Talk:Main Page

Main Page error reports

Main Page toolbox
Yesterday February 10	Today February 11, 2012	Tomorrow February 12
TFA	TFA	TFA
SA/OTD	SA/OTD	SA/OTD
POTD Main Page v. POTD regular v.	POTD Main Page v. POTD regular v.	POTD Main Page v. POTD regular v.
Today's featured list (Mondays only): requests
In the news: candidates · discussion · admin instructions
Did you know: suggestions · prep area · queue
Protected main page images Protected pages associated with Main Page articles
Error reports · General discussions · FAQ · Help · Sandbox
It is now 09:22 UTC Purge the Main Page Purge this page

To report an error you have noticed on today's or tomorrow's Main Page, please add it to the appropriate section below.

Please note the following:

• Where is the error?: The more specific you can be (an exact item, for example "item number 3 on DYK"; or a sentence) the faster an admin can find it.
• Be specific: Errors can be fixed faster when a correction is offered.
• References: Can be helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Consensus: Remember that the Main Page usually defers to supporting pages for accuracy or when there is disagreement, so it is best to achieve consensus and make any necessary changes there first.
• Time zones: Note that Coordinated Universal Time is used for the current date and time (09:22 on 11 Feb 2012), and this may not coincide with your local time zone.
• Should I use {{edit protected}}?: No. Using {{edit protected}} here will not give you a faster response, and in fact breaks the template when it is placed directly on the Main Page Errors page instead of on a talk page.
• Done?: Once an error has been fixed, the error report will be removed from this page; please check the page's history to verify that the error has been rectified and for any other comments the administrator may have made.
• No chit-chat: Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere.

Errors in In the news

Vostok Lake

metre is spelt wrong and normally dashes aren't used before units. Jolly Ω Janner 11:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It's the US spelling and that's not a dash, it's a hyphen which is correctly used in this case. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right, but 'meter' is ambiguous (with e.g. a measuring instrument) whilst 'metre' is not. There's no strong reason why US spelling should be used for a Russia/Antarctica item, so we should use the unambiguous international spelling. Modest Genius ^talk 15:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed this altogether since it's a random fact from the article at best. — Joseph Fox 18:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I've restored this information. Without mentioning the fact that a borehole was drilled, how the lake reportedly was reached is entirely unclear. As discussed above, I've switched to the spelling "metre". We're converting to feet anyway (not that "metre" is especially confusing to Americans). —David Levy 18:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. The American spelling was put up first, and you're only encouraging nonsense arguments like the one made by Modest Genius. That British people have to put up with, gasp, an American spelling on the Main Page for a few days is not something we should be concerned with. -- tariqabjotu 18:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to revert to "meter", I certainly don't mind. I see no reason why either spelling should be a problem. I don't even know why we bother converting to feet, as metres/meters surely are familiar to most readers (including Americans). —David Levy 18:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "meter" is ambiguous? To who? Is there anyone who thought that the lake was reached with 3,760 measuring instruments? You might as well say that "feet" is ambiguous because people might think they sent down thousands of severed feet. C'mon, at least present some arguments that don't rely on the extremely stupid, likely non-existent, person. -- tariqabjotu 18:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm also concerned that the Russian team reaching the lake is being presented as fact, despite the article used as the source notes that "The report could not be verified", whilst the BBC reports that "Antarctic lake success 'uncertain'. Number 57 12:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I've just added a reference to the article to a Nature story: ‘Too soon’ to confirm success of Antarctic lake drilling. It quotes the guy in charge. They've probably done it, but he's a proper scientist and wants to collect his data before he allows an official announcement. This ITN should be reworded to say "an unnamed source claims ...", or it should be removed until the scientists make an official announcement. WP:Verify, and all that.--ML5 (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Changed to "claim". — Joseph Fox 18:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Not everything as to be an official report. The United States didn't need a peer-review to say they landed on the moon. Marcus Qwertyus 01:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

So, the state-run Russian news agency RIA Novosti claims that Russian scientists have reached the liquid surface of Lake Vostok, but the same scientists want to wait and check their instruments before making any announcement. This should not be ITN. It means that if the scientists can verify their readings and make a very-newsworthy announcement, it probably won't be covered ITN as everyone will think it's old news.--ML5 (talk) 12:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding metre/meter, I suggest that this particular item not be changed again, but in future, I was under the impression that ITN followed the usage in the article, specifically so that this type of silly argument could be avoided here. Regarding the wording of the blurb, I think David Levy's most recent change has addressed everyone's concerns, hasn't it? --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  The article also primarily uses the U.S. spelling. It really doesn't matter what convention we use, though. We will invariably get people -- and it seems primarily proponents of BrEng -- complaining when their preferred variant isn't used. All requests for changes in variant should be ignored, unless an admin made a change thinking there was an error, when their wasn't (e.g. changing "Spain win..." to "Spain wins..." thinking that's not grammatically correct in a language variant) or when there is an obvious geographic tie to one. -- tariqabjotu 13:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  It's more like half and half. BrEng editors generally complain about a UScentric conspiracy, and AmEng editors generally complain that there's a spelling error because they don't know the other spelling even exists :) I have no problem with your proposed solution, except that it isn't how I've seen in handled previously. I don't see it written down anywhere, but I've usually seen the "defer to the article" solution. If the article is inconsistent, I suppose it should be uniformified. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, I'm aware that we get a lot of AmEng editors complaining about errors that aren't actually there, but that's out of naivete. Generally, when told "actually, that's correct in BrEng", they go "oh, I didn't know that; learn something new". I don't fault them for not knowing. Complaints like the above, however, are not because they're unaware that "meter" is correct in AmEng (well, it's possible that's the case with Jolly Janner, although I'm a bit surprised); they're simply based on preference for one's variant. So, while AmEng speakers tend to be more ignorant of other variants, BrEng speakers seem to be more arrogant about theirs. And, unfortunately, it's much easier to fill someone's gap in linguistic knowledge than to allay arrogance. -- tariqabjotu 17:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Maldives Coup

Modify blurb (Reposting from what I posted on the ITN/C page, looks like no action is being taken there):The former president said that he was forced to resign at gunpoint, making this a coup rather than a resignation (this claim has been supported by the foreign minister). Indian military intervention (similar to Operation Cactus) was sought by Nasheed, but the Manmohan Singh government just sat on the fence (surprise, surprise). I guess the article will have to be updated and the blurb modified: as of now, it is wrong news (or at the very least incomplete news) that we have posted. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 07:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Errors in the current or next Did you know?

The Potassium antimonyl tartrate article says emetic tartar while the main page says tartar emetic. Which is correct, or are they equivalent? Chris857 (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Apparently equivalent: [1] [2] Art LaPella (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Errors in today's or tomorrow's On this day

This sentence, "• 2008 – An arson [sic] fire severely damaged the Namdaemun gate in Seoul, the first of South Korea's National Treasures ... " should read, "The Namdaemun gate in Seoul, the first of South Korea's National Treasures, was severly damaged by arson."

The vulgar and solecistic use of "arson" as an adjective is avoided and the word order is improved. All arson is "fire" so modifying "fire" with "arson" is redundant if not tautological.Autodidact1 (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Errors in today's or tomorrow's featured picture

Reporters: please first correct today's or tomorrow's regular version.

General discussion

Request to be sensitive to ENGVAR issues on the main page

Of course this is a triviality compared to the sadness of the event itself, but I would request that the news segment on the violence in Egypt refer to an association football match, rather than just a "football" match. This is the accepted compromise for football (all codes) content on Wikipedia. --Trovatore (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed a piped link to Association football because this information is not directly relevant. (Which code of football was played before the deadly rioting broke out is an unimportant detail.)

I'm American, incidentally. —David Levy 01:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The piped link doesn't address my concern in any case. I think it should say association football in the text. I agree it's unimportant compared to the event, but that isn't my point. --Trovatore (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I considered switching to "association football", but because this term is unfamiliar to many, it requires a link to Association football. And the item is about deadly rioting (not the football match itself), so it seems inappropriate to include such a link (which has very little relevance).

My point is that it's unnecessary to specify which code of football was played. To comprehend the blurb, readers needn't possess this information (just as they needn't know which clubs participated or the name of the league to which they belong). —David Levy 02:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

That is true, but beside the point. The point is that the term football should not appear anywhere in Wikipedia without being glossed at some point in the page. --Trovatore (talk) 02:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Why? —David Levy 02:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Because there are contingents that want football to mean their preferred code by default. The use of the term association football is part of a compromise that prevents the establishment of such a default, which would violate the spirit of WP:ENGVAR. --Trovatore (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

We have an Association football article. We also have a Football article, which pertains to football in general. In this context, conveying "football in general" is sufficient. We aren't assigning the word "football" to a particular code, nor are we setting any sort of precedent to not specify the code when it actually matters. —David Levy 03:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

If it's not necessary to specify which type of football, why would it be necessary to specify what type of sporting event? Or that it was a sporting event rather than some other gathering? Why not just say simply "More than 70 people are killed in crowd violence in Port Said, Egypt."? My view is that if mentioning it was a football match specifically is deemed necessary, then the type of football match is relevant as well. -- 140.142.20.101 (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Mentioning "crowd violence" alone would leave readers wondering why a crowd was assembled.

"Sporting event" would convey sufficient context, but such wording would be highly unusual (in reference to a specific event) and would provide absolutely no benefit. The idea is to use normal English in a manner that focuses on the key details, not to deliberately introduce inexplicable vagueness. —David Levy 19:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• This means we won't use the obnoxious term "American football" for the Super Bowl on Sunday, right? Midnite Joker (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

In that context, the football code is directly relevant (and I see nothing "obnoxious" about specifying it). —David Levy 19:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Nobody in the world habitually refers to the game as association football: although the word soccer is used in UK media, many UK football fans dislike the word because it is interpreted as an Americanism. Association football should no more be used in prose than any other formal but unused term: William Clinton anyone? Kevin McE (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The phrase soccer of course is not an Americanism; it comes from Britain. The only thing that's American about it is using it as the official name of the sport rather than as an informal nickname. But I have no problem with avoiding soccer; what's unacceptable is the unmodified use of football at first reference, as though football were association football by default. The accepted compromise seems to be, call it association football at first reference and football thereafter (similarly American football at first reference and football thereafter). --Trovatore (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, we aren't treating association football as the default meaning of "football". (I'll remind you that I'm American.) We're simply mentioning "football" without elaboration/linking that's largely irrelevant to the blurb (which is about deadly rioting, not a football competition). The same wording would be equally appropriate if the tragedy had occurred in the United States, Canada, Australia or Ireland.

You've acknowledged that the football code is unimportant in this context. Your desire to specify "association football" seems to be based on principle, not on a concern that the current wording fails to convey essential information. —David Levy 22:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I was responding to Kevin McE in the above post, not to you. I reluctantly acknowledge that your argument holds water for the specific instance in question. --Trovatore (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, whoops, I thought that you were still referring to the blurb. My apologies for the confusion. —David Levy 22:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

While we are making it clear: I was not describing soccer as an Americanism, but surmising the (irrational) reason that many English fans of the game dislike the term. I would uphold it as the most ENGVAR/VNE friendly name for the sport, although my natural inclination (apart from when talking to my nephews in Ireland) is to call it football. Kevin McE (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The more rational objection to the use of soccer is that it is colloquial in British English and it is strange (from a British point if view) to read it in formal writing. ReadingOldBoy (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, is it irrelevant what code of football was played? Is there not some kind of association between association football and hooliganism? What if the riot had followed an American football game, a rugby game, a curling competition, a figure-skating event? How do we decide what's relevant? JIMp _talk·cont 01:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

This is one of many aspects that can be covered in an in-depth encyclopedia article (provided that there are reliable sources). In the context of a one-sentence blurb, it isn't a fundamental detail. The ITN item is intended to convey the event's basic nature and direct readers to the article for more information, not to address its broader societal implications. —David Levy 02:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You could use this logic to include the religion of the rioters. After all, isn't there "some kind of association" between Muslims and violence? 97.89.52.45 (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Unrelated comment: I think it's pretty obvious what code is being played if we're given the country, with the exceptions of Australia and Canada; if I read "football" in relation to the Super Bowl, I'd think of handegg. If I read "football" in relation to the FA Cup, I'd think of soccer. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

A The More You Know moment. (cue music) I had no idea that American football had even had the nickname "handegg," but it does, first reference dated to 1909, so says Wiktionary. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Per Sceptre, we can safely assume that the "football" being played anywhere in the world other than in North America is "soccer". Only in a North American context would we need to worry about clarifying it. 86.176.214.88 (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC).

