This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 135 | ← | Archive 139 | Archive 140 | Archive 141 | Archive 142 | Archive 143 | → | Archive 145 |
I wonder why the announcement of Google Chrome OS release has not be covered in WikiNews section of WP frontpage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.175.73.201 ( talk) 15:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if this wide web of possibilities extends around the world, I would hate to think we where keeping the possibilities for ourselves! Willski72 ( talk) 19:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
It might be a newsworthy announcement - when the OS actually comes out. Until then, it's just vaporware. 99.20.114.20 ( talk) 01:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
not sure where to write this, but at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Schmitz_(industrialist) an editor apparently introduced a hoax into article (Hitler was not in power in 1930, the BIS was never a European Central Bank etc.). Maybe there are procedure here at wikipedia to deal with users that introduce incorrect information into articles. I also think that the second paragraph is written in a sensationalist and un-encyclopeadic way —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian.moritz ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
no insects on the front page please, some of you are just sick sick people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.24.247 ( talk) 17:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!! I sincerely hope that is on, please please please may that be on the front page!! Willski72 ( talk) 22:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I was tempted to join in the discussion of Gropecunt, but I couldn't give a shit...oops, another section banned from colleges. - Michael of Lucan ( talk) 00:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Please friends, I can not find pages related to Michael Jackson, I have difficulty with the issues to be beginner, my address to contact for answers is <removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbrazill ( talk • contribs) 14:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Are we going through this whole ordeal again about minute details on Norway being presented as some curious fact that people should know? I think it puts my country in a bad light, and please save the sarcasm. 193.213.19.176 ( talk) 01:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Please, are we going to get this every time we put something related to Norway? :( weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
As a change from Ugandan negotiations' (or whatever the Private Eye term was)? (Linking up with previous subject of discussion) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 ( talk) 10:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I love reading about Norway - my first real girl friend was Norwegian, and the only genuine blonde I have ever been close to. Yes, dear, I confirm she was genuine blonde all over. So, I want to see more Norwegian articles. My guess for the 3,000,000th article is Norwegian Post Offices 1943 - 1985. I can't wait to be proven right. - Michael of Lucan ( talk) 23:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Please can someone put Michael Jackson on main page. It's the least wikipedia can do for the world's best dancer, singer and entertainer ever. -- Forsena ( talk) 18:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, after spending 4 and a half days on the main page we thought that people might of got the message....guess not! Willski72 ( talk) 18:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Geez people if you dont understand what i'm talking about don't answer. I was talking about his Featured page should be on the main page. And I really think nobody gives a crap about a Prime Minister from a country they never heard of resigned. Put his featured article on main page please, this is least we can do for him. R.I.P Michael we love you -- Forsena ( talk) 10:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
To most people Michael Jackson was just a good singer, most people did not "love" him. That Prime Minister you mentioned had far more power than Michael Jackson (although perphaps not skill) and is far more important in his country. Willski72 ( talk) 10:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems anyone can make Gordon Brown look like a right idiot at the moment but thats not the point, Michael Jackson doesnt control Nuclear missiles a Navy an airforce and an army, whereas (for better or for worse!) Gordon Brown does. Willski72 ( talk) 11:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I think if it was properly advertised then it would be possible for Michael Jackson to make the Featured Article slot on the 1 month anniversary of his death, by shear weight of numbers alone. Go for it Forsena, don't listen to some of the rude people here. MickMacNee ( talk) 10:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
PS even if Michael Jackson could of set of a socialist revolution in Croatia (which i doubt) it would fizzle out after a few weeks due to lack of sustained support. If he had tried it in the 80s before he made all those rubbish modern songs then things might be different... Willski72 ( talk) 11:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, discussion on whether / when to schedule Michael Jackson as Today's Featured Article is already underway here. Bencherlite Talk 11:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Not sure this will appear where I want it to (I have only edited a couple of times)....but what a discussion. Hilarious. I was amazed that Jackson got featured other than a news clip on the date of death. All this affected public grief is ridiculous. Get a grip people, there's genuinely important stuff happening in the world - but this poor messed up kid passing away isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.165.88 ( talk) 15:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Me and TWOFR have just been shot down in flames!! You were lucky to get out of that one alive