Talk:Gropecunt Lane

Pre July archive, 2005–2009

Inconsistency between lead and body

Hello, I noticed that in the lead of the article, it says Gropecunt, the earliest known use of which is in about 1230, appears to have been derived as a compound of the words "grope" and "cunt" but in the body of the article under Toponymy it says The first record of the word "grope" being used in the indecent sense of sexual touching appears in 1380. For the name of the street to be a combination of "grope" and "cunt" the word grope must have been used as a description of a sexual action before 1380, or the use of the street name cannot date to 1230, or thirdly, the original "gropecunt" street names must be derived from some other word/meaning. If I am missing something, and these statements do not contradict one another, please let me know. The Seeker 4 Talk 01:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not stating that the word grope was first used in a sexual sense in 1380, but that it was first recorded in that sense in 1380. Nev1 (talk) 01:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but wouldn't it be necessary to establish with written records that "grope" was used in that way in order to say the street name "gropecunt" is derived from those two meanings? I am not personally familiar with the norms in this area of scholarship but it seems to be inconsistent since nothing explains why the dates don't match. I am not sure it is a problem, which is why I brought it here instead of editing the article, but it just seems to contradict itself to me. The Seeker 4 Talk 01:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You may have a point, but this article reflects only the research already done on the matter, offering supporting evidence from the OED and other sources. For an encyclopaedic entry it may be worth including a line to the effect of what you have said, but the article must not be seen to form its own opinions on the matter. By the way the OED gives many instances of 'grope' being in use well before the 13th century (and not in a sexual sense), so this may be a case of the street name influencing the meaning of the word, rather than the word begetting the street name. Again though, that would be wp:or and has no place in the article. Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The Definition of "Cunt"

The article says:

The Oxford English Dictionary lists the word "cunt" as "Applied to a person, esp. a woman, as a term of vulgar abuse",[5] but during the Middle Ages the word was often considered merely vulgar, having been in common use in its anatomical sense since at least the 13th century.

The implication of the sentence above seems to be that the term "cunt" was a vulgar term (presumably for the female genitalia) in the Middle Ages, but is now a term of abuse for women.

Despite the citation from the OED, I would like to question this sentence. I don't have access to the Oxford dictionary, but I would be very surprised if "Applied to a person, esp. a woman, as a term of vulgar abuse" was the primary meaning of "cunt" in the OED. The problem is that the use of the word "cunt" as a vulgar term of abuse for women appears to be primarily an American usage. As an Australian English speaker, my experience is that "cunt" is (1) a vulgar term for the female genitalia, (2) a general expletive or term of abuse. In other words, in its primary sense, the meaning of the term has not changed at all, merely its degree of vulgarity and ability to shock. The fact that modern American speakers may feel that "cunt" is a sexist term of abuse for women may be relevant as a caveat for American readers, but to imply that the sexist term of abuse is the primary sense of the term, with a citation from the OED, actually distorts the facts.

I would suggest that the sentence should be modified to remove the incorrect implication.

Bathrobe (talk) 02:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The definition quoted in this article is the secondary meaning given by the OED. The primary meaning in the OED is "The female external genital organs". (I'm using the online version of the dictionary, btw.) Zagalejo^^^ 06:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Who are the main contributors to this article? I'd like to thank them for making my day.--CM (talk) 02:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Hah. --66.188.136.97 (talk) 02:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if you're asking seriously, but here's your answer. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 02:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

A most excellent choice of article, many thanks :) Aggamemnon (talk) 08:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This has got to be the best FA class article ever. Good luck keeping the vandals from the walls on this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.207.232.53 (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The Main Page

I find the inclusion of this article on the Main Page most satisfying. Many thanks to all those who worked it up to FA standard. Crafty (talk) 02:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well written, interesting, new info to me. But the inclusion of this article (with the words that it highlights) on the main page is irresponsible. It sends the message that if this is appropriate content for the main page then the content is and should be appropriate in any context. I'm speaking with regards to children. Respectfully. Grecosalata (talk) 04:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOT#CENSORED; Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern! Wikipedia is not censored except in cases of obvious inappropriate content such as clear vandalism or links to shock sites.

"Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available."