Your statement covers American football and Canadian football. Australian rules football and Gaelic football are commonly referred to as "football" too. —David Levy 00:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

What David said. Rugby league, rugby union, touch football, gridiron football in Australia are all football codes in Australia. The context of who uses what is dependent on a region in Australia and a person's background. (Association football in Australia is problematic as a term, because in several places the term actually means Australian rules football.) --LauraHale (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, there are some other places too. But the general gist of my point remains. In "almost every" country, "football" means "soccer". 86.176.214.88 (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Among residents of countries in which the English language predominates (collectively), "football" is more likely to mean something other than "soccer". —David Levy 02:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The "global" meaning of "football" is "soccer". There are local exceptions. 86.179.113.220 (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

When two-thirds of a language's native speakers use a word to mean something other than x, this hardly constitutes an "exception" within said language. —David Levy 22:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

When the term "football" is searched within Wikipedia it refers to a "genre" of sports, if you will, that involve the handling of the ball with feet i.e. kicking. In the "Football" article, the term is divided between different sports including but not limited to: American football, Australian rules football, and rugby. --talk 02:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.166.128.73 (talk)

According to some sources, the name "football" was derived from the fact that the games were played on foot (i.e. not on horseback). —David Levy 22:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Bad choice of featured article

The choice of "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" as Today's Featured Article seems gratuitous. I think it was a bad decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.214.88 (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Why? Because its subject matter offends you? That's irrelevant to our criteria. —David Levy 00:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

And you think this one set of criteria has reached a state of perfection because ...? - Ac44ck (talk) 03:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I've made no such claim. You're welcome to propose revisions. —David Levy 03:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It's just unnecessary. We put something gratuitously unsuitable for family consumption in big letters on Wikipedia's main page just because we can? Not clever. 86.176.214.88 (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Your use of this website is at your sole risk.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for missing the point. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. The en. Wikipedia boast millions of articles and yet there's nowhere to go for a lead story other than "anal probe"? I don't see a page-wide banner with Jimmy's picture at the top stating your risk comment. Invoke the word "censored" to give it a Hitler hedge - nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.29.9 (talk) 01:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It also means that nothing stops us. Like I said below this is an adult website.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, think of the most offensive or "adult" Wikipedia articles that you can. I'm sure I don't need to spell out some candidates for you. Would you be happy to see all of those highlighted on the main page? 86.179.113.220 (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You're mistaken. We only have 3,465 featured articles of which at a complete guess only about half are eligble for the main page (the other half have already been on the main page). Nil Einne (talk) 05:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I just checked Wikipedia's core values. Suitable for family consumption wasn't there. Could you point to the Wikipedia policy, guideline, or official statement where suitability for family consumption is included. Because I can't find it... --Jayron32 01:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That is no justification. I would not reply to you with a stream of profanities just to assert my freedom of speech -- just because I can. Sensible judgement must be applied. 86.176.214.88 (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That's something else, called civility, which is currently being debated about in the editor community. However, articles are not censored. If we can't document a topic without bad words, we have to use the bad words, plain and simple.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not arguing against the existence of the article, or saying that Wikipedia's article space should be censored for bad words where they are necessary to explain the subject matter. I am saying that the decision to highlight this article -- to give it such prominence -- was a bad idea, in my opinion. 86.179.113.220 (talk) 01:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it's just how we remark at the professional-level writing we can make. This site's intended audience is mainly for adults. See Wikipedia:Guidance for parents.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Just saying, permitting that article to exist on Wikipedia isn't the same as sticking it up on the front page.  Marlith (Talk)  01:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Where should we draw the line? —David Levy 02:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Do thinking people need others to draw the line for them?

Here is a criterion for you: "What would Jimbo do?"

Let's set up a scenario:

• It is fund raising time.
• Your picture is at the top of the Wikipedia main page.
• You are making an appeal for people to contribute.
• You are trying to make the case that Wikipedia is worth funding because it allows knowledgeable people to share their knowledge with the world. For example, here is a feature article to showcase the kinds of things editors spend their time on to share with the world.
• One of your volunteers decides it is time to get in everyone's face with something just a little naughty appearing immediately below your photo and your appeal on the Wikipedia main page.

Question: Is the fund raising effort helped or hindered by the bit of naughtiness on the main page? - Ac44ck (talk) 03:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The above relies on the premise that the TFA selection was based upon a desire to "get in everyone's face with something just a little naughty". Apart from that, you apparently wonder, what possible motive could there have been to showcase an article that you find objectionable?! —David Levy 04:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of motive, all other things being equal: do you think fund raising efforts were hindered or helped by featuring an article with the words "anal probe" in the title? Do you think Google pays no attention to what might offend their advertisers? Wikipedia is not a for-profit organization, but it still needs cash. Saying "F you if you don't like it" to potential donors visiting the main page may not be helpful.

Like Google, what one can find in going beyond the home page in Wikipedia might make a sailor blush. But that isn't the point here. If, after eleven years of operation, the best face Wikipedia can put forward is an article with the words "anal probe" in the title, it would seem to have a systemic problem. - Ac44ck (talk) 05:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of motive, all other things being equal: do you think fund raising efforts were hindered or helped by featuring an article with the words "anal probe" in the title?

I don't know whether the article's appearance as TFA led to a net loss of contributions (due to people taking offense) or a net gain (due to people appreciating Wikipedia's comprehensive, uncensored nature). And frankly, I don't particularly care. I disagree with the premise that "What will bring in the most money?" is the appropriate question to ask when determining Wikipedia's content.

Wikipedia is not a for-profit organization, but it still needs cash.

And it receives it. We have no funding shortage.

Saying "F you if you don't like it" to potential donors visiting the main page may not be helpful.

We've done nothing of the sort. Certainly, we display content that some people dislike. This isn't remotely the same thing as "saying F you" to them.

If, after eleven years of operation, the best face Wikipedia can put forward is an article with the words "anal probe" in the title, it would seem to have a systemic problem.

I don't follow. What's wrong with the article? What title should it have? Why can't a writeup about a controversial work of fiction be among Wikipedia's best? —David Levy 06:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The intended purpose of such hypothetical behavior would be to insult/offend. Are you suggesting that this is the motive behind the selection of Cartman Gets an Anal Probe as today's featured article?

Please define "sensible judgement". Some readers might be offended by articles about religious/non-religious beliefs other than their own (e.g. Intelligent design or Evolution, both of which are featured articles). Should those articles not have appeared on the main page? Should we institute a main page ban on anything that might offend someone, or just the articles that you deem objectionable? —David Levy 02:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

We use common sense. You're not going to lead me down that well-trodden and fruitless "anything might be offensive to someone" road, I'm afraid. At some point someone makes a decision, and at the point that person saw "anal probe", some mechanism should have kicked in to say, "nah, no need to put that on the main page". 86.179.113.220 (talk) 02:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, Wikipedia hosts a variety of material that would not be suitable for certain demographics or could otherwise cause controversy. And of course, what could be deemed "inappropriate" varies massively from person to person. But how can we define this standard? To a parent, "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" is no more suitable for the main page than History of Erotic Art, Human Centipede, or Vulva (which was featured on the main page of the German Wikipedia some time ago, if I remember correctly). To a deeply Christian person, featuring Scientology or Same-sex marriage would likely elicit disgust. Bloody Sunday or Gaza strip would be equally controversial for political reasons if they were featured on the main page. Even Missingno and Bulbasaur had their share of controversy.

In summation, it is understandable that to the parent of a young child, seeing this article on the front page is most likely less than desirable. But to anyone over the age of 14 (a random pick, please don't quibble over it) who is not in that situation, there is no reason why such an article should not be featured; it is after all just a television episode, and I would hazard a guess that the most unseemingly aspect of the article is the episode title. This is the reason why Wikipedia is not censored; what is controversial to one person doesn't elicit even the thought of that in another. We cannot police what people have access to. Doing so is not our responsibility. Taking care of what a child has access to online falls first and foremost to the parent. As to what a parent should say to a child if they are asked about today's featured article? I'd suggest a simple "it's about a TV show for grownups" would suffice. Melicans (talk, contributions) 02:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I cited non-hypothetical examples. The concepts of evolution and intelligent design are far more controversial than the aforementioned cartoon episode is. Should they have appeared on the main page? Why or why not? (Others have cited numerous other examples.)

You evidently find a particular word more bothersome than you find those subjects, but you aren't the arbiter of what is and isn't objectionable. Neither is Wikipedia. —David Levy 02:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The cartoon episode title is (mildly) offensive in a peurile and pointless way. I'm afraid I do not see any connection with any of the lofty subjects you mention. 86.179.113.220 (talk) 02:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Those articles' subjects are highly controversial. Their prominent display is likely to offend many people. Your description of the cartoon episode's title as "(mildly) offensive in a [puerile] and pointless way" doesn't bolster your argument; it increases my curiosity as to why you're complaining about it and dismissing my question about subjects that generate massive societal controversy. —David Levy 03:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I am equally curious as to why you think objections to the prominence of a schoolboy joke about body parts has anything to do with questions about religion etc. 86.179.113.220 (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

On what basis do you object to the decision to display Cartman Gets an Anal Probe as today's featured article? Its likelihood to offend, or something else? —David Levy 03:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Children on the Internet

My seven-year old (who uses this web site for school) just asked me about this. Thanks Wikipedia brain trust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.29.9 (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what kind of parent lets their seven-year-old child surf Wikipedia, which hosts most decidedly adult content throughout. Weird. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

On what planet do you live?

http://www.ieminc.org/handbook/curriculum/Firstsecgrwebsites.htm

Third item on the list: Kindergarten, First, & Second Grade - Free Educational Website Links - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page - Wikipedia offers free encyclopedia with close to 1.5 million articles. - Ac44ck (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a problem with the list, not Wikipedia. Modest Genius ^talk 10:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I do sympathise that this leaves you with a rather uncomfortable discussion to have with the young one, but if we turn this perfectly good article down simply on the basis that it might make some people somewhat uncomfortable, where does that end? Many of our articles about painters contain nudes. Many of the articles about religion will offend someone. So it is about AIDS, about Palastine, about Mohammed, the King of Thailand, the Indian border, global warming, (London)Derry, or evolution. Featured articles are the best of Wikipedia, not the blandest. We never set out to offend, but if we pulled back every time someone might feel uncomfortable or think the content wasn't suitable for their kids, their wife, or their servants, we'd compromise or most basic standard, that of neutrality. We have a (fairly) objective standard for where lies the quality threshold for a Featured Article, and if an article meets that it gets promoted. And FAs are eligible for the front page. Once we let someone decide on their own subjective criteria which articles to reject (from this most public, most important, position) we've subtly jaundiced the neutral position we claim to have. If you discovered we had super-high quality content that we were scared to publicise, wouldn't that offend you too? 91.125.80.151 (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I've yet gotten an answer to my question: what responsible parent would let their seven-year-old browse Wikipedia? It hosts serious adult content; why on earth would a parent who lets a very young child browse this site have the audacity to come here and complain about a cartoon? See Fisting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It is a borked question. "Browsing Wikipedia" and "surfing to the Wikipedia home page" are entirely different things. Why would a responsible parent allow browsing to the Wikipedia home page? For the same reason they allow browsing to the Google home page. Google contains links to things that would not be allowed on Wikipedia. Why do you think the likelihood of offending is not a reason to refrain from an action? Do you fart in elevators? If not, why not? - Ac44ck (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

What a silly rhetorical device. Do you murder people? If not, why not? 76.28.67.181 (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Because people are generally nice and huggable creatures. They're just misunderstood. Some of my best friends are people. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

But would you want your daughter to marry one? 76.28.67.181 (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You call the analogy silly in a transparent attempt to discredit that which exposes the hypocrisy of your position. Your question about murder is irrelevant. Murder isn't merely offending sensibilities, it is the destruction of life itself.