Candlewicke! To Forsena i didnt say ALL his songs were rubbish, just his modern ones. It seems i underestimated the fanatical support he still has, i now realise that he could of probably pulled off a revolution. When you hear comments like "how epic he was" and "world's best dancer, singer and entertainer ever" and "Michael we love you", i now fully believe that many people would take a bullet for him! Nevertheless apart from making anguished fans commit suicide he had no real power over people, he could not raise or lower taxes, declare a state of emergency etc. Cheer up Forsena, at least we didnt mention all those obviously untrue, vile and disgusting claims brought against him over the years. Willski72 ( talk) 19:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Careful Vanderdecken! You're mentioning those "obviously untrue, vile and digusting claims" that are guaranteed to wind up the Michael Jackson fanatics to fever pitch! Willski72 ( talk) 20:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
'we're all going through a very hard period because of death of Michael Jackson' wow, are we? Funny that, I never noticed; seems to me that most people actually don't care, or in many cases would prefer the news coverage to just shut up already. I'm fairly sure that more than 1% of our readers have heard of Croatia. Finally, if you're bizarrely accusing Vanderdecken of only knowing things about him from the media, does that mean you have some personal contact or some other information that wasn't conferred through some form of media? This discussion has gone WAY off topic and does NOT belong on T:MP; take it to WP:TFAR (which I notice you have not bothered to nominate the article at). Modest Genius talk 21:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Nobody here hates Michael Jackson, we just dont worship him as a Prophet or demi-god. He had 4 days in the news and there is a discussion on him being put on the featured article. However the proper channels have to be consulted, no man is so great that they are above Wikipedia rules, not even Michael Jackson. Willski72 ( talk) 21:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
All the better, now it just has to be nominated and past. Willski72 ( talk) 16:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I find Zelaya far more interesting than some nutjob singer. I spent several months in Honduras and found the lack of admiration for money hungry weirdos quite comforting. Joy.discovery.invention ( talk) 14:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Is it just me that finds this selection massively biased? Oh well... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The overwhelming willpower of Forsena and co mean that we are defenceles in stopping the Michael Jackson wave washing through Wikipedia and destroying all in its wake!!! Willski72 ( talk) 09:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Coming back to the picture for Thriller article. I know cover is not used because it is a non-free image but why is there a policy to not have a low res non-free fair use image on main page to begin with? As far as i can tell we are still only referring to the context. Main page is technically still not a gallery... which to my understanding is where we can not use a non-free image. Ashishg55 ( talk) 14:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Haha, sorry, but I take back my "isn't this a bit biased"... first day of the Ashes and we get an English (i.e. not Australian) cricketer... Good luck Aussies? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
How about an article ABOUT the main page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.146.34 ( talk) 04:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
A month or so ago, I nominated Cunt (video game) for DYK. Hook, source, and everything was verified, but was deemed as "inappropriate for the Main Page"; see Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 47#Appropriate for the main page?. Fast forward to today, where Today's Featured Article, Gropecunt Lane is proudly displayed in plain sight for the entire world to view. I am failing to see the difference in appropriateness in the two and think that a double-standard is being applied. Perhaps we should nail down more, across the board, what is and is not appropriate for the Main Page. MuZemike 00:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
While I do not object to having all factually true information available on Wikipedia, there is a question of taste with regard to what is featured on the main page. As mentioned above, you could illustrate the use of words to connote the uses for a street using other examples that do not include, along with a link to its very own page, a word used to disrespect women. Re: double standards: I would object to a featured article that prominently featured a word used to disrespect men as well. (Though the English language does seem to contain few of these words in comparison to the variety of ways to specially insult women.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.163.89 ( talk) 14:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Please note that Wikipedia is not censored and that there is a content disclaimer before commenting in this thread. You'll likely get the same answer. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
appears to have been derived as a compound of the words "grope" and "cunt".
Please, think of the fictional children! Sceptre ( talk) 00:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not bothered by the children, I'm bothered by my access to wikipedia. My employer (and I'm sure they're not the only one) blocks websites that use profanity. With all the options available for featured article, I'm bemused that "Gropecunt Lane" was chosen. It smacks a little of "look I can use naughty words and you can't stop me." 123.208.72.170 ( talk) 01:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately a lot of people find the word "cunt" offensive. I'm not sure that it was a wise choice for the mainpage. It is fair to say that there are people who might consider the word "cunt" to be the most offensive word in our language.