Personally, I think that the phrase that you're probably finding objectionable, "Gropecunt, the earliest known use of which is in about 1230, appears to have been derived as a compound of the words "grope" and "cunt".", is the most suitable version, as it explains the origin of the word in a succinct and easy to understand manner, whereas if you made the references oblique, it would cause many readers to become confused. -- ScaldingHotSoup ^(talk) 04:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

True but the main page is censored. See the list of featured images Howcheng has said will never place there; the FA Jenna Jameson has also been vetoed from ever appearing. It seems to me a bit hypocritical to allow this article, and links to cunt, but not a defaecating bird. 82.28.130.10 (talk) 09:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a substitute for parenting. To attempt to act in any way as such would itself be irresponsible. Wikipedia is not and is not trying to be the way all of life should be run, and the Main Page is not the litmus for what is acceptable in whatever culture a reader identifies with. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 04:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all of the liberal views expressed here. But I do disagree that making this a FA represents poor judgement and may bring Wikipedia into a degree of disrepute. There will be countless school classes taking place today where the teacher will pull up Wikipedia as an example of collaborative working, best practice, accessible information etc. And what they'll get is a classroom of school kids titillated by words which many find deeply offensive. Just because you can do something, doesn't always mean you should. However, I also see the difficulties if this logic is expressed across many many subjects (e.g. religion, territorial claims etc etc). Larkim (talk) 07:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

A lot of dedicated editors worked hard to bring this article up to the standard required for it to be featured on our Main Page. Their efforts should not be denied simply because some people feel a bit squeamish over the use of the word 'cunt'. Further the "ONOEZ WON"T SOMEONE THINK OF TEH CHILDREN" argument really has been addressed already. Crafty (talk) 08:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Call me a cynic, but (despite the dedication of the editors!) I strongly suspect that the reason this article has been well researched is purely and simply because of the titillating factor!! Of course its interesting, and of course Wikipedia should not censor itself. But I get the daily summary of FAs in my inbox at work, and to have the word "cunt" appear in my inbox falls outside of the standards that I believe Wikiepedia should be promoting. My Chambers dictionary at home has "cunt", plus plenty of other words included which are offensive, and that is right. But it doesn't use them on the dust cover as examples of how it defines words. Wikipedia's own reputation can only be harmed by promoting this article to FA. No matter how good the article is (and I agree, it doesn't even come close to being titillating) it will be a very simple (factually incorrect) story in the mainstream press which will trivialise Wikipedia, and that will be a shame. However, I appear to be in a minority with this opinion, and I accept that, and am glad we can debate it. Larkim (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that an encyclopaedia should suffer censorship to avoid problems like this, and honestly I don't see how a classroom with offended children is a problem. The subject matter is dealt with dispassionately, from wholly reliable source material, and is (in my opinion) a good example of how English street names were heavily influenced by the trades which occurred on them. Its an important part of our geographical history and deserves mention. Hopefully the inclusion of this article on the front page will spur some people (including children and teachers) to learn more about the more curious aspects of our history. As the article says, 'cunt' was once a relatively innocuous word. There is no real reason why it should not be so again. Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the vandalism rate has shot up recently. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Has it? I should have thought that this might have the opposite effect. If we have this as I front page featured article, then maybe some of the kids who put in rude words to offend us might feel that there is little chance of successfully doing so.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

While I have no problem with the word "cunt", my only concern is that filtering software in many schools will be blocking access to Wikipedia's front page today. --Joowwww (talk) 10:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

While this is not universal, schools in Australia are currently on their winter break. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm anticipating more comments on this during US working hours. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Brave choice for FA and front page. Good to see wikipedia is genuinely sticking to it's not-censored philosophy. siarach (talk) 11:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I've already handled seven OTRS complaints on this :/ Stifle (talk) 13:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yay for boilerplates! ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 13:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Anything in the complaints not covered in our fabulous new FAQ, Stifle? --Moni3 (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Very pleased to see it on the front page, good call and good work to all involved. Paulbrock (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

<--Outdent: Just as a matter of interest, re the comment above about Jenna Jameson - where is the discussion relating to that article never appearing on the main page? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Great FA, really glad that this got through the vetting procedure. I have to say that rather than damaging wikipedia's reputation as some assume I think it'll improve it - at least among those who aren't automatically offended that we used a naughty word on the main page - as it shows we can create a well researched, sourced impartial, factual and mature article from any subject, and that its treated just like any other article. AllanHainey (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hoax?