Two situations:

1. The editor is anonymous and can hide behind a policy which prohibits censoring to offend the sensibilities of millions of people, then declare: "F them if they don't like it!"
2. The same person is in an elevator with others. They can hold a fart until they exit the elevator, or they can let fly with full audio while others are confined in the elevator with them. Will that same person let fly and say "F you if you don't like it!"?

Isn't the issue about offending sensibilities in both cases? Everyone farts. Why should this avant-garde editor refrain from farting in an elevator? Don't they believe in freedom of action? - Ac44ck (talk) 03:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Editors invested a great deal of time and effort in the Cartman Gets an Anal Probe article, thereby improving the encyclopedia. The community recognized their contributions by promoting the article to "featured" status.

You disapprove of the article's subject, so you denigrate these accomplishments by comparing the TFA selection with the act of deliberately passing gas in a crowded elevator out of spite (as though the motive was to derive juvenile satisfaction by upsetting people with the word "anal").

You might want to reconsider who's being disrespectful here. —David Levy 03:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I read the tone as "we can't possibly discern what might be offensive, so we shouldn't even try to have such a criterion in selecting a FA."

Wouldn't you agree that most people would be offended by a fellow passenger in an elevator farting without any inhibition or apology?

Why can we discern what is offensive in an elevator, but not have any clue that some number of potential monetary contributors to Wikipedia might visit the main page of the eighth most popular portal on the web (http://webtrends.about.com/od/webportals/a/topten_portals.htm) and be offended an ill-considered selection for the feature article?

Do you think that might close a pocket book or two? Or is Wikipedia funded only by the avant-garde? Some have the opinion that those who want to be avant-garde should do it on their own dime.

I am not saying the article should not exist. I just think it wasn't a wise choice for a FA. - Ac44ck (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's get the terminology right. These are FAs. FAs are chosen here (any article that meets our notability requirements is eligible to be an FA. FAs are requested for the mainpage here. If they run on the mainpage, they are referred to as TFAs (Today's Featured Aticle), not just FAs.

Next, the person with gas and his/her fellow passengers may depend on the elevator-- they may be unable to avoid it. Nobody has to come to Wikipedia, and no parent should have any seven-year-old surfing anywhere on the Internet that is an adult-content site. Anyone who ever said Wikipedia is a child-friendly site hasn't been, for example, here or here or here or here. Any (lower or middle) school that doesn't have Wikipedia behind a firewall should be taken to task by the parents, and any parent who objects to Cartman shouldn't be letting their children on the internet unsupervised. Unlike an elevator upon which people may depend, the child does not have to come here in order to get to work, to get to school, to get to his apartment, etc. Invalid analogy. Relative to the adult content hosted on this site, exactly what is your objection to Cartman (what specific words there, I'm really curious to know)? Do you think children of all ages don't joke about things coming out of people's arses? If you don't like the adult content on Wikipedia, then challenge all of Wikipedia, or challenge the school that lets children surf adult sites, or challenge the parents who don't supervise their children on the Internet. Or challenge the TV network that runs Southpark. But this is not a TFA problem; anyone who comes to Wikipedia should expect to find content much more "offensive to the delicate and sensitive" than Cartman.

Further, the Cartman article was written by User:Awadewit, an editor who has over 30 FAs and is a professor with a PhD in literature, so why don't we stop with the 'avant-garde', 'pop culture', 'teenage' business, since she's a serious writer on serious topics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The question about farting on an elevator addresses the claim that we can't envision what large numbers of people might find offensive. And the position that even if it is offensive, we'll do it anyway because Wikipedia isn't censored.

This section started with a demand for an answer to your question. I provided one. You haven't provided an answer to my question: Why do you think the likelihood of offending is not a reason to refrain from an action? Do you fart in elevators? If not, why not? - Ac44ck (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Apparently you're not familiar with the concept of TMI. My answer is not based on the meme "Wikipedia is not censored" (I've little use for that meme-- it would be more useful to simply acknowledge that "Wikipedia contains adult-only content"). My answer is based on the fact that Wikipedia has much more adult-only content than you'll find just about anywhere short of a sex toy shop in The Village, Cartman is not such content (you haven't answered exactly what you think is wrong with it), and if you are subscribing to lists that tell you Wikipedia is a child-friendly site, then you need to go educate them. It's not. If you allow your child to come here, s/he is a few clicks away from adult content. Deal with the facts, not some list some misguided school gave you. The school my children went to rightfully did not allow youngsters on sites like Wikpedia. They did allow them on many sites where they could read about SouthPark episodes (likely not written as well as our version). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Strange that someone who posts links to articles about fisting invokes a TMI threshold when asked: Why do you think the likelihood of offending is not a reason to refrain from an action? And then is given a real-world example to describe why they would or would not intentionally offend in that situation. - Ac44ck (talk) 06:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The question about farting on an elevator addresses the claim that we can't envision what large numbers of people might find offensive.

We know perfectly well that large numbers of people will find much of Wikipedia's content objectionable. We decided to write the encyclopedia anyway.

And the position that even if it is offensive, we'll do it anyway because Wikipedia isn't censored.

...which you apparently interpret to mean "LET'S TRY TO OFFEND PEOPLE! IT'S FUN!".

Some people might be offended by the term "anal probe". Others might be offended by the term "anal cancer". Others might be offended by articles about evolution, intelligent design, Christianity, Islam, atheism, homosexuality, transgenderism, interracial marriage, women's suffrage, and countless other topics. We can't realistically hope to filter everything "objectionable" from the main page.

You haven't provided an answer to my question: Why do you think the likelihood of offending is not a reason to refrain from an action? Do you fart in elevators? If not, why not?

You're clinging to an analogy in which the act causing offense is committed for that purpose (with nothing else accomplished in the process). If you refuse to believe that we aren't setting out to offend people, there's little point in continuing this discussion. —David Levy 06:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

We know perfectly well that large numbers of people will find much of Wikipedia's content objectionable. We decided to write the encyclopedia anyway.

Which evades the point. The issue was not "much of Wikipedia's content." The issue was the selection for the TFA on the main page, not the encyclopedia in general.

You're clinging to an analogy in which the act causing offense is committed for that purpose (with nothing else accomplished in the process). If you refuse to believe that we aren't setting out to offend people, there's little point in continuing this discussion.

There is no mention of intent in the question. One simply has the choice to fart in the elevator or to wait until they exit the elevator. Why should anyone inconvenience themselves to wait until they exit the elevator, if not to avoid offending the fellow passengers? Why should they give any more thought to the possibility of offending their fellow passengers in an elevator than they would to the possibility of offending people who surf to the main page of Wikipedia? - Ac44ck (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Which evades the point.

Your "point" is a straw man. No one is claiming to be unaware of the offense that's caused.

The issue was not "much of Wikipedia's content." The issue was the selection for the TFA on the main page, not the encyclopedia in general.

I include that TFA selection (and other material appearing on the main page) in "much of Wikipedia's content." We know that it offends some people. That isn't our motive for placing it there (contrary to your apparent belief), but we're well aware that this occurs.

There is no mention of intent in the question.

You described a hypothetical scenario in which someone must choose between passing gas in a crowded elevator or waiting until the ride has ended (presumably without suffering any serious consequences). You elaborated that the first option includes exclaiming "F you if you don't like it!", thereby deliberately insulting fellow passengers.

This is not a valid analogy. You're complaining about material displayed for the purpose of showcasing a high-quality article and encouraging further improvements to the encyclopedia. There's no dispute that it offended some people, but that was neither the reason for its appearance nor the only effect. —David Levy 05:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I read the tone as "we can't possibly discern what might be offensive, so we shouldn't even try to have such a criterion in selecting a FA."

This section contains a great deal of discussion about content that people find objectionable. Setting aside the broad statement that anything can offend someone, numerous specific examples have been provided. Would you care to comment on them?

Wouldn't you agree that most people would be offended by a fellow passenger in an elevator farting without any inhibition or apology?

Yes, I would. I reject your assertion that this is analogous to yesterday's featured article selection.

Why can we discern what is offensive in an elevator, but not have any clue that some number of potential monetary contributors to Wikipedia might visit the main page of the eighth most popular portal on the web (http://webtrends.about.com/od/webportals/a/topten_portals.htm) and be offended an ill-considered selection for the feature article?

We know perfectly well that some visitors to the main page (and other parts of the site) will find some of its content objectionable. Your view that this renders it "ill-considered" is inconsistent with policy.

Do you think that might close a pocket book or two?

I have no doubt that it does. I also have no doubt that this approach opens pocket books. I don't know which occurs more often, and I don't particularly care. Perhaps we could draw more contributions by presenting Wikipedia as "family-friendly", but I don't believe that misleading the public is an appropriate means of soliciting money.

Or is Wikipedia funded only by the avant-garde?

It's funded by people who evidently don't object to our current practices strongly enough to refrain from donating. And it's funded quite well, I might add. —David Levy 06:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

We know perfectly well that some visitors to the main page (and other parts of the site) will find some of its content objectionable. Your view that this renders it "ill-considered" is inconsistent with policy.

This sounds like we should check our brains at the door and do anything not prohibited by the letter of Wikipedia policy, simply because we can. That seems extreme to me. Who made Wikipedia policy the arbiter of what is prudent? Everything that is allowed is not necessarily prudent.

I have no doubt that it [closes some pocket books]. I also have no doubt that this approach opens pocket books. I don't know which occurs more often, and I don't particularly care. Perhaps we could draw more contributions by presenting Wikipedia as "family-friendly", but I don't believe that misleading the public is an appropriate means of soliciting money.

Presenting all of Wikipedia as "family-friendly" and ambushing visitors on the main page are different issues. Note the Google does not ambush visitors to their home page. Why do you think Google refrains from doing so? Why is Wikipedia exempt from being a good netizen? How many people hang naughty messages on their front doors? Free speech allows it. Why not do it? It wouldn't have anything to do with avoiding giving offence to others and being perceived as unmannered, would it? - Ac44ck (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This sounds like we should check our brains at the door and do anything not prohibited by the letter of Wikipedia policy, simply because we can.

No. Like most of Wikipedia's rules, the policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. We've used our brains to formulate and document decisions shaping the project, including one to not suppress material on the basis that it offends people.

Contrary to your continual claims, this doesn't mean that we seek to offend people "because we can" and enjoy "[getting] in everyone's face with something just a little naughty".

Presenting all of Wikipedia as "family-friendly" and ambushing visitors on the main page are different issues.

Please specify which content must be excluded from the main page to avoid "ambushing visitors". Obviously, Tuesday's TFA selection fits your definition. What else does? Numerous other subjects commonly regarded as "objectionable" have been cited as examples.

Note the Google does not ambush visitors to their home page. Why do you think Google refrains from doing so?

Are you referring to www.google.com? If so, does that strike you as similar to our main page?

How many people hang naughty messages on their front doors? Free speech allows it. Why not do it? It wouldn't have anything to do with avoiding giving offence to others and being perceived as unmannered, would it?

That's yet another analogy based on the premise that we're showcasing content because we enjoy getting away with being "naughty" and offensive. —David Levy 05:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, First let's examine your goofy analogy.

1) If I knew that the majority of Elevator riders found the smell of farts enjoyable and/or educational...

2) If I there was a long-standing policy that riders should fart in elevators (because of #1)...

3) If It was well known that riders regularly farted in elevators (because of #2)...

4) If riders who did not enjoy the smell of farts were entirely free to ride other elevators with other policies...

... then yes. Yes I would.

Perhaps this illustrates why I thought your analogy was goofy?

Perhaps a better analogy is this : Would you smoke in your building's designated smoking area? Even if occasional non-smokers decided to hang out there for no compulsory reason?

However, like all analogies, even that "better" analogy has flaws. We could go on forever posing analogies back and forth. 76.28.67.181 (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You're letting your child browse the web unsupervised, and you're surprised and upset that he learned about a massively popular pop-culture television show that runs on basic cable?

That doesn't make sense at all, and frankly isn't entirely believable.

If true, it betrays a deep misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. Most articles are less than a dozen clicks away from depictions of sexual activity and close-up photographs of human naughty bits. If you're upset that your child might hear the word "Anal", what insanity possessed you to let him browse a website where you can find full color, high-resolution, closeup photographs of the human anus?