My personal view is it should not appear without a direct request from the user.
I find it disappointing that those responsible have not considered the feelings of others before deciding to publish this article in such a prominent position. I add that I am not offended by it, however I can safely say that in my experience, most people I know would be. 150.101.154.90 ( talk) 02:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Whilst it is a well-written article that is worthy of its place in WP, I am suspicious that its placement on the main page is the result of a prank to exploit WP policies to get the word "cunt" there. We all know that is a word that is going to be regarded as offensive by a lot of readers -- placing it on the main page goes beyond WP:NOTCENSORED and suggests that slavish adherence to policy or making a point about censorship trumps consideration for readers. Duncan Keith ( talk) 06:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:AFP - really. Crafty ( talk) 06:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Duncan Keith. My understanding is that Wikipedia operates, in no small part, upon achieving an agreement. If there were to be a straightforward vote upon whether this is a suitable subject for the Main Page, I would vote NO. Whether it should exist as an article is another matter (it should). When the daily email appeared in my inbox here at work, I involuntarily blushed & deleted it immediately, wondering if it was the work of vandals. I am not a prude, and I find the concept of society's attitudes towards a word quite fascinating, but I do detest this word. I find something altogether immature about using this for TFA, even if it technically satisfies other criteria. Just seems like some fun for a bunch of anarchists. Careful With That Axe, Eugene |Talk 08:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I would like to go back to that point about only people without accounts have complained. Thats because the first reaction of everyone with an account is "HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!" and then "This is even funnier than when they had the nudey lady on the front page!!". Personally i think it was a good idea naming the streets occupation, to stop "the children!" wondering down there at night! Willski72 ( talk) 08:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm 12 years old, and what is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.152.4 ( talk) 11:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I had imagined, perhaps incorrectly that it didn't matter if one had an account or not to make comment. I feel my comments have been constructive in nature and were made to further debate on the issue. Some of the other comment has been great I must say. If someone feels I'd be better of making my comments as a user please feel free to say why on my talk page. 150.101.154.90 ( talk) 09:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Some computer systems have crude filers that block certain combinations of letters. This is very inconvenient for the Lincolnshire seaside resort of S****horpe. Peter jackson ( talk) 10:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Can this please be removed from the front page? This website is an excellent educational tool for children but there's no way i'm allowing mine to access it whilst there are very strong swear words on the front page. Did someone think they were being clever and controversial selecting this as a front page article? Grow up. -- Rcclh ( talk) 10:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Its seen as "risque", pushing the boundaries into a new dimension, seeing the wild from a new and fresh perspective, and a lot of other modern art crap. Willski72 ( talk) 11:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Nobody cares of course, but I'll just add that I'm offended by it and will not be visiting the front page of Wikipedia again. I'll only Google in to specific pages from here on in. Maybe I'm an old fuddy duddy, but I don't watch modern TV for much the same reasons. There is no reason to put such a thing on the front page of a top 10 in the world web site. It's disgusting. Oh, and the reason I'm posting an 'anonymous' comment is because I see no reason whatsoever to create yet another internet based account to (heretofore) correct spelling mistakes/whatever on Wikipedia pages. If you think it makes my views less important then that's another point against Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.150.13 ( talk) 11:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Innocent children need to know which streets they can and cannot go down, there are now many instances in Britain of quite nice sounding streets being ruled by thugs and chavs etc. If we followed the old custom children would understand not to go down these streets "hmm scumbag avenue, i might pass on going down this street". Its the same with prostitution, to a small child "red light district" seems enticing not offputting. Willski72 ( talk) 13:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I've read this whole string, and the most offensive thing I've read is that Jenna Jameson has been banned from ever appearing on the main page. Is this true? If it is then it's an outrage! Rreagan007 ( talk) 14:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Come on, it's inappropriate. It's an interesting fact but anyone responsible wouldn't put it up front like this. To do so lowers Wikipedia to the tabloid standards we have to endure in the uk. --- Rodge500 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC).
