause? —David Levy 21:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support The word is part of our culture and few are shocked at hearing it anymore. Run the article and the controversy goes away.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I'm not moved by any of the objections listed here, although comments about editorial judgement are fair. If consensus about anything is decided here, it should be only that. --Laser brain (talk) 13:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose For the very good reasons expressed above. Choosing not to feature this article is not an act of censorship, so WP:NOTCENSORED is irrelevant here. What is relevant is Misplaced Pages's reputation and I agree that this is likely to do more harm than good. WaggersTALK 14:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  How, exactly, would featuring a high-quality article about a book examining the linguistic, legal and cultural history of an incredibly common word, damage Misplaced Pages's reputation? Have you read the article? It's responsible, mature, neutral coverage of a book which has its own history of similar objections just because it is, itself, a responsible, neutral and mature look at the issues surrounding the word fuck. I doubt it will alter our reputation one way or another, but if anything I would guess that it would cast us in a good light, given that we are able to address even potentially taboo subjects in a reasonable manner. 0x0077BE 14:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously going to argue with everyone who lists an oppose !vote?! Covering such things, and covering them well, is commendable and does indeed cast the project in a good light. Splashing that coverage over our front page is something else entirely. WaggersTALK 23:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I was addressing the arguments against as they came up. Since Bencherlite has expressed concern over the time it will take to assess consensus, I've decided to hold off at this point, mainly because nearly every Oppose vote is using reasoning identical to but found inadequate in the case of Fuck (film). I'm a bit concerned that none of the Oppose people seem to be building off of the discussion last time, and I was hoping that I'd be able to convince a few Opposes to either switch to Support or make a more substantive argument, but that doesn't seem to be happening. Generally people just accuse those of us trying to have a discussion rather than a vote of badgering, harassing or haranguing people. 0x0077BE 23:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Fuck here. No fuck there. There are perfectly acceptable places for "fuck" on Misplaced Pages. A discussion here about Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties is a perfectly fine place to use "fuck". Over there, on the main page, people are not expecting to see "fuck" and therefore featuring a word that is essentially prohibited on public broadcasting is a bad idea. We would be putting "fuck" into people's homes, workplaces, schools, phones, etc where they aren't expecting it. Places where "fuck" isn't appropriate. In the minds of the majority of people who find "fuck" offensive, we will solidify a negative impression of Misplaced Pages. That is not good for Misplaced Pages. Common sense, people. Common sense. Deli nk (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I came skeptical, but the more I consider it, the more innocuous it becomes. I read the article and part of the point was the political maneuver to title the book as such, so it would be placed in places such as the main page. Calling it out makes the word lose its power (per Wehwalt). The Reception section is pretty sparse (other than The New Yorker, the other reviews are very, very brief, especially knowing LJ, Choice, PW) but I don't think notability is an issue. Instructive in this moral panic is the fallout from the last time an article by the name of "Fuck" ran on the main page. If someone could cite some negatives from last time, I'd be willing to consider changing my support. As it stands, and considering the precedent, I think this discussion is a tempest in a teapot czar ♔ 16:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support Repurposing my comment from the last discussion. The article itself is fine. If it attracts the attention of the media then that's a good thing as readers will be directed to sober, well-written content that might actually make them think about freedom of speech and censorship. --NeilN 21:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Children read Misplaced Pages. This shouldn't be splashed in their faces by putting this on the front page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support, having read through all the arguments I can see both points of view. Yes this would be a controversial TFA, but given that the vast majority of TFA's aren't controversial I think the occasional one does no harm and sometimes it's good to shake things up a bit. --Rotten regard 22:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose though not for reasons of protecting the children. Oppose because the occasion for running the article is not adequate. This book is not primarily about the 1st amendment, but about the history of the word. First amendment concerns have been only a part of that history. of much more importance, the value of the 1st amendment is in contexts much more important than the relatively trivial one of this particular word, and it cheapens the significance of free speech to think it is mainly about curse words or obscenity. DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Also not "for the children" - I think many of them already know words like this by the time they hit kindergarten and swearing in media won't really harm them, nor do I even have the personal aversion to swearing in media that I do with sex - it's that since we've already had the Fuck film on the front page, doing it again in such short order comes off as gloating, "Hey, world, fuck you. This = free speech and we can put as much profanity on the main page as we goddamn well please, you cunts." And yes, Misplaced Pages has a reputation to uphold - it's more than a matter of tut-tutting; parents could ban their children, schools their students, or companies their employees from looking at Misplaced Pages if something like this were featured on the main page again. Perhaps they already did after the first one. Tezero (talk) 04:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose the blurb as written. We can blunt some of the criticisms over running the blurb by minimizing the word fuck to only appear in the title of the article in the first line of the blurb. That sentence ends with "and use of the word 'fuck' in society", which could be pipe to "and use of the word itself in society".