Sometimes, things aren't designed to be 100% child safe, even if they're educational. (A good example is National Geographic magazine. Children can learn a lot from that publication, but if you don't want to risk you child occasionally seeing a naked human, or a gory nature photo, you have to pre-screen them. That's normal.)

Even if everyone agreed with you 100% and promised never to run such an article again, it still wouldn't excuse you from your responsibility to pre-screen your child's reading material. That's part of a parent's job. Yelling at strangers on the Internet doesn't make it any less your job. How could it? 76.28.67.181 (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Geez, any parent browsing this should know that their child's safety on the Internet is their, not our responsibility.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Much hay is being made about children being allowed access to the internet only with supervision. Okay. Johnny surfs to the Wikipedia main page with mommy supervising. At the top of the page, both see "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe." Johnny asks, "Mommy, what's an anal probe?" The supervision accomplished what, exactly? - Ac44ck (talk) 05:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess you're unfamiliar with rectal thermometers? And your children as well? This is really getting silly. You'll encounter signs around town that will cause more delicate conversation than this one. You still haven't said which part you object to-- the scientific term "anal"? What term do your children use? Bobo? Tooshie? Petusky? Some folks let their children know that a vagina is a vagina, a penis is a penis, an anus is an anus, etc. Those kiddos have an easier time talking to doctors. YMMV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question: The supervision accomplished what, exactly? - Ac44ck (talk) 06:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm done entertaining you; someone else can take the next shift. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the admission that your berating of parents for letting children visit the Wikipedia main page without supervision was baseless. - Ac44ck (talk) 06:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It would probably accomplish getting the parent in question to review basic anatomy and physiology; I knew what an endoscope was by the time I was 7 (my dad works for Olympus), and if they were so prudish they hadn't brought it up yet it would force their hand. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If someone stops arguing with a Apollo-denier it doesn't mean that they acknowledge the moon-landing as a hoax. Frankly, to pretend that they have is a very asshole thing to do. Not sure how to Assume Good Faith on such a dick move. APL (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"Mommy, what's evolution?" —David Levy 06:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

In the case of reading material, "supervision" means "pre-screening". Otherwise, as you say, it's worthless.

This has always been the case. Even with print media.

Sorry if it involves expending effort on parenting.

(However, if you would rather side-step the featured article, why not bookmark www.wikipedia.org? That hub page does not show featured content, while still providing a search box. It's my understanding that simple.wikipedia.org is also kept roughly child-safe, for sufficiently left-wing definitions of child-safe.) 76.28.67.181 (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The key thing to understand here is that Wikipedia is not a safe place for unwary children. Never mind the horrors of the anal probe - your real fear should be the Edit button. Your child could easily get out on a talk page for some obscure article nobody reads and get drawn into some conversation where he reveals details about himself, arranges a meeting, etc. that could lead to attack. It's like sending your kid into the big three-level building where they have the Chicago Public Library - you never really know what could happen in there. Articles like this serve useful notice to parents that this is a big open space like that. It's not designed to keep your kids safely penned under a watchful eye. Wnt (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(And if you think that's bad, picture what could happen if someone makes a special website for a favorite cartoon character and links to it from an article...) Wnt (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the comment at the top, I'd be interested to know what exactly the child asked (if the story is true). Because one would have thought that the article itself (being an FA) would have been able to explain everything. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---
My last comments began with a reply to:

We know perfectly well that large numbers of people will find much of Wikipedia's content objectionable. We decided to write the encyclopedia anyway.

I replied with:

Which evades the point. The issue was not "much of Wikipedia's content." The issue was the selection for the TFA on the main page, not the encyclopedia in general.

The point was dismissed as a straw man based on the responder's statement:

I include that TFA selection (and other material appearing on the main page) in "much of Wikipedia's content."

That one editor chooses to make no distinction between "much of Wikipedia's content" and the main page is their choice. It does not make my distinction a straw man.

If there were no distinction between the main page and other pages, there wouldn't be special groups to decide what goes on the main page. Of the pages I typically edit, I can't think of one where there is a formal committee deciding what should be on the page. The claim that there is no distinction between Wikipedia's main page and "much of Wikipedia's content" appears to be false.

Much is said about TFA being a showcase for the best writing. How many people know that?! There is no indication on the main page that the article was chosen for its technical excellence. If its purpose is to showcase technical excellence, why is there no mention of any way in which this particular article exemplifies technical excellence?

None of the current definitions at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/feature give any hint that a "feature" has anything to do with technical excellence. Rather, the word conveys the idea of importance. To the general visitor who is not a Wikipedia nerd, "Today's Feature Article" would seem to be synonymous with "Today's Important Article"; like the lead story in a news broadcast, or the headline in a newspaper. That is: If you get nothing else from this effort, get this.

Just like the "lead story" on the news, the casual visitor to Wikipedia probably comes away with the impression that the TFA is what Wikipedia deems to be "important" information, not highlighted only for its exemplary wordsmithing.

Was "Cartman gets an anal probe" really the most important thing Wikipedia had to say on Tuesday?

Maybe cash isn't important in some ivory tower fantasy, and one can claim ignorance of whether a provocative headline will or won't have a negative impact contributions. But there is a real world with real dollars. Real servers run on real dollars. Shocking headlines help the Enquirer sell their tabloid. But Wikipedia is not the Enquirer; it is an encyclopedia.

Although there are numerous claims that "we do not intend to offend," I can't believe there is no element of snicker factor in having "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" on the Wikipedia main page. I snickered to see the bit of naughtiness on the main page, more so when I saw there was also a nude painting on the same page. That doesn't mean I think either was appropriate for the setting, because I don't. And I don't defend the choices that were made.

The self-righteous, open-minded posturing falls silent when asked what the supposedly free spirits would do in a real-world confined space where they could be identified as the offender in the presence of the offended. No one has an answer for that. Why not? - Ac44ck (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That one editor chooses to make no distinction between "much of Wikipedia's content" and the main page is their choice. It does not make my distinction a straw man.

You appear to have misunderstood. I didn't refer to that distinction as a "straw man". The straw man was your statement that others "claim that we can't envision what large numbers of people might find offensive". We claim no such thing. We know that certain content will offend some readers.

The claim that there is no distinction between Wikipedia's main page and "much of Wikipedia's content" appears to be false.

It's another nonexistent "claim".

I referred to "much of Wikipedia's content" not to imply that all of it is the same, but to address the aforementioned straw man by noting that we're well aware that readers are offended by material appearing throughout the site (including the main page).

Much is said about TFA being a showcase for the best writing. How many people know that?! There is no indication on the main page that the article was chosen for its technical excellence.

That's true. Perhaps we should add such an explanation. It would alleviate a fair amount of confusion (e.g. people inquiring as to why we haven't "featured" a particular article on a relevant day).

Just like the "lead story" on the news, the casual visitor to Wikipedia probably comes away with the impression that the TFA is what Wikipedia deems to be "important" information, not highlighted only for its exemplary wordsmithing.

I don't know how prevalent that misunderstanding is, but it does arise on this page from time to time. If we can do something to clarify the section's nature, we certainly should.

Was "Cartman gets an anal probe" really the most important thing Wikipedia had to say on Tuesday?

You know that this isn't what "today's featured article" means, so that's a silly question.

Maybe cash isn't important in some ivory tower fantasy,

Another straw man. No one said that cash isn't important.

and one can claim ignorance of whether a provocative headline will or won't have a negative impact contributions.

I answered your question with the honest statement that I don't know whether showcasing content that you deem "provocative" has a positive, negative or neutral monetary impact. Do you possess any relevant data, or is this purely speculative on your part?

But there is a real world with real dollars. Real servers run on real dollars.

And the Wikimedia Foundation has no shortage of said dollars. On the contrary, it continually expands its endeavors in response to increased funding.

Although there are numerous claims that "we do not intend to offend," I can't believe there is no element of snicker factor in having "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" on the Wikipedia main page.

Likewise, it's possible that some editors appreciated the Evolution article's TFA appearance as a means of "sticking it to the science deniers". It's possible that some editors enjoyed "rubbing it in the Kiwis' faces" when the Australia article appeared as TFA. We can't read people's minds.

All of this is irrelevant. No matter what sort of satisfaction editors derive from an article's TFA selection (stemming from their personal fondness of the subject or from something else), specific criteria must be met.

This applies to other main page sections as well. You've touched on a real issue, which recently arose at DYK when someone apparently tried to exploit WP:NOTCENSORED by includng the song title "Fuck You!" in an item to which it was only tangentially relevant. In that instance, there was no legitimate reason to mention the phrase; someone went out of his/her way to include it ("because we can"). This was inappropriate, as I opined at the time.

I snickered to see the bit of naughtiness on the main page, more so when I saw there was also a nude painting on the same page. That doesn't mean I think either was appropriate for the setting, because I don't.

Ah, you object to the painting's main page display too. What else should be off-limits? I assume that this is a major no-no. What about the other "objectionable" subjects cited as examples? (You've ignored this question twice.)

The self-righteous, open-minded posturing falls silent when asked what the supposedly free spirits would do in a real-world confined space where they could be identified as the offender in the presence of the offended. No one has an answer for that. Why not?

Your absurd "farting in an elevator" analogy has been addressed repeatedly. —David Levy 20:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought I was done with this issue, but the analogy is not absurd; and no one has answered the question in a real-world scenario: What would they do and why? It speaks to the issue of consistency in disregarding what offence one's actions may provoke in others. I don't believe it has been addressed, other than to pan it because it brings an inconvenient truth to the surface. - Ac44ck (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

In such a situation, I would attempt to avoid passing gas in the crowded elevator. And If I were unsuccessful, I wouldn't exclaim "F you if you don't like it!" at my fellow passengers. My rationale is that I don't aim to upset people.

The analogy is quite absurd, as it equates offense arising as a byproduct of a constructive endeavor with that arising deliberately through a mean-spirited act.

To analogize your analogy, it's like reacting to a painful dental procedure by asking the dentist whether he/she goes around punching people. (Dentist: "No, of course not. I don't want to hurt anyone." Patient: "Then why did you just hurt me?!")

I've answered your question. Would you care to answer mine (which you've now ignored three times)? Of the examples cited (and any that you wish to add), what material is/isn't too "objectionable" to appear on the main page (and why)? —David Levy 03:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer and your many replies. You have repeatedly seized on one illustration of my analogy; comparable to the "we are not censored" reply if someone is offended by a deliberate act with the intent to offend, as your example on DYK illustrates. The others were presented in a neutral setting: one has the option to wait or not. I agree with your approach: waiting when practical. So there seems to be some level of agreement that avoiding offence is preferable.

To answer your question, I have no firm guidelines. However, I do think that Wikipedia's main page should not raise red flags in content filters used at workplaces, schools, etc.

A zero-tolerance policy could get someone fired, expelled, etc., merely for surfing to Wikipedia's main page. No one should have to explain to their boss why the excerpt from Gropecunt Lane on Wikipedia's main page set off the company's content filter and why they shouldn't be fired for accessing inappropriate content on company machines. The position that "everyone else should understand what Wikipedia is, we will not conform to any external social mores" is simply hubris.

Which brand of content filter? I don't know. Pick one. Will it catch everything? No. But most of them will probably flag Gropecunt Lane as potentially problematic.

It appears that no one is making any effort to catch anything now. Rather, they are proud of how open-minded they are, regardless of the consequences elsewhere; spewing statements like: Why should that be a problem for ...? What research says it is damaging to children? I can't imagine that it should be a problem, therefore it isn't. And similar declarations of why any level of circumspection about what appears on the main page should be taboo because it would undermine what Wikipedia is, by some grandiose definition of "is."

The analogy about hanging naughtiness on one's front door is equally not absurd. The main page is Wikipedia's front door. A neighbor who hangs not-safe-for-work items on their front door is a boor. Wikipedia is not immune from a similar assessment merely by the self-declaration "we will not be censored." - Ac44ck (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You have repeatedly seized on one illustration of my analogy; comparable to the "we are not censored" reply if someone is offended by a deliberate act with the intent to offend, as your example on DYK illustrates.

I agree that it's a reasonable analogy in that context. Your references to sneaking in something "naughty" ("because we can") and attempting to invoke WP:NOTCENSORED as justification to go out of our way to provoke controversy are similar to my thoughts on the DYK incident.