The concerns here are pretty silly given that a high proportion of visiting kids look up "naughty" articles on here anyway. Just check out the top 100 searches. And this isn't even a "naughty" article. Cunt is a very offensive word to many but we are not censored and the article has historical significance. Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I've yet to see anyone explain what actual harm could come to a child upon reading the word "cunt" in this academic sense. Especially as they can simultaneously learn the etymology (also learn what etymology means) of that word. So can someone please explain to a father of two girls what the actual harm is when caused by this word (or any word for that matter)? -- Web Hamster 12:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Would you people kindly calm down? Running an article on a historic curiosity does not mean the main page has become Page Three. Come on.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 15:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, this issue would be very complicated, if it weren't for one particular guideline called Wikipedia:Profanity (which someone already mentioned soon into this discussion). You don't even need to read past the first paragraph, which is as follows:
Is it then too farfetched to extrapolate this guideline to the Main Page, and realize that this article should not have been used as a Featured Article since there are almost 2000(?) Nominated Article alternatives? When I saw this article on the front page, I wasn't offended myself, but I thought "I'm sure there'll be a whole bunch of people who will be offended by this!". Considering the Profanity guideline, shouldn't the admins have thought the same thing, that someone out of the "typical Wikipedia readers" would be offended? I myself do not agree with censoring of this type (particularly denying featuring Jenna Jameson's article when it's a high quality article worthy of being featured), but it's an official guideline, so admins should follow it. Right? Kreachure ( talk) 16:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
This isn't an issue of censorship, but of common sense selection of how you want your public face to be seen. There is nothing wrong with the articles on the female anatomy - but would a picture of the clitoris really be a front page item? Really? This article is inappropriate for the place it has been posted - not for its content or value. Wikipedia's editors should be chastised for not thinking clearly. -- Geofferic ( talk) 16:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Let's be clear. This is not be about WP:Censorship. The article is fine. Not putting it up as an FA would not have constituted censorship in any way. But making it an FA does treat the Wikipedia:Reasonability Rule with contempt. leaky_caldron ( talk) 16:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Couple points:
jnestorius( talk) 20:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
And if there were a 'Click here for "adult"/medical/peculiar political subject/other topics which generate much discussion on the Main Page Talk Page ane which are likely to cause much discussion between curious children and their parents or get entangled with institutional blocking policies' with a 'Yes I am over 18' filter button, the discussions would still arise - and every child would investigate when parents are not looking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 ( talk) 08:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I do believe that institutions of ostensibly "higher" education need to be broken of the stupid idea of blocking pages because they include some objected word. Nonetheless, Wikipedia exists to be helpful, and however much moral self-satisfaction we might be tempted to enjoy when colleges block their students from accessing Wikipedia on account of something stupid, the mission of the organization urges a conciliatory solution. Therefore, I ask that the Wikipedia site administrators set up a domain name, http://search.wikipedia.org, which redirects to http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special%3ASearch&search=&fulltext=Search. This allows people searching for articles in the English Wikipedia to use an easy to remember name to get past any content objections to the Main Page. It also would allow those of us who consult or edit the encyclopedia to avoid bogging down the server with so many page reloads. (For other languages, use translations of the word "search") Wnt ( talk) 17:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Just to bring about a slightly different objection to those posed so far, since June 29, we've had as TFA a British sitcom, a British military operation, English castle, an English queen consort, Scottish wildlife, an English international sportsman, and an English street name. So seven of the previous nine TFAs have revolved around the UK. I'm sure it's unintentional, but it is a bit excessive. GeeJo (t)⁄ (c) • 16:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. I don't see that anyone has requested an English article for the rest of the month, and Raul tends to shift things around.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm just surprised that wiki admin chose to put this article there. They knew it was going to evoke a response and debate at the very least. I thought one of the principles of wikipedia is that it's an encylopedia, not a soapbox or debate hall. Sandman30s ( talk) 20:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Britian and england have rather a lot of well documented history. It is not unexpected that a fair number of featured articles result.© Geni 20:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Did you know that cunt, queen and gynecologist all derive from the same root word? Maybe we should ban all of them, too. Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 01:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
What about Norway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 ( talk) 08:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 135 | ← | Archive 139 | Archive 140 | Archive 141 | Archive 142 | Archive 143 | → | Archive 145 |