I admit that I haven't searched the original sources referenced, but the premise of this article doesn't pass the smell test.

I suspect it is another example of False etymology because English spelling was not standardized until fairly recently, and any consistent spelling across the centuries raises my suspicions. When one considers that the writing was based (inconsistently) upon the sounds of the words, with accents varying and words being slurred and otherwise corrupted over time, this seems too titillatingly good to be true.

It is the sort of hoax I might have carried out myself in my juvenile days, which may be one reason I hear alarm bells. Sincere or hoax, one must always be cautious of folk etymology.

(I reacently read an account of book of London street names and their origins that claimed Bleeding Heart Court was so named because of the artifacts of a murder there. Of course that is fanciful explanation and any historian would immediately sense that the name really comes from the heraldry of a previous owner of the area. Unfortunately, the canard will survive because, having appeared in a published book, it will be cited by future unsuspecting researchers.)

I could be 100% wrong about this, bur for the meanwhile, color me skeptical. (And if I'm right, quiet but only brief admiration (from my juvenile days) to those who pulled it off.) --StanZegel (talk) 05:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not significantly involved in the article, but I can assure you it's not a hoax. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ditto for not being involved, and ditto for it not being a hoax. This has been discussed in many books about the history of the English language. Also check out the ref list. Manning (talk) 07:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw something on tv ages ago presented by Germaine Greer where she discussed the development of the word 'cunt' and brought these streets up. Not that I can be bothered to find the citation, but it's real. 94.193.10.120 (talk) 08:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The article is not a hoax. The street name was quite real. Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I am a little skeptical also. I am having trouble finding references to the name in the online sources the article mentions. I can't even find reference to "Parson's Lane" in reference #34. I am requesting a library book to look further. Does anyone have a link that verifies this? 75.159.232.28 (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Page 38 of this book preview seems to verify: Medieval Yorkshire Towns. 75.159.232.28 (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Why oh why...

Why oh why was this article not kept in reserve for next year's April 1 main page FA? It would have been perfect. Manning (talk) 07:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought so too, but Parrot of Doom and Malleus Fatuorum (the article's primary contributors) both preferred that article be run today. However, Parrot has "volunteered a more suitable article, which hopefully will be FA by that time, in Mary Tofts." —David Levy 07:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite possibly because it isn't a joke, but rather a genuine street name? Velkyal (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

But we never run jokes on the main page on april fool's day, we run perfectly accurate but intentionally misleading summaries (see WP:AFMP). However, given the wishes of the contributors and the huge amount of discussion this article has generated, I think not using it on april fool's day was a good decision. Modest Genius ^talk 16:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Map & FA status?

The map File:Bread street ward and Cordwainer ward 1720 john stow with streets highlighted.jpg says that it is in the public domain. However if you go to the source image it is clearly watermarked (and is cropped off the wikipedia version) "(c) Sara Douglass Enterprises". Added to that the blue bits referred to in the caption are not on the original source, are not a road or path on the original and no mention of Gropecunt Lane appears on that image. This makes the whole article stink as a bad joke. Whatever..., it is not deserving a featured article status. -- SGBailey (talk) 09:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The map in the source cannot be copyrighted. The website cannot claim ownership of it, since it is a derivative work of a map made by a man who died far more than 70 years ago. It is irrelevant what watermark they use. If you read the article you will see in the image caption that a source is given (holt-baker) for the streets that have been highlighted. I would have included the map from the holt-baker source, but I could not reliably ascertain the copyright status of that since I do not have access to the source material which they used.

If you can source me a copy of the Historic Towns Atlas then I will gladly use the older map in there. Perhaps you'd be willing to help? Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a featured article - this shows precisely why wikipedia will never be taken seriously! And the wikinazi's deleting any comment remotely criticising wikipedia can only further damage wikipedia. 124.185.146.184 (talk) 11:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

And you will be taken seriously? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

FAQ?

Anyone think it might be time for a FAQ to answer some of the questions this article will inevitably get throughout the day? --Moni3 (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a one question two question FAQ with one answer:

Q1) (every forseeable question about this article)

A1) Please see WP:NOTCENSORED. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Q2) How did an article like this become featured?