That simply isn't what's occurring with our TFA selections.

The others were presented in a neutral setting: one has the option to wait or not.

But the latter option doesn't benefit others. It's a selfish (and possibly petty) act with no benevolent motive.

I agree with your approach: waiting when practical. So there seems to be some level of agreement that avoiding offence is preferable.

All else being equal, of course it is. The problem with the analogy is that all else isn't equal. In the case of TFA, the offense is a byproduct of a process intended to provide a valuable service to readers and improve the encyclopedia (an endeavor that's quite successful, I might add).

I agree — unreservedly — that Wikipedia shouldn't deliberately offend readers. I disagree that Wikipedia should suppress content that happens to offend readers.

To answer your question, I have no firm guidelines. However, I do think that Wikipedia's main page should not raise red flags in content filters used at workplaces, schools, etc.

A zero-tolerance policy could get someone fired, expelled, etc., merely for surfing to Wikipedia's main page. No one should have to explain to their boss why the excerpt from Gropecunt Lane on Wikipedia's main page set off the company's content filter and why they shouldn't be fired for accessing inappropriate content on company machines.

The explanation is simple and straightforward: "I was visiting Wikipedia." The website is sufficiently well known that such a response (easily corroborated) surely would suffice...unless the employee wasn't supposed to visit Wikipedia on his/her work computer, in which case the consequences are justified.

Which brand of content filter? I don't know. Pick one. Will it catch everything? No. But most of them will probably flag Gropecunt Lane as potentially problematic.

This approach focuses on "naughty" words. It ignores a multitude of concepts that many people find considerably more objectionable. (Numerous examples have been cited.) —David Levy 05:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The explanation is simple and straightforward: "I was visiting Wikipedia." The website is sufficiently well known that such a response (easily corroborated) surely would suffice.

How nice for you that, in a dodgey economy, you have such certainty of the outcome. - Ac44ck (talk) 06:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

How silly of me to speculate on the outcome of the imaginary scenario that you invented. —David Levy 10:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I invented neither content filter nor zero tolerance. This is an example of the type of thinking I mentioned above: I can't imagine that it should be a problem, therefore it isn't.

I was going to let this slide, but you amended the excerpt I quoted to include another declaration about how the world should work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMain_Page&action=historysubmit&diff=476098572&oldid=476082636

...unless the employee wasn't supposed to visit Wikipedia on his/her work computer, in which case the consequences are justified.

Which provoked this thought in me:

How nice of Wikipedia to assist employers in the enforcement their policies. If the Wikipedia main page hadn't set off the content filter, the employer may not have known.

Someone else in this discussion linked to this chart:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WMFstratplanSurvey1.png

So a group consisting largely of unmarried, childless, college kids and younger have it all figured out how the world should work. They have time to become Wikipedia nerds and wikilawyers, and hone skills at deflection in arguements. And from a mother's comfortable basement, they can ask: "Why should that be a problem?"

While I'm PO'd about pronouncements from children about how the world should work, I'll include this quote from elsewhere in this discussion:

Q: The supervision accomplished what, exactly?

A: It would probably accomplish getting the parent in question to review basic anatomy and physiology.

Who knew Wikipedia took on the role of deciding when a tired, busy parent should launch into a discussion of these topics? This in addition to helping employers enforce policies.

Why was Wikipedia against SOPA? Was it because they don't want competition in deciding how the world should work? - Ac44ck (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I invented neither content filter nor zero tolerance.

But you invented the scenario in which an employee is confronted for visiting Wikipedia's main page when a "naughty" word was present, yes? Or can you cite documentation of this actually occurring?

This is an example of the type of thinking I mentioned above: I can't imagine that it should be a problem, therefore it isn't.

I can imagine all sorts of problems. I just don't agree that it's Wikipedia's job to solve them.

Perhaps a pro-life employer will fire someone for visiting Wikipedia's main page when the word "abortion" appears. Maybe a mention of Dick Van Dyke will trigger a content filter twice. We can't realistically hope to prevent such situations from arising.

I was going to let this slide, but you amended the excerpt I quoted to include another declaration about how the world should work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMain_Page&action=historysubmit&diff=476098572&oldid=476082636

...unless the employee wasn't supposed to visit Wikipedia on his/her work computer, in which case the consequences are justified.

1. I corrected your misquotation of my statement, in which you replaced an ellipsis with a full stop and omitted an essential potion of the sentence. And you've reverted. Why do you insist on misquoting me?

I sometimes divide sentences when quoting others (to enable separate replies to individual segments), but I do not insert new, misleading punctuation. And I always seek to avoid quoting someone in a manner that alters the text's meaning or reduces its clarity.

2. You've misunderstood. I don't personally believe that someone should be fired for visiting Wikipedia at work. I meant that such consequence is "justified" in the sense that it's stemming from an intentional rule infraction on the employee's part. I wasn't commenting on the appropriateness of the rule itself, which is immaterial.

Which provoked this thought in me:

How nice of Wikipedia to assist employers in the enforcement their policies. If the Wikipedia main page hadn't set off the content filter, the employer may not have known.

1. We aren't assisting employers in the enforcement of their policies. We're simply publishing encyclopedic content without censorship. You want us to assist employees in circumventing policies (by removing "naughty" words that might lead their employers to realize that they've visited Wikipedia).

2. If an employer has a rule against visiting Wikipedia, the aforementioned software can easily be set up report or block such page loads, so I doubt that the above is even an issue.

Someone else in this discussion linked to this chart:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WMFstratplanSurvey1.png

So a group consisting largely of unmarried, childless, college kids and younger have it all figured out how the world should work. They have time to become Wikipedia nerds and wikilawyers, and hone skills at deflection in arguements. And from a mother's comfortable basement, they can ask: "Why should that be a problem?"

Argumentum ad hominem.

You certainly seem to have strong opinions on how the world should work (e.g. that people shouldn't be "ambushed" with words and artwork that you've deemed "naughty"), but I don't seek to discredit your views by mocking your demographics or lifestyle.

While I'm PO'd about pronouncements from children about how the world should work, I'll include this quote from elsewhere in this discussion:

Q: The supervision accomplished what, exactly?

A: It would probably accomplish getting the parent in question to review basic anatomy and physiology.

Who knew Wikipedia took on the role of deciding when a tired, busy parent should launch into a discussion of these topics?

1. Are you referring to me as a "child"?

2. The above is a reasonable suggestion of how a parent could handle such a situation if and when it arises. It doesn't mean that we deliberately instigate it; we simply don't engage in special measures to prevent it.

3. As 76.28.67.181 noted, in this context, the best form of supervision is pre-screening.

This in addition to helping employers enforce policies.

See above. —David Levy 18:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Break

I get that the article is what it is (and that far more graphic content within is a given). Placing it as the Featured Article is where I question the application of editorial common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.29.9 (talk) 02:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Whose common sense? It's just a fantasy to imagine that different people the entire world over have much common view about what is or isn't appropriate. 91.125.80.151 (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's appropriate or not. If it's good writing it's featured, usually on the main page, fair and square.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors always seem to come out guns-blazing on this particular topic. I'll just note here that the Wikimedia Foundation did pass a resolution regarding controversial content here, which contained the phrasing "We urge the community to pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, including determining whether it has a realistic educational use and applying the principle of least astonishment in categorization and placement." I think it's not unreasonable to suggest that, even though the article in question may well be very well written, it would be a stretch to call its educational value 'realistic' and its placement as featured article may not satisfy the 'principle of least astonishment'. Just putting that out there, anyway. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"If it's good writing it's featured" -- Jasper, per my question above, would you be happy to see any Wikipedia content featured on the front page, if the other quality standards were met? 86.179.113.220 (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes and no. I might be flipped off by something like the current featured article but I would not oppose it and would endorse it if it had the sufficient quality standards.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Any and all articles can be featured articles if they meet the criteria for featured articles, which someone has linked to above. The subject matter is irrelevant. freshacconci talktalk 02:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that most people would baulk, at, say, featuring the article about the n-word on the front page (to pick just one example). So, to pick up David's comment above, somewhere we draw the line... 86.179.113.220 (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Realistically, that line usually is at any form of pornography or any bad word not used in science, in general, though this is not a set rule and there are exceptions.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

At the end of the day, I really do think it comes down to the much-derided "common sense". We don't all agree on the details, but there are some things, such as the one I mentioned, or putting big photographs of genitalia on the front page, that, I assume, we just wouldn't do, even though the rules allow it. I think the present example is a weaker case of the same thing. I do not think the idea that Wikipedia should be completely unconcerned with people's sensibilities in the matter of front-page content can really be sustained. 86.179.113.220 (talk) 03:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

And for some reason, you apparently believe that an article about a cartoon episode is more likely to offend than articles on subjects inconsistent with people's religious beliefs are. —David Levy 03:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The two things really are not comparable. The question about religious beliefs is much more difficult. Not putting (mildly) offensive material of a "schoolboy" nature on the front page is an easy call. 86.179.113.220 (talk) 03:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

But the "schoolboy" nature of the offending words are South Park's creators', not Wikipedia's. Did you read the article? It's about the pilot episode of South Park and it clearly states that they created it to push buttons. Wikipedia's choice for featuring it is not "schoolboy" naughtiness, but the quality of the article, with a secondary consideration being its cultural significance. I'm not a fan of the show but it is important around issues in the culture wars. freshacconci talktalk 03:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

In other words, you're okay with material that's more likely to offend, provided that it reflects your sensibilities. Conversely, a "(mildly) offensive" cartoon episode title should be off-limits because you find the subject matter childish. —David Levy 03:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If Nigger were a featured article, I would strongly support its appearance on the main page. —David Levy 03:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you may be in a minority there. 86.179.113.220 (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but most people are mostly wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 03:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a b-class article and could be brought up to good article and then featured. Sure, it would be controversial but I think the point is that Wikipedia isn't promoting the subject of the featured article, it's promoting the quality of the article. The whole featured article process is daunting and that's why I don't get involved with it. Articles aren't just randomly picked. If the article is of featured article quality, it will usually get featured at some point. freshacconci talktalk 03:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think "controversial" is an understatement. To be honest, I think there would be a shit-storm if you did that. 86.179.113.220 (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe so. I've never understood the belief that censoring a word (in this context, censoring history) is a logical response to bigotry. To me, it makes no more sense to bar the word "nigger" from appearing on the main page than it does to bar the appearance of articles about slavery or the Holocaust. How is scholarly coverage of these subjects inappropriate? —David Levy 03:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The word is historically important and the current article is actually pretty good. There would be no reason to not feature it other than squeamishness. And no, I don't think people should throw that word around (or actually use it at all). But there's nothing wrong with an article on the word itself or to bring it up to featured article standards. freshacconci talktalk 03:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Well it is a minority of at least two as I would also support that. In a couple of conversations, I have been more than a little surprised that people who strongly think that "nigger" is a taboo word don't realise how recently this has come to be the case. For example in 1955 in Britain it was used without any concern. Also the same people don't object to calling a black dog Blackie. FerdinandFrog (talk) 11:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

So, Today's Featured Article is controversial, but no one mentions Today's Featured Picture? Chris857 (talk) 03:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm offended by side boob. freshacconci talktalk 03:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw that later. I usually don't go to the main page. More rarely do I scroll to the bottom. When I saw the nude painting as a featured picture in the same setting as the featured article about an anal probe, I thought, "Someone wanted to be particularly provocative today." I think the featured article is spam. Is South Park falling in the ratings and needs a boost from Wikipedia? - Ac44ck (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic, but I think it's a shame there is no way to make the featured picture visible without scrolling. I often miss them, and often they are superb. I suppose the layout constraints just won't permit it. Anyway, gotta go now, thanks for the intersting debate... 86.179.113.220 (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

These complaints seem to stem more from the perception that a subject is trivial or unimportant than from anything else (hence the flood of angry posts whenever an article about something from popular culture appears). A "naughty" word merely helps to stir up the sentiment.