I wonder why the announcement of Google Chrome OS release has not be covered in WikiNews section of WP frontpage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.175.73.201 ( talk) 15:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if this wide web of possibilities extends around the world, I would hate to think we where keeping the possibilities for ourselves! Willski72 ( talk) 19:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
It might be a newsworthy announcement - when the OS actually comes out. Until then, it's just vaporware. 99.20.114.20 ( talk) 01:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
not sure where to write this, but at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Schmitz_(industrialist) an editor apparently introduced a hoax into article (Hitler was not in power in 1930, the BIS was never a European Central Bank etc.). Maybe there are procedure here at wikipedia to deal with users that introduce incorrect information into articles. I also think that the second paragraph is written in a sensationalist and un-encyclopeadic way —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian.moritz ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
no insects on the front page please, some of you are just sick sick people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.24.247 ( talk) 17:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!! I sincerely hope that is on, please please please may that be on the front page!! Willski72 ( talk) 22:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I was tempted to join in the discussion of Gropecunt, but I couldn't give a shit...oops, another section banned from colleges. - Michael of Lucan ( talk) 00:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Please friends, I can not find pages related to Michael Jackson, I have difficulty with the issues to be beginner, my address to contact for answers is <removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbrazill ( talk • contribs) 14:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Are we going through this whole ordeal again about minute details on Norway being presented as some curious fact that people should know? I think it puts my country in a bad light, and please save the sarcasm. 193.213.19.176 ( talk) 01:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Please, are we going to get this every time we put something related to Norway? :( weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
As a change from Ugandan negotiations' (or whatever the Private Eye term was)? (Linking up with previous subject of discussion) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 ( talk) 10:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I love reading about Norway - my first real girl friend was Norwegian, and the only genuine blonde I have ever been close to. Yes, dear, I confirm she was genuine blonde all over. So, I want to see more Norwegian articles. My guess for the 3,000,000th article is Norwegian Post Offices 1943 - 1985. I can't wait to be proven right. - Michael of Lucan ( talk) 23:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Please can someone put Michael Jackson on main page. It's the least wikipedia can do for the world's best dancer, singer and entertainer ever. -- Forsena ( talk) 18:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, after spending 4 and a half days on the main page we thought that people might of got the message....guess not! Willski72 ( talk) 18:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Geez people if you dont understand what i'm talking about don't answer. I was talking about his Featured page should be on the main page. And I really think nobody gives a crap about a Prime Minister from a country they never heard of resigned. Put his featured article on main page please, this is least we can do for him. R.I.P Michael we love you -- Forsena ( talk) 10:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
To most people Michael Jackson was just a good singer, most people did not "love" him. That Prime Minister you mentioned had far more power than Michael Jackson (although perphaps not skill) and is far more important in his country. Willski72 ( talk) 10:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems anyone can make Gordon Brown look like a right idiot at the moment but thats not the point, Michael Jackson doesnt control Nuclear missiles a Navy an airforce and an army, whereas (for better or for worse!) Gordon Brown does. Willski72 ( talk) 11:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I think if it was properly advertised then it would be possible for Michael Jackson to make the Featured Article slot on the 1 month anniversary of his death, by shear weight of numbers alone. Go for it Forsena, don't listen to some of the rude people here. MickMacNee ( talk) 10:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
PS even if Michael Jackson could of set of a socialist revolution in Croatia (which i doubt) it would fizzle out after a few weeks due to lack of sustained support. If he had tried it in the 80s before he made all those rubbish modern songs then things might be different... Willski72 ( talk) 11:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, discussion on whether / when to schedule Michael Jackson as Today's Featured Article is already underway here. Bencherlite Talk 11:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Not sure this will appear where I want it to (I have only edited a couple of times)....but what a discussion. Hilarious. I was amazed that Jackson got featured other than a news clip on the date of death. All this affected public grief is ridiculous. Get a grip people, there's genuinely important stuff happening in the world - but this poor messed up kid passing away isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.165.88 ( talk) 15:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Me and TWOFR have just been shot down in flames!! You were lucky to get out of that one alive Candlewicke! To Forsena i didnt say ALL his songs