A2) See WP:WIAFA. What is your specific objection?

Q2A) See Q1...

So ammended... Fine, but we all see where that one is going as well. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The question below indicates a general unfamiliarity with the criteria for a featured article. So that's two questions. I'm for short FAQs. --Moni3 (talk) 12:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The FAQ template at the top of this page does not seem to wrok properly: I can't see the answers until I click on "edit". Richard75 (talk) 13:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That's because this page needed to be "purged" (i.e. the cache dumped and updated). I took care of that. You should be able to read the full FAQ now. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Silly

Big waste of time. This is silly and reflects badly on Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with a slippery slope. Any knuckle head would consider this 9th grade naughtiness. It's just not worth FA status.Longinus876 (talk) 12:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

If that is your opinion, I doubt you've read more than the title of the article before judging it. The article is impeccably sourced, comprehensive, and well written, standards which every article on wikipedia should aim for; just because it's not a subject you deem worthy does not mean the article isn't good. Nev1 (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to excuse me for not paying much attention to one who has twice been warned about his edits to articles on this encyclopaedia. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Do not feel the trolls. :) SGGH ^ping! 13:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm going to assume good faith on that user's part and not call him names, but I agree his premise is...poor. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I have to agree with Longinus876. It reflects badly on WP to have this as the FA. I'm *certainly* no prude (far from it) and I did read the article before posting. Yes it is well sources and written but IMHO it doesn't matter. Having cunt as one of the first words you see on WP is just bad. Robert Brockway (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. If an article can get up to the standards required for Featured status, they deserve to be featured as much as the next article. Ironholds (talk) 14:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be a standard response. This isn't about censorship it is about good taste. I don't have a problem with the article appearing in WP, in fact I found it interesting. I do have a problem with it appearing on the main page as that is what people will see when they first come to the encyclopedia, regardless of what it is they want to view. I'll just reiterate that I think this relfects badly on WP. I'll say no more on the subject. What's done is done. Robert Brockway (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I was involved in a discussion and vehemently and vociferously opposed to placing Super Columbine Massacre RPG! on the main page this past April 20, which was the 10th anniversary of the Columbine shootings. To me, a former resident of the Denver area, that seemed to be deliberately provocative. This article is much less so, and given a few days I might be able to put into words why. --Moni3 (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

" I'll just reiterate that I think this relfects badly on WP." - why should your modern sensibilities in any way affect the treatment of Featured Articles on Wikipedia? I find many things offensive. It doesn't stop me reading about them, or wanting to know more. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Given that Longinus876 has a stunning 41 edits including 13 mainspace he may wish to temper his outrage, and while I'm not saying that large edits counts are needed for an opinion the editors of this page have made the effort to get an article to FA status, and if you have a problem with this being on the main page then talk to Raul. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

External links

Is there a 'box' for wikitionary links to both cunt and grope that could serve better than the two bullet pointed links? Or even just merge them into one bullet point containing both? SGGH ^ping! 13:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Cunt has an entire article, with detailed etymology. Paul B (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood my point. I simply wondered if it would be more visually pleasant to change:

• The dictionary definition of grope at Wiktionary
• The dictionary definition of cunt at Wiktionary

To a box for wikitionary links for cunt and grope in the style of the below, but for wikitionary, not commons. SGGH ^ping! 13:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Like...{{wiktionary}}?  Skomorokh  13:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Presumably! Added per WP:BOLD, feel free to revert if wish to discuss. SGGH ^ping! 13:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Petticoat Lane

Really like the article and have no issues with the FA status but I think Petticoat Lane has possibly been mis-used as an example of prostitution in the area. It was named because of the sale of petticoats in the area, which was an area where succesive waves of immigrants tended to settle (from what I know, similar to the lower East side of NY and in this instance I think the Hugenots). It was renamed Middlesex Street during the Victorian era to reflect the somewhat prudish values of the age. I can't remember the exact details, but worked nearby until recently and have quite a geeks interest in things like this -also I now work in a bookshop, so my be able to dig out references. 213.122.175.236 (talk) 13:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The source used (Ditmore) does make a few mistakes (for instance, confusing