Today's featured picture will generate less criticism because it's an "important" work of art. Likewise, if today's featured article were about a classic work of literature whose title contained a word regarded as obscene, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. —David Levy 03:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• An excellent choice for this particular date. Besides, the FA-director-for-life is infallible. Alarbus (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure this has been discussed ad nauseam, but Wikipedia is made for human beings. It is not made for an alien race neutrally seeking to learn more about humans. "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment."[3] Many of these human beings are young children. Many of them are accessing Wikipedia in public schools. Many of these human beings don't want to read about anal probes or see pictures of naked women (or homoeroticism or other topics from the past). I'm not saying these things are "bad"—there isn't bad knowledge. But forcing every single human being who goes to en.wikipedia.org to view pictures or read content offensive to them isn't helping "every single human being . . . freely share in the sum of all knowledge." It's alienating people. I foresee parents and schools blocking Wikipedia for this kind of thing. How does that help Wikipedia?

Remember that Wikipedians do not represent a fair sample of English-speaking readers (consider this graph). What is acceptable to the general public must be considered when making decisions on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.97.21 (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Not buying your Jedi mind trick there. The "general public" is generally made up of people of different faiths and belief systems, and what flies with one person won't necessarily fly with many other people. South Park spoofed this line of reasoning, to very poignant effect, in Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo (their first Christmas special), where the school holiday pageant gets neutered to one song that has bugger-all to do with the holiday season en generale because members of the general public keep taking offense to the most innocuous (not the most religious, the most innocuous) elements of the pageant. Arguing that the general public knows what is best for it is garbage at best - largely because the general public will always disagree with itself on any given matter. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 04:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I first became aware of anal probes as part of the stories of people claiming to have been abducted by aliens. It's only becomes a puerile adolescent joke because people made fun of those "abductees". I think we need to remember how the expression hit the mainstream. It was mainly via weirdos with vivid imaginations. Would those complaining still complain if the article was about such abduction claims? HiLo48 (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

My point is that the Wikimedia Foundation's commitment is to enable "every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." In order for Wikipedia to achieve that goal, it must strive to be accessible to as many human beings as possible. I entirely agree with the statement that "what flies with one person won't necessarily fly with many other people." If Wikipedia is actually trying to share knowledge with every human being, it must strive to "fly" with as many people as possible. Wikimedia Foundation's statement is people-oriented, not content-oriented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.97.21 (talk) 04:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Wikipedia commits to offer water for every horse - but that's all. Wnt (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to voice my agreement with the complainers that this is a poor choice for today's featured article. It makes wikipedia look like it's run by a bunch of seventeen-year-old boys, which I suppose it probably is. After the Human Centipede debacle, I thought there was also going to be broader discussion of potentially offensive featured articles before they went on the mian page. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Debacle? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

In the minds of some users, "decision with which I disagree" = "debacle". —David Levy 06:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Your personal opinion of "South Park" (i.e. that its audience comprises "a bunch of seventeen-year-old boys") is irrelevant to our mission to treat it as we do any other notable subject. Only failing to do so would make Wikipedia appear juvenile. ("Mommy, Mommy, I saw a bad word! Make it go away!")

2. All subjects are "potentially offensive". —David Levy 06:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure decisions about curation and selection have to interfere with the neutrality of the project's content. The spirit of the Board resolution on controversial content might be relevant here. —Emufarmers^(T/C) 05:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It's the title of the pilot episode of a major television program that has appeared in US and international television for years. Bowdlerization is not in Wikipedia's best interest. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If anything, it should have been the episode where he joins NAMBLA... Lugnuts (talk) 08:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

So, when is a sexual position or fetish gonna be thrown onto the front page?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 08:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to test David Levy's theory a bit above. Get Lick me in the ass to featured status and put it on the main page :D Someguy1221 (talk) 09:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible April Fools Day material there. I do see Anal people & Fabulous Willy are in April Fools DYK. Of course, I'm against the FA on different merits.......--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Well we had Gropecunt Lane a while back. Is that close enough? FerdinandFrog (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Can I assume that no-one recalls the day when Gropecunt Lane was the TFA? Manning (talk) 11:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It strikes me that while there may be a consensus that the content of Wikipedia is not censored and that there shouldn't be limits on what Wikipedia is "allowed" to have articles about, there is not a consensus on what is appropriate for display on the Main Page. We have a number of people saying "this is appropriate" and a number saying "this isn't". This is not the first time this has happened, I was here for the discussion four months ago on The Human Centipede which, like the South Park episode here, was about a subject which is deliberately trying to be noticed by transgressing boundaries. There was a long debate after the Human Centipede was put here on the Main Page too, after a while a admin closed the debate with the words "Article no longer TFA; reasonable concluding remark made and further discussion can be taken elsewhere". The concluding remark he refers to was "Since the article is off Main page for a while now, could we just say something like "if the choice of Main page content is expected to raise several eyebrows, someone should drop a message to some frequently-monitored page, such as this one, so that we can have a discussion prior to the apperance on the Main page"?" by User:Tone. My question is... was this advice taken? It seems to me that nothing changed, there was no attempt to gain consensus on this issue and now we are back in the same place again. Fine, some of you don't think these sorts of articles are a problem, but why hasn't there been an attempt to see if that is the consensus? Kaid100 (talk) 11:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I just came here because i knew by reading the main article, there would be an interesting discussion here. Its one of thosse common sense things that is going to stir up trouble with some readers, but proceeds anyway under the not censored (or in some cases- no consensus established yet) umbrella. Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I for one wish the editors responsible for the main page wouldn't do things that they should know are going to 'stir up trouble'. I don't particularly care about today's FA myself - in the grand scheme of things, South Park is not all that offensive. But obviously some other editors do think it inappropriate, and it's depressing that the main page people either failed to see that coming, or decided they just didn't care and went ahead anyway. After the Human Centipede fiasco - an article that definitely should not have appeared on the main page - I really would have thought they'd know better. Robofish (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Displaying an article about a Pokémon character as TFA "stirs up trouble". You apparently want us to base such decisions on mob rule (i.e. to exclude whatever subjects people dislike) instead of relying on our featured article criteria. —David Levy 17:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

And the less said about Gropecunt Lane, the better. I've ranted about this before, but to be brief: WP:NOTCENSORED does not mean we should purposefully go out of our way to offend people just because we can get away with it. Robofish (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Nor should we pretend featured content does not exist because some people are easily offended. The purpose of TFA is to show our best work, not to make people happy and fluffy inside. Count me as someone fully and completely in support of TFA being allowed to fulfill its mandate without interference. Resolute 14:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

These are your views, but are they the consensus? Kaid100 (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

We aren't going out of our way to offend people, nor are we going out of our way to avoid offending people by banning "objectionable" subjects from the main page. (As discussed above, that would cover an enormous number of articles, many of which you might be more reluctant to exclude.) —David Levy 17:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake, it contains the word "anal probe", big deal. Please stop pretending to be offended by something that is not offensive. If you child asks you what anal means just explain to them that it's a grown up word for their bottom, and that they shouldn't repeat it at school because it's a silly technical word that won't sound right. Then stop your children from reading a website that is full of adult content. Coolug (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Any child able to read this site is probably old enough to know what the word "anal" (and far, far worse) means. There's this real attitude in the Western World that kids learn bad language from the mass-media. And it's absolute bullshit. They learn bad language from other kids and often from their parents. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 15:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I was going to say that the next 'Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells main page was due (g).

Until and unless 'vanilla/worksafe Wikipedia mainpage', 'ordinary/occasionally annoying' and 'anything controversial is encouraged' options are created this situation will occur occasionally (along with 'too much of the main page is devoted to (insert topic of choice discussions).

Scarlett O'Hara's most famous quote applies here. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"As God is my witness, I won't go hungry again"? Or do you mean Rhett Butler's most famous quote?  ;) The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

(interpolation) 'Tomorrow is another day' (and there will be different things on the main page). And these discussions will still be going on when the Y10000 Problem is threatening to become operational (assuming WP and its equivalents are still around). Jackiespeel (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I am going to stay out of debating whether it was sensible to mainpage this particular article, but I will point out that treating "WP:NOTCENSORED" as the be-all and end-all of a discussion on the issue, as several commenters in this thread have done, is very poor reasoning. As I observed in a recent arbitration decision:

"The principle that "Wikipedia is not censored" is properly invoked in resisting attempts to control the content of Wikipedia articles based on factors other than our editors' informed and mature collective editorial judgments. In controversial instances, reminding fellow editors that 'Wikipedia is not censored' will often be the beginning, not the end, of a well-informed analysis regarding inclusion or exclusion of content.... A consensus for inclusion or exclusion should be sought based on the community's collective editorial judgment, well-informed by knowledge of the relevant subject matter and, where applicable, by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines."

In other words, to reaffirm that Wikipedia does not allow itself to be censored does not meant that we abdicate making our own collective editorial judgments as to what content should be contained in the encyclopedia, and in what parts of the encyclopedia, including the main page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It actually goes both ways though. "I'm offended." "Well Wikipedia is not censored." "But, I'm offended!", rinse and repeat. The discussion pretty much stops there anyway because the opposition to the article is not based in any rational argument. It is based around the fact that some people find the words "anal probe" distasteful. Consequently, they seek to suppress the words they don't like. That, IMNSHO, is not a credible reason to deny the article a place at TFA. Resolute 16:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. It's quite true that WP:NOTCENSORED isn't blanket justification for the inclusion of any and all material. But it does mean that content meeting our normal editorial standards shouldn't be removed on the basis that it offends someone. —David Levy 17:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why:

• It could be a problem if a 7-year-old sees todays featured article?
• It could be a problem if a 7-year-old sees todays features picture?

Is there any evidence that either is bad for childs' psychological development and all that? Apart from the risk of hypothermia, where is de danger in nudity? Thanks! --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 17:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Instead of asking the question of whether we could explain it to you (because of course you could refuse to accept any explanation), ask the question of how many parents would intentionally show their seven-year-old this article or this picture. In fact, I'm not quite as bothered by today's Main Page as I was about the Human Centipede one a few months ago, the main reason for me bringing this up is because lessons weren't learnt from that incident. There has still been no attempt to establish consensus on what should be shown on the Main Page - the first thing people see when they get here and the content of which is involuntary to them. They could choose not to search for The Human Centipede or Cartman gets a Anal Probe, but they can't choose not to see it as the main article until they get here. Incidentally, the notion of not all articles being suitable for the Main Page is not new, Jenna Jameson (a porn star) has deliberately not been put on the front page for its subject matter- so the whole NOTCENSORED argument doesn't apply. As the Jenna Jameson example shows, The subject matter of TFA already is censored, but there has been no attempt to establish consensus on how it should be. Kaid100 (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Many parents wouldn't want their children to read about evolution or intelligent design. Should those articles not have appeared as TFA? Adherents to certain religions find photographs of unveiled women (or even women in general) highly objectionable. Should those be banned from the main page as well? To whose moral standards should we defer? The ones that seem reasonable to you?

2. Our featured article director has explicitly stated that he decided against making Jenna Jameson TFA not because its content is objectionable, but because he doesn't want to deal with complaints to that effect. (Users have commented that he's scheduled articles more likely to draw such criticism, so we don't quite understand this decision and aren't certain that it still stands.) —David Levy 17:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You mention the Featured Articles Director: his exact words were "As far as putting this article on the main page, I am undecided, but leaning a bit towards 'no'. IMO, 'History of erotic depictions' was close to the line, but still a few steps inside the boundary. I'm not so sure about Jenna Jamison though." In other words, he considers that there is a boundary which History of erotic depictions is a few steps on the right side of, but Jenna Jameson might not be. Now, why has there not been an attempt to establish for the whole community, rather than just one person's whims, where that boundary is? As for evolution and intelligent design, those are controversial not because they are deliberatly transgressive, but because people disagree as to whether or not they are correct. It makes no sense to ask if "The Human Centipede" or "Cartman gets an anal probe" is correct or incorrect, as they are not factual statements but motion-picture portrayals which transgress boundaries in order to gain notoriety. Kaid100 (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I will speak only anecdotally, but I saw the South Park Christmas Special when I was 7 years old at someone else's house, and I didn't develop any psychological issues because of it. It's not going to cause anyone harm, and quite frankly what 7 year old is even going to be seriously looking things up on Wikipedia? I remember being around that age and deliberately opening dictionaries to the pages with swear words and/or gory pictures on them; that was the only time I ever opened such books. To quote someone who wrote in defense of a Far Side cartoon that was a satire of torture, "As for the children, don't worry about them. They don't get it. And when they do, they will not be nearly as affected as you seem to think." The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

1. "I was asked to comment here about my position vis-a-vis Jenna Jamison as daily FA. As David said, I'm not planning on scheduling it, because I don't want to deal with the inevitable controversy that would erupt. The decision is mine, and it is discretionary -- I decided of my own volition not to run it, not because of any particular policy. Nor is my position set in stone -- I may change my mind at some point in the future." — Raul654 [diff]

2. The concern is that people find certain content objectionable (because it offends them and/or because they don't want their children exposed to it), right? So how is the reason why a topic is controversial relevant? If anything, readers are more likely to be deeply offended by claims inconsistent with their personal/religious beliefs than they are by "motion-picture portrayals which transgress boundaries in order to gain notoriety".