were rubbish, just his modern ones. It seems i underestimated the fanatical support he still has, i now realise that he could of probably pulled off a revolution. When you hear comments like "how epic he was" and "world's best dancer, singer and entertainer ever" and "Michael we love you", i now fully believe that many people would take a bullet for him! Nevertheless apart from making anguished fans commit suicide he had no real power over people, he could not raise or lower taxes, declare a state of emergency etc. Cheer up Forsena, at least we didnt mention all those obviously untrue, vile and disgusting claims brought against him over the years. Willski72 ( talk) 19:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Careful Vanderdecken! You're mentioning those "obviously untrue, vile and digusting claims" that are guaranteed to wind up the Michael Jackson fanatics to fever pitch! Willski72 ( talk) 20:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
'we're all going through a very hard period because of death of Michael Jackson' wow, are we? Funny that, I never noticed; seems to me that most people actually don't care, or in many cases would prefer the news coverage to just shut up already. I'm fairly sure that more than 1% of our readers have heard of Croatia. Finally, if you're bizarrely accusing Vanderdecken of only knowing things about him from the media, does that mean you have some personal contact or some other information that wasn't conferred through some form of media? This discussion has gone WAY off topic and does NOT belong on T:MP; take it to WP:TFAR (which I notice you have not bothered to nominate the article at). Modest Genius talk 21:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Nobody here hates Michael Jackson, we just dont worship him as a Prophet or demi-god. He had 4 days in the news and there is a discussion on him being put on the featured article. However the proper channels have to be consulted, no man is so great that they are above Wikipedia rules, not even Michael Jackson. Willski72 ( talk) 21:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
All the better, now it just has to be nominated and past. Willski72 ( talk) 16:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I find Zelaya far more interesting than some nutjob singer. I spent several months in Honduras and found the lack of admiration for money hungry weirdos quite comforting. Joy.discovery.invention ( talk) 14:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Is it just me that finds this selection massively biased? Oh well... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The overwhelming willpower of Forsena and co mean that we are defenceles in stopping the Michael Jackson wave washing through Wikipedia and destroying all in its wake!!! Willski72 ( talk) 09:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Coming back to the picture for Thriller article. I know cover is not used because it is a non-free image but why is there a policy to not have a low res non-free fair use image on main page to begin with? As far as i can tell we are still only referring to the context. Main page is technically still not a gallery... which to my understanding is where we can not use a non-free image. Ashishg55 ( talk) 14:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Haha, sorry, but I take back my "isn't this a bit biased"... first day of the Ashes and we get an English (i.e. not Australian) cricketer... Good luck Aussies? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
How about an article ABOUT the main page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.146.34 ( talk) 04:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
A month or so ago, I nominated Cunt (video game) for DYK. Hook, source, and everything was verified, but was deemed as "inappropriate for the Main Page"; see Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 47#Appropriate for the main page?. Fast forward to today, where Today's Featured Article, Gropecunt Lane is proudly displayed in plain sight for the entire world to view. I am failing to see the difference in appropriateness in the two and think that a double-standard is being applied. Perhaps we should nail down more, across the board, what is and is not appropriate for the Main Page. MuZemike 00:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
While I do not object to having all factually true information available on Wikipedia, there is a question of taste with regard to what is featured on the main page. As mentioned above, you could illustrate the use of words to connote the uses for a street using other examples that do not include, along with a link to its very own page, a word used to disrespect women. Re: double standards: I would object to a featured article that prominently featured a word used to disrespect men as well. (Though the English language does seem to contain few of these words in comparison to the variety of ways to specially insult women.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.163.89 ( talk) 14:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Please note that Wikipedia is not censored and that there is a content disclaimer before commenting in this thread. You'll likely get the same answer. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
appears to have been derived as a compound of the words "grope" and "cunt".
Please, think of the fictional children! Sceptre ( talk) 00:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not bothered by the children, I'm bothered by my access to wikipedia. My employer (and I'm sure they're not the only one) blocks websites that use profanity. With all the options available for featured article, I'm bemused that "Gropecunt Lane" was chosen. It smacks a little of "look I can use naughty words and you can't stop me." 123.208.72.170 ( talk) 01:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately a lot of people find the word "cunt" offensive. I'm not sure that it was a wise choice for the mainpage. It is fair to say that there are people who might consider the word "cunt" to be the most offensive word in our language.