  Another concern: there is also the possibility that filtering software will block our Main Page as long as the word fuck appears in the text. That means for four days, readers at various libraries and corporations using sensitive filtering software will be unable to load the Main Page. Sadly, we can't re-render the title as F★ck as was done with the TFA on the film; that change matched the stylization of the title on the film poster. If there is a similarly stylized rendition of the title from some edition of the book, I would suggest switching to that.

  Final comments—the article and topic matter are not a problem for me. The fact that the author of the book delayed publication of the original article on this topic so as to not impact his tenure says a lot though about the controversial nature of the topic, and it's no surprise that editors have strong feelings about it. To those crowing that leaving it off the Main Page is censorship, you are wrong. Censorship would be leaving the article out of the encyclopedia. Editorial judgement, which is a function undertaken by the full community of editors, allows us to leave the article off the front page of our publication. If this article is to run as TFA, the blurb needs some work to deal with issues that will come up because of filtering software. Imzadi 1979 → 08:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

  Please see WP:EASTEREGG. Replacing a visible instance of "fuck" (which appears earlier in the same sentence anyway) with an obfuscated link to the Fuck article (likely resulting in many unintended visits thereto) seems counterproductive.
  Regarding the filtering concern, I'm curious as to the availability of data regarding the extent to which Fuck (film)'s TFA appearance had such an effect.
  In my view, we've been too focused on the question of whether excluding the article from the main page on the basis that it would cause offense constitutes "censorship". The word "censorship" can be used to express various concepts, and it appears that the debate stems primarily from opposing definitions. All of us can agree, I hope, that "leaving the article out of the encyclopedia" and "leaving it off the main page" are two very different concepts (with the former being a far more extreme measure, irrespective of how we feel about the latter). So really, we're quibbling over terminology. We can all it "censorship", an application of "editorial judgement", or "Steve". No matter what description we use, the real issue is whether it's appropriate. —David Levy 10:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Neutral (abstain). I've read all the above and can't add to it, beyond casting a vote as a no-longer-silent member of the silent majority. It's no big deal, if the film TFA had no great comeback, run with it. The content is fine. I am not offended by "swear words" but don't use them as substitutes for commas, because they do cause offence to other people (and I can think of "other people" who are offended by them – my parents).
  But jumping the queue to put it on a specific date that is irrelevant to readers unconnected with the US seems unnecessary: let it take its place in the queue. "The queue is short" is not a good reason to jump it: and if one day there are no FACs to feature, just say so on the main page. I can never be bothered with the faff of GA, FA etc for supporting articles (there is no Best supporting actor in Misplaced Pages) but might do if I felt they had a chance of getting attention (I mean more by editors than readers). The queue-jumping is shocking. (But then, I'm British, you would be killed for it in the UK, or worse, snubbed.) Si Trew (talk) 09:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

  What do you mean by "queue-jumping"? Featured articles aren't placed on the main page in the order of their promotion. We frequently schedule one in accordance with "a specific date that is irrelevant to readers unconnected with ". For example, I assure you that the 160th anniversary of the opening of the Great North of Scotland Railway's first line meant very little to Americans (and I'm inclined to doubt that it was on many Britons' minds). And that's fine. It's a normal part of TFA. —David Levy 10:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The book doesn't seem especially important or significant — it hasn't won any prizes, right? Featuring it would give it undue weight and seem too promotional, contrary to WP:SOAP. Andrew (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per editorial discretion. Much of the reason for running it is unconvincing: 'it exists' and 'notcensored' arguments are arguments to abandon editorial discretion, for which there is no basis in policy (nor do those reasons make sense, when discussing editorial decisions for the main page). Moreover, the arguments that this proposed action is commercially or politically promotional are well taken. Then too, there is the undue provocation argument, which is well reasoned, given the generally poor arguments in support, which amount to 'sure it can be unduly provocative but we should run it because it is so'. So, no. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support: the article maturely describes a book which maturely describes the use of the word "fuck". Yes, many people may be offended by it, but many more may enjoy reading an article (or at least a TFA blurb) on the subject of a taboo term. Some people are saying that anything could offend anyone, as it could, but the answer to "where do you draw the line?" is probably not "let's not have a line at all, then". However, Misplaced Pages is not censored is already an established policy and if something can be found from the random article feature (as Fuck can, as well as more disgusting articles such as The Human Centipede, 2 Girls 1 Cup and *shivers* Justin Bieber), then it is already something someone can stumble across by accident. Given the huge amount of TFAs that don't provoke controversy, this is not giving undue weight to offensive articles and no privilege is being given to subjects which provoke shock reactions by using the word "fuck" on occasion on the main page. And finally, I would personally be more offended by something that used a less offensive word in a more offensive way: the documentary doesn't attempt to provoke anyone and does not use the term in a discriminatory way. Bilorv _(Contribs) 14:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Be bold! This will help move the Main page into the 21st century. Prhartcom (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Let us be bold about covering difficult topics. Let us be bold about featuring controversial things of true significance. Using the word fuck in text is no longer particular significant, and the change occurred well before the 21st century. What apparently has not changed is the schoolboy practice of using it as a sign that we too can be bold. DGG ( talk ) 15:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages Today's featured article pending nominations