And what about the photographs of unveiled women (and women in general)? The offense that they cause has nothing to do with a factual dispute. In certain cultures, their display transgresses the established boundaries of decency (to a far greater extent than use of the phrase "anal probe" does).

I ask again: to whose moral standards should we defer? Those whose beliefs we deem "reasonable"? —David Levy 20:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You asked a question which you already answered with your quote. You are already deferring to the moral standards of the person you quoted. Kaid100 (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You appear to have missed the point, which is that Raul's decision stems not from his "moral standards", but from a desire to avoid inconvenience.

And no, I don't defer to this position; I've expressed disagreement on several occasions.

Regardless, my question is "To whose moral standards should we defer?" (You obviously aren't satisfied with the status quo.) —David Levy 21:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Then balance it out: Make it clear that the home page (which is the only point of debate here as opposed to all this "censored" babbling) tempers any impression of Wikipedia as an academic resource (what with all the "History...Geography...Mathematics" portal links at the top) by including some links at the portal masthead to some of the more colorful topics from this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.29.9 (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Carman article placed at sole discretion of FA Director

Don't like it? There's a current RfC on FA's leadership:

• Wikipedia:Featured articles/2012 RfC on FA leadership

Alarbus (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This information is false: see next section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It's quite true, Sandy. Nowhere was there any discussion about this particular TFA; it just appeared. Alarbus (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• http://www.SPAMFILTEREVASIONexaminer.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikipedia-features-cartoon-anal-probe (delete SPAMFILTEREVASION)

Alarbus (talk) 10:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

TFAs are chosen by the community

In fact, TFAs are chosen by the community at WP:TFA/R-- a place which the "community" largely ignores in spite of the the FA director's attempts to leave article choice more in the hands of the community. When no TFA is requested there, then the TFA is chosen from those that haven't been run. Nice try, but every time we see these complaints, we do not see people going over to WP:TFA/R and helping to choose the TFAs. In fact, at this moment, the page is in complete disrepair because no one seems to care. Yet, the person posting here is one of only a very small handful of people who called for tossing out the FA leadership. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

 !votes there are mere suggestions; nothing binding at all about it. Alarbus (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Misleading; provide a legitimate case where the director or delegates have ignored community consensus or requests on that page. I'm aware of none. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Meh. Provide anything that says he has to abide by what is said there. It's sole discretion — for life. Alarbus (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm pretty sure that Cartman Gets an Anal Probe was never requested at WP:TFA/R. User:Raul654 just pulled it out of his hat. Alarbus (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You're free to present a diff showing the community uses, updates, pays attention to, or cares about the TFA requests page in general, and requested an article for that date. The fact is that Raul set up the page so the community could take an active role in scheduling the mainpage TFA, and the fact is that the community ignores that opportunity. Talk is cheap, and complaining here is more fun than, you know, actually doing some work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think no one much bothers making suggestions at tfar because posts there matter little. mere suggestions from the peons. nb: I do plenty of heavy lifting around here. Thanks. Alarbus (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy for linking to the requests page. I wasn't aware of it and I've added it to my watchlist. Cloveapple (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Much obliged, Clove; more active editors getting involved there would be great.

@Alarbus: Once again, you are welcome to provide diffs of articles that had consensus there and were ignored, or stop spreading these false allegations on a high-profile page. Now let's see, why would the same editor who called for FAC leadership to be tossed out want to spread information here that isn't true ... ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

As someone who is aware of TFAR and has both nominated and voted on submissions there on many occasions, I have to say you are full of shit, Alarbus. Resolute 21:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No wonder there's a civility case at present. Alarbus (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolute, would you mind striking and rephrasing that? We don't need another side show, do we? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say any articles that had 'consensus' were ignored (not saying either way); I said that:

• [Cartman Gets an Anal Probe] [was] placed at [the] sole discretion of [the] FA Director.

That article wasn't requested at all, it was simply selected by one person: User:Raul654. Alarbus (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Still false. The TFA/R page is underutilized, no request was made for today, hence the community had a role-- they just ignored it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Tap, tap, tap. Not false, Sandy. Maybe yesterday was a centennial of something, or someone's birthday. Whatever could have been requested. All moot, though. No one requested anything and the FA process owns the most prominent spot on the Main Page. That article was selected by an individual without any public input.

As Carcharoth said below, tfar is about a few specific requests; off the cuff I'd say it's about 1-in-7. Perhaps the reason few bother participating at tfar is that the whole FA process is hostile and most shy from that. Alarbus (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I agree with that. I also support Raul's decision on that front (and thanks for the notice above, btw, it reminded me to vote in support of Raul's reconfirmation.) However, your dismissive attitude towards TFAR and how it exists to placate the "peons" is no more useful than Sandy running around everywhere overreacting to the slightest criticism of the FA process. Resolute 21:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I for one have added TFA/R to my watchlist and intend to be somewhat active there in the future. Hopefully these long-winded, multi-prong arguments will at least have made others more aware of the process too and maybe some good will come out this. Think positive, y'all! :-) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

My understanding of the TFA/R process is that it is where requests are made by those wanting a featured article to appear on a particular date. That is only a small proportion of the featured articles available for TFA, though. The vast majority, as far as I'm aware, are selected by Raul654 and Dabomb87 from the available pool of those not mentioned at TFA/R. If people want to make any objections to those selections in advance, the only way to do this, as far as I know, is to watch the 'TFA archive' list, or 'tomorrow's main page' page, and see the future TFAs appear as Raul and Dabomb slot them in. I would suggest that objections would need to be raised a few days in advance for any traction to be gained. I'm not sure if any objections have ever been raised in advance. I do recall a few instances where possible selections were discussed in advance in a venue other than TFA/R (apart from the one's like the April Fools selections), such as the decision to put two articles as TFA during a US presidential election (or was that a TFA/R discussion as well?).

Of course, rather than object to articles after they've been selected, it might be more productive to peruse the list of FAs not yet featured on the main page, and point to any you think might not be suitable, and make your views known to Raul and Dabomb. And then return periodically and note the promotions to FA made since you last looked, and update your list of your personal vetos. Maybe someone should also rustle up a list of which TFA articles have prompted threads like this, though that would involve a fair amount of digging through various archives. Carcharoth (talk) 03:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

As to your first part, misleading; it's not Raul's fault that the requests page is underutilized and poorly utilized. On your second para, the place to make those views known is not to Raul or Dabomb; it's at WP:TFA/R. As long as the community doesn't use that page, and allows it to go unmaintained, there is no reason to give more responsibility to the community. It's already there for them, and they ignore it in droves. Complaining is easier than working; blaming others for something you don't like is easier than accepting responsibility. Every time I go to that page, I have to do the maintenance there. IF the community wants to be part of the TFA decision-making, then they should be-- they don't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

We shouldn't blame Raul if he picked it out of a hat and it happened to be this episode. Nor should we blame him if the FA 1987 (What the Fuck is Going On?) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) came out of the hat either. If it's a featured article, then we should automatically assume that the person (or people) who wrote it put in hours of research and work to get it up to that standard. It's insulting to article writers to insinuate that their work is automatically bad because the subject is controversial in some way. There's a brilliant quote by the pastor Tony Campolo which highlights what I mean perfectly:

I have three things I'd like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don't give a shit. What's worse is that you're more upset with the fact that I said "shit" than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night.

Ironholds put up a brilliant post on what the mission of Wikipedia is a few hours ago: we exist to expand human understanding. We exist to be the sum of human knowledge. We should be able to talk about The Human Centipede, and the issues it presents. All featured articles, especially about controversial topics, must do this (FA criterion 1b). We can't pretend that these topics don't exist, out of some nebulous desire to "protect the children" and we shouldn't, because the moment we do that, we stop being an encyclopedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

As an addendum to this, the article that Ironholds used as an example was Polyamory (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). I don't doubt that if that, or Homosexuality (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), was included on the main page we'd get complaints about how we'd be harming the children by running it. The use of "for the children" has historically always been used as an easy excuse to repress what society disapproves of. But to reflect society's disapproval of topics by pretending they don't exist (which is what we do if we don't run these articles when they come out of the hat) runs counter to our neutrality policy. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Big Butte Creek

Today's selection of Big Butte Creek has some asking, "Is the FA scheduler a 15-year-old boy?" --MZMcBride (talk) 03:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Answer: no. A slightly more pertinent question might relate to whoever named the geographic feature, but even then the answer is still no. And who are these phantom 'some'? That's a case for the {{who}} tag if I ever saw one. Modest Genius ^talk 11:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Not unless the geographic feature was named "Big Butt Cheek". —howcheng {chat} 16:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It's pronounced "byoot", not "butt". Jehochman ^Talk 22:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

No complaints, on the contray : thanks

a lot for your choosing "Cartman's anal probe" , and that gorgeous Bouguereau's nude ! Reminds us our flesh is yet here, and needs its spring revival (we had our La Fête de la Chandeleur lately, but weather as worsened just after it, & there is now a sound 15°C under zero, & North-East Wind force 9, on the Lake Leman shores...) . Cheers ! (& please gon on digging out some more L'art pompier masterpieces for your "Today's f. pic." , many of us just love it !). BTW , we have here an expression : "te laisse pas abattre par les pisse-vinaigres" (don't vinegar pissers deter you...)Arapaima (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No complaints about the Bouguereau, but who wrote that stuff accompanying it? It's "an example of an art nude, an art form where the naked human form is the dominant theme and is not intentionally erotic." Oh please! Of course it's erotic. "It does not involve the subject interacting with anyone or the face of the nude as a prominent feature." Er, yes, it does. She's looking right at the viewer - interacting with and smiling at you, the person who is imagined to be there with her naked on the beach. She is skinny dipping. OK, so it draws on mythological imagery of water nymphs, Naiads, etc, but the context is clearly a beach not a pool or river, typically associated with nymphs, so it links to contemporary social practices of sea bathing, which was a widely discussed issue at the time. Paul B (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I compiled the caption based on what's in the art nude article. If the article is incorrect or if the image not suitable to be placed in the article, there's really no way I could have known that. —howcheng {chat} 17:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That text was under the "In photography" section, FWIW. —Emufarmers^(T/C) 07:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Paul B - when you insist that it's erotic, it reminds me of the old joke....

A psychiatrist was administering a Rorschach inkblot test to his patient. The doctor showed the first blot and asked what it resembled.

"That's two poodles having sex," replied the patient.

To the second inkblot, the patient said, "That's a naked guy leaning out a window, telling all the men who go by to come in and have sex with her."

The doctor showed him the third inkblot. "That's two naked women," the patient said.

Unable to withstand this any longer, the doctor blurted out, "You have a filthy, disgusting mind!"

"Look who's talking!" the patient cried. "You're the one with all the dirty pictures."

It's all in the eye of the beholder. HiLo48 (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Endorse too

The main page is where we showcase our content, that as a community we can take subjects from the sublime and profound, the complex and painful, the humorous, the unreal, and the crude, and as a community we can provide high quality neutral encyclopedic coverage of them all.

Articles based on body parts, sex, religious controversies, etc, are an opportunity too. They are no less articles than any other; their writing is no less meritworthy (and no more so) than any other. They show what can be done with South Park and a toilet/abduction joke, by skilled content writers. To our readers, who are incredibly varied, our articles may have immense and varied value. I wrote a large part of an article related to drowning, I have no doubt by doing that task, I will have saved lives. Wikipedia will have saved lives. To a reader it has great value - immense perhaps. Other articles benefit other readers (they will, or they wouldn't return). To readers, each article has differing value.