My personal view is it should not appear without a direct request from the user.
I find it disappointing that those responsible have not considered the feelings of others before deciding to publish this article in such a prominent position. I add that I am not offended by it, however I can safely say that in my experience, most people I know would be. 150.101.154.90 ( talk) 02:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Whilst it is a well-written article that is worthy of its place in WP, I am suspicious that its placement on the main page is the result of a prank to exploit WP policies to get the word "cunt" there. We all know that is a word that is going to be regarded as offensive by a lot of readers -- placing it on the main page goes beyond WP:NOTCENSORED and suggests that slavish adherence to policy or making a point about censorship trumps consideration for readers. Duncan Keith ( talk) 06:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:AFP - really. Crafty ( talk) 06:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Duncan Keith. My understanding is that Wikipedia operates, in no small part, upon achieving an agreement. If there were to be a straightforward vote upon whether this is a suitable subject for the Main Page, I would vote NO. Whether it should exist as an article is another matter (it should). When the daily email appeared in my inbox here at work, I involuntarily blushed & deleted it immediately, wondering if it was the work of vandals. I am not a prude, and I find the concept of society's attitudes towards a word quite fascinating, but I do detest this word. I find something altogether immature about using this for TFA, even if it technically satisfies other criteria. Just seems like some fun for a bunch of anarchists. Careful With That Axe, Eugene |Talk 08:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I would like to go back to that point about only people without accounts have complained. Thats because the first reaction of everyone with an account is "HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!" and then "This is even funnier than when they had the nudey lady on the front page!!". Personally i think it was a good idea naming the streets occupation, to stop "the children!" wondering down there at night! Willski72 ( talk) 08:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm 12 years old, and what is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.152.4 ( talk) 11:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I had imagined, perhaps incorrectly that it didn't matter if one had an account or not to make comment. I feel my comments have been constructive in nature and were made to further debate on the issue. Some of the other comment has been great I must say. If someone feels I'd be better of making my comments as a user please feel free to say why on my talk page. 150.101.154.90 ( talk) 09:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Some computer systems have crude filers that block certain combinations of letters. This is very inconvenient for the Lincolnshire seaside resort of S****horpe. Peter jackson ( talk) 10:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Can this please be removed from the front page? This website is an excellent educational tool for children but there's no way i'm allowing mine to access it whilst there are very strong swear words on the front page. Did someone think they were being clever and controversial selecting this as a front page article? Grow up. -- Rcclh ( talk) 10:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Its seen as "risque", pushing the boundaries into a new dimension, seeing the wild from a new and fresh perspective, and a lot of other modern art crap. Willski72 ( talk) 11:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Nobody cares of course, but I'll just add that I'm offended by it and will not be visiting the front page of Wikipedia again. I'll only Google in to specific pages from here on in. Maybe I'm an old fuddy duddy, but I don't watch modern TV for much the same reasons. There is no reason to put such a thing on the front page of a top 10 in the world web site. It's disgusting. Oh, and the reason I'm posting an 'anonymous' comment is because I see no reason whatsoever to create yet another internet based account to (heretofore) correct spelling mistakes/whatever on Wikipedia pages. If you think it makes my views less important then that's another point against Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.150.13 ( talk) 11:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Innocent children need to know which streets they can and cannot go down, there are now many instances in Britain of quite nice sounding streets being ruled by thugs and chavs etc. If we followed the old custom children would understand not to go down these streets "hmm scumbag avenue, i might pass on going down this street". Its the same with prostitution, to a small child "red light district" seems enticing not offputting. Willski72 ( talk) 13:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I've read this whole string, and the most offensive thing I've read is that Jenna Jameson has been banned from ever appearing on the main page. Is this true? If it is then it's an outrage! Rreagan007 ( talk) 14:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Come on, it's inappropriate. It's an interesting fact but anyone responsible wouldn't put it up front like this. To do so lowers Wikipedia to the tabloid standards we have to endure in the uk. --- Rodge500 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC).
