Talk:Gropecunt Lane
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Roads, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of UK roads on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. |
|
 FA |
This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Low |
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. |
|
| FA |
This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Low |
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
|
 edit |
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) |
- Q1: Isn't it irresponsible for Wikipedia to have a vulgar article appear as Today's Featured Article on the Main Page?
- A1: Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia strives to be considered a serious reference work. As part of being a serious reference work, we approach all topics with a detached sensibility which does not take an emotional involvement in the visceral response to a topic. People have differing, subjective standards of what is vulgar, but that someone finds a subject vulgar or offensive does not prevent a dispassionate, scholarly article about the subject.
- Q2: How did this article even become a featured article?
- A2: See The featured article criteria. Featured articles are judged based on a strict set of standards, which include such things as clarity of writing, quality and depth of sources, and comprehensive treatment of the subject. Articles that are nominated for feature status undergo a long, in-depth vetting process, where the article is scutinized by many editors. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gropecunt Lane/archive1 for more on the specific discussion which promoted this article to featured status
- Q3: How did this article appear on the Main Page?
- A3: The procedure for placing a featured article on the Main Page is explained at Wikipedia:Today's featured article. The basic procedure is pretty simple. The Featured Article Director decides every day which article will appear on the main page, based in part on the advice of other Wikipedia editors at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests.
- Q4: Doesn't this type of article contribute to Wikipedia's reputation of being unreliable and prone to promote salacious or unacademic topics?
- A4: On the contrary, if you read the article rather than merely focusing on a word in the name of the article, you may notice that this article is given a rather dispassionate, academic treatment. Rather than getting hung up on such trivialities as what words may offend the sensibilities of any particular reader, Wikipedia strives to take a scholarly approach towards researching and writing about all subjects. It is a source of pride, and not embarrassment, that Wikipedia is able to present such a well researched article on just about any subject, even those which may contain an offensive word in the title.
|
[edit] This Talk page is archived too aggressively
This Talk page is archived too aggressively. It is very short relative to many other Talk pages, and the last entry in the last archive is not very old as compared with other archived Talk pages. I have no idea how to fix this. David Spector (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- It seems to me that it's archived rather infrequently. What would you consider to be a reasonable cycle? Malleus Fatuorum 00:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Speculative Note should be removed
At the beginning of the References section, there is a Note that contains unsourced speculation. The OED includes the first date for which an OED editor has found an instance in print for each word. The process used for most of the history of OED was a fairly random one of accepting contributions from individual, trusted contributors, storing them on little slips of paper in physical cubbyholes. Therefore, etymologists know that the published date of first use in the OED is highly inaccurate. In addition, the Note speculates that prior to its first attested use, the word did not have the current meaning. That is neither likely nor unlikely, it is simply not known. More often than not, 'vulgar' words retain their meanings backwards in time at least as long as other kinds of words; vulgar words as a class have a perhaps surprisingly ancient provenance. I suggest, therefore, that the Note be deleted as speculation. It also does not seem essential to the article. David Spector (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Do you have a reliable source that supports your view? I'm not saying I disagree, but for better or worse that's the way that Wikipedia works. Malleus Fatuorum 00:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- The first part was introduced by me, here, and the second part again, by me, here. There's a straightforward contradiction between that line and what Holt-Baker says. I checked today, and they mention Piers Plowman, and say something akin to "aptly-named Cock Lane", so I'd tend to agree with the above (although I'm not sure what expertise Holt-Baker has with regard to other street names).
- So, I'm not sure what I was reading when I inserted that line but as it obviously disagrees with the better sources I'll remove it. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. My mistake. Parrot of Doom 11:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- You may be right to remove, but the OP's logic seems rather confused to me. "Cunt" is simply a normal word for the thing it names, albeit now a "vulgar" one, whereas "cock" is a slang term (derived from an animal, like "pussy"). Slang terms do not "retain their meanings backwards in time at least as long as other kinds of words." Far from it, they often come into being quickly, and change meaning quickly, and disappear quickly. It seems perfectly legitimate to raise the question whether "cock" had a sexual meaning at the time, and even if it did, whether it had the same one it does now, as simply a synonym for penis. Maybe it referred to the fact that ity was a place that a man could behave like a cock among hens, having several partners. Paul B (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- At any rate, even before Parrot added the bit about Piers Plowman and the OED, the material about prostitutes on "Cocks Lane" was attributed to the Holt & Baker work. It might be useful to check if it includes any further elaboration about the name or cites another work that does.Cúchullain t/c 14:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- The entire section of the book in which Holt-Baker appears is stored in a dropbox folder, I'm happy to allow access to anyone who wishes it. You just have to email me for an invite. Parrot of Doom 15:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
edit