As writings and articles, they are all equal examples of our community's endeavors. They are all measured by the same yardstick - that they are each well written, neutral, sourced, and comprehensively informative on the important points of their topic. The test is whether Cartman Gets an Anal Probe describes its topic well and informatively, and whether Mona Lisa describes its topic well and informatively.

For everyone who may take offense at some article -- almost any topic can cause offense -- someone else will go "wow, I didn't realize..." and ten others will laugh, chuckle, blink, tweet and then move on. Part of spreading knowledge is spreading knowledge of what kind of knowledge may be there. Never forget, some will want to know, some will use it for research or for their own work. Never, ever assume any article has not got a time, place and reader who will benefit from it. The main page, as Raul explained when he was Director of FA back in 2006, is a place where sometimes we will be boring, and sometimes we will be controversial or post an article that will raise eyebrows. Mona Lisa can be there, so can Lady Gaga, so can HIV vaccine, so can Walt Disney, bullying, Cold War, and cunt. Each is capable of informing and each can be the subject of an article that children may giggle over and others will learn from in a non-crude and very genuine and worthwhile sense.

Any article can inform, any article can be written to a high standard.

The Bus Uncle and Xenu do so, though neither are weighty topics -- and so can the fictitious Eric Cartman and his anomalous anal probe. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It always makes me laugh to see people so offended by such things. Especially as that mock indignation is never present for reports on mass murder, war, terrorist bombings, miscarriages of justice...etc. Priorities, eh? Let's get offended by a middle finger, but not by the several dancers behind her making sexually suggestive dance moves. Parrot of Doom 23:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support- It's nice to see that Wikipedia remains uncensored and such topics can still appear on the main page.Smallman12q (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Very well put FT2. I too support the featuring of this article on the main page. the wub "?!" 12:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It's extremely sad that we're celebrating Wikipedia's status as "uncensored", because it dared to describe ... a TV show. Watched by millions, ... on basic cable.

Thank goodness we've achieved the same level of glorious freedom as TV Guide! APL (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree. This shouldn't even be an issue. /Julle (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Me too. HiLo48 (talk) 07:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

If people really had such a problem with TFA, the obvious solution is to launch themselves via catapult at one of the Wikipedia server buildings. --82.3.51.98 (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

^That made me smile :) Modest Genius ^talk 13:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

TFA images

On February 3rd and 7th, I added images to the TFA blurbs. For the Pathways into Darkness blurb, I added an image of that video game's sole programmer. For "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe," the current TFA (the 7th's), I added an image of that episode's sole creators. In both cases, the images were removed with a statement that the images were of insufficient quality and were tangentially related. I disagree on both accounts. An image of the author of a book is directly relevant to a blurb about the book; the same is true of the programmer of a video game and the creators of a television episode. Both images were also quite as visible as the other images that are commonly used in TFA blurbs. Is there concensus to omit images from TFA blurbs that relate to popular culture? Neelix (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No, of course not. But it often is difficult to find free images illustrating such subjects, and there is consensus that we shouldn't throw in the closest thing available (for the sake of having an image).

In this discussion (in which the distinction between a book's author and a video game's creator was addressed), I noted two questions that are helpful to ask:

• Will the image's general nature be readily apparent to most readers seeing the blurb (before they read the caption)?
• Would we seriously consider including the image in the article's infobox?

If the answer to both questions is "no," the image probably isn't particularly suitable.

February 3's featured article was about a video game, not its programmer. That photograph is of relatively low quality (poor focus, partial obstruction in the foreground) and does nothing to illustrate the article's subject. A vast majority of readers, likely including those familiar with the game, wouldn't recognize Jason Jones or understand why the photograph was present until reaching "pictured" in the blurb (at which point the image still would fail to illustrate the game).

Today's photograph made more sense than that (given the fact that Parker and Stone are well known as the program's creators), but it nonetheless was tangentially relevant (because the article is about the episode, not about them) and didn't work well at that size. (I'm familiar with Parker and Stone, but I wouldn't be able to recognize them from the thumbnail.)

Incidentally, we italicize the parenthesis enclosing "pictured". —David Levy 16:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course the best solution would be to finally get rid of the diktat that fair use images cannot be used on the Main Page. Then we could use the cover art or a still from the work. Every time this problem occurs this simple solution is ignored. Modest Genius ^talk 23:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Our pre-Scooby-Doo incident practice of using a non-free image to illustrate TFA only when no available or realistically obtainable free image could serve the purpose (just as we do in articles) was quite sensible. I don't understand why a special main page policy is called for. —David Levy 00:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the pre-Scooby-Doo policy seemed more sensible and consistant.

However, You have to admit that it would be a very rare main-page blurb that was made difficult to understand by a lack of illustration. ("A great Dane and four teenagers? I don't understand! What are teenagers?") APL (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The policy just needs to be changed. There is really no good reason why fair use images shouldn't be used on the main page for TFA if no free use image is available. There are already too few images on the main page as it is, and having a TFA without an image only compounds that problem. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

What we lose in not putting fair use images on the Main Page is minimal. What we would lose if American fair use law were tightened would be quite substantial. Given the patchy state of commons:Category:Players_of_Watford_FC I'm wary of telling others to take more pictures of things they like, but save for the very specific instance of fictional characters that's what this ultimately boils down to. —WFC— 03:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm really not trying to be flippant here, but I have no idea what you just said. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm really not surprised. —WFC— 17:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually there are some key reasons which come up nearly every time this is discussed, hence why we achieve no consensus. You don't have to agree with them but pretending they don't exist doesn't help the discussion in any way. Note that as has also been mentioned before, if you really want to change things, it likely makes sense to seperate those cases when the actual loss is questionable (as even APL has said, the image isn't actually that important to understand the blurb) and when you can perhaps make an argument that the blurb is difficult to understand with the image (as in the case of the painting a few years back, although I still question how much the thumbnail actually helps even if we used a large Tony size thumbnail).

It's perhaps also worth remembering that although we completely disallow NFCC on the main page now and were generally generous in the past, it's clear even if we did achieve consensus, what level of tolerance for NFCC we would allow in the TFA blurb. After all even before the infamous Scooby-Doo case we used free images when they were sometimes controversial e.g. this pre Scooby case received complaints here Talk:Main Page/Archive 94#Featured Article's picture. Although the Scooby-Doo case resulted in JW's involvement which lead to our current policy, it didn't actually start there. In fact it started as a dispute over whether to use an NFCC image or a free image (that was used in the article) amongst editors of the blurb. That in itself probably arose probably at least partially arose out of the ongoing discussion Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions/Archive 1#Removing exception in policy for "Main Page" at the time.

In other words, even if you can achieve consensus to allow NFCC in some instances on the main page, don't be sure you'll achieve consensus to allow it when the image isn't that important to understand the topic or when there are other, albeit more tangential alternatives in the article. Our stance on NFCC itself has changed over time, I believe it was only pre mid 2006 when we were still routinely allowing fair use images of living public people just to show what they looked like which was only about a year before the Scooby-Doo case. It was in fact in the 2006-2007 period when we began to get stricter with our policy surrounding NFCC images (and we adopted the term NFCC) leading to this initial foundation position [4] followed up by their resolution [5].

The way we achieve our current status quo may not be ideal (but if you've followed wikipedia policy development long enough, you must know it rarely is) but it does seem to me that horse has bolted.

P.S. It's worth remembering that allowing NFCC images on the main page was even with the historic policy considered the exception, rather then not allowing them the exception. Despite the lack of consensus for any move, there is general consensus the main page isn't an article and therefore NFCC or fair use images aren't and weren't allowed without an exception.

P.P.S. Looking back, it seems most discussions have been similar to this so there has been limited discussion on the reasons why we may want to disallow NFCC images on the main page. Therefore I have removed my above comments and apologise for any offence caused. If you do want to know the reasons, I suggest you start with the discussion linked above at NFCC.

P.P.P.S. I think I've noted something similar before but I'd forgotten the NFCC discussion leading up to the JW action. But interesting enough, despite this being presented as an Wikipedia:Argumentum Jimboni, in actual practice the NFCC discussion ended up at 40 agree with removing the exception for the main page (although some suggested they would consider allowing it in some exceptional cases like Iwo Jima). 25 disagreed i.e. they wanted to continue to allow NFCC images on main page. 1 agreed/disagreed. Only 14 !votes on each side plus the person who agreed/disagreed came after JW's involvement (JW first commented in that discussion before removing the Scooby-Doo image). In case this isn't clear, a majority of the disagrees (14/25) came after JW agreed but only a minority of the agrees (14/39). Vote counting is not a good way to determine consensus and this is an incredibly simple vote count (although I did count my own disagree), but I think it does demonstrate why it's flawed to suggest the opposition to NFCC on the main page has or had much to do with JW. You could in fact suggest the opposite although the more likely possibility is those concerned about the usage were already watching the NFCC page and it took a while for those supporting NFCC usage to notice the discussion.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

IANAL, but keeping Fair Use images off the Main Page seems like it could have a plausible legal basis. After all, the Main Page is not requested by readers in the same way as an encyclopedia article; it might be argued to be more like an ornament, which the Fair Use image is used improperly to prettify. And the Fair Use image there goes out to many more readers than in any article, both increasing the extent of use and the potential reward if liability were to be awarded. Besides that, there's the question of why Wikipedia should showcase an image that is a private asset of someone else who grudges us the use of it. Wnt (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Syria

Can the blurb be changed to "Syrian opposition leaders claim". They are hardly a credible source and have every reason to exaggerate death tolls. I also asked on ITN/C. I forget which is the correct location to inquire.--Metallurgist (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

A good idea. I've posted this and a related request at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#Errors in In the news. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"Due to weeks of protest"

That statement that Mohamed Nasheed resigned DUE to weeks of protest seems a bit POV to me, particularly since he claims that the real reason he resigned because people pointed guns at his head and threatened to kill him if he did not. If it not for us to decide the reasoning behind his resignation, so I suggest we change it to "following weeks of protests" instead of "due to weeks of protests". かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I simply removed "due to weeks of protests". The blurb already contains one instance of "following", and mentioning the protests without identifying their nature didn't really convey much anyway. —David Levy 22:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Panoramic Photographs

For today and another maybe last week, "today's photograph" came in strangely when I opened Wikipedia. In both cases, they involved panoramic photographs, which normally come in just like any other photograph. Today, the margins are unusually wide (maybe twice the width of the earlier sections); but oddly, the photograph itself came in with only a small partial view and a drag-bar. The other time that I remember this happening, the set-up was similar but not quite so wide, as I recall. Anyone else having this problem? Shocking Blue (talk) 13:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The (scrollable) image *is* rather narrow compared to the width of the section. Maybe something in the template that's used for the scrollbar? Modest Genius ^talk 13:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Put Georgian language wikipedia into More than 50,000 articles section!

Why don't you put Georgian language wiki page link http://ka.wikipedia.org/wiki/ into the More than 50.000 section?

This is the section how it looks now:

More than 50,000 articles: Bahasa Melayu · Български · Eesti · Ελληνικά · Simple English · Euskara · Galego · עברית · Hrvatski · Lietuvių · ‪Norsk (nynorsk)‬ · Slovenčina · Slovenščina · Srpskohrvatski / Српскохрватски · ไทย

But where is Georgian? There are more than 54.000 articles in Georgian language. Please, do put Georgian language ქართული in the section. RSVP. Georgianჯორჯაძე 19:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

As noted at Template:Wikipedia languages, "this is not a complete list of Wikipedias containing 50,000 or more articles; Wikipedias determined to consist primarily of stubs and placeholders are omitted." The Georgian Wikipedia appears to consist primarily of stubs (very short articles). —David Levy 21:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

What does that mean? You do not count these 54.000 articles as articles? That's rediculous. How many articles should be written in Georgian for you to put Georgian language into the bar of these languages? When would you add Georgian in that template? Again, it has more than 54.000 articles. Georgianჯორჯაძე 21:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is not the quantity of articles; it's the quality. Instead of (or in addition to) working to create more articles, please focus on improving those that already exist. —David Levy 22:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)