The concerns here are pretty silly given that a high proportion of visiting kids look up "naughty" articles on here anyway. Just check out the top 100 searches. And this isn't even a "naughty" article. Cunt is a very offensive word to many but we are not censored and the article has historical significance. Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I've yet to see anyone explain what actual harm could come to a child upon reading the word "cunt" in this academic sense. Especially as they can simultaneously learn the etymology (also learn what etymology means) of that word. So can someone please explain to a father of two girls what the actual harm is when caused by this word (or any word for that matter)? -- Web Hamster 12:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Would you people kindly calm down? Running an article on a historic curiosity does not mean the main page has become Page Three. Come on.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 15:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, this issue would be very complicated, if it weren't for one particular guideline called Wikipedia:Profanity (which someone already mentioned soon into this discussion). You don't even need to read past the first paragraph, which is as follows:
Is it then too farfetched to extrapolate this guideline to the Main Page, and realize that this article should not have been used as a Featured Article since there are almost 2000(?) Nominated Article alternatives? When I saw this article on the front page, I wasn't offended myself, but I thought "I'm sure there'll be a whole bunch of people who will be offended by this!". Considering the Profanity guideline, shouldn't the admins have thought the same thing, that someone out of the "typical Wikipedia readers" would be offended? I myself do not agree with censoring of this type (particularly denying featuring Jenna Jameson's article when it's a high quality article worthy of being featured), but it's an official guideline, so admins should follow it. Right? Kreachure ( talk) 16:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
This isn't an issue of censorship, but of common sense selection of how you want your public face to be seen. There is nothing wrong with the articles on the female anatomy - but would a picture of the clitoris really be a front page item? Really? This article is inappropriate for the place it has been posted - not for its content or value. Wikipedia's editors should be chastised for not thinking clearly. -- Geofferic ( talk) 16:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Let's be clear. This is not be about WP:Censorship. The article is fine. Not putting it up as an FA would not have constituted censorship in any way. But making it an FA does treat the Wikipedia:Reasonability Rule with contempt. leaky_caldron ( talk) 16:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Couple points:
jnestorius( talk) 20:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
And if there were a 'Click here for "adult"/medical/peculiar political subject/other topics which generate much discussion on the Main Page Talk Page ane which are likely to cause much discussion between curious children and their parents or get entangled with institutional blocking policies' with a 'Yes I am over 18' filter button, the discussions would still arise - and every child would investigate when parents are not looking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 ( talk) 08:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I do believe that institutions of ostensibly "higher" education need to be broken of the stupid idea of blocking pages because they include some objected word. Nonetheless, Wikipedia exists to be helpful, and however much moral self-satisfaction we might be tempted to enjoy when colleges block their students from accessing Wikipedia on account of something stupid, the mission of the organization urges a conciliatory solution. Therefore, I ask that the Wikipedia site administrators set up a domain name, http://search.wikipedia.org, which redirects to http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special%3ASearch&search=&fulltext=Search. This allows people searching for articles in the English Wikipedia to use an easy to remember name to get past any content objections to the Main Page. It also would allow those of us who consult or edit the encyclopedia to avoid bogging down the server with so many page reloads. (For other languages, use translations of the word "search") Wnt ( talk) 17:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Just to bring about a slightly different objection to those posed so far, since June 29, we've had as TFA a British sitcom, a British military operation, English castle, an English queen consort, Scottish wildlife, an English international sportsman, and an English street name. So seven of the previous nine TFAs have revolved around the UK. I'm sure it's unintentional, but it is a bit excessive. GeeJo (t)⁄ (c) • 16:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. I don't see that anyone has requested an English article for the rest of the month, and Raul tends to shift things around.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm just surprised that wiki admin chose to put this article there. They knew it was going to evoke a response and debate at the very least. I thought one of the principles of wikipedia is that it's an encylopedia, not a soapbox or debate hall. Sandman30s ( talk) 20:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Britian and england have rather a lot of well documented history. It is not unexpected that a fair number of featured articles result.© Geni 20:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Did you know that cunt, queen and gynecologist all derive from the same root word? Maybe we should ban all of them, too. Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 01:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
What about Norway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 ( talk) 08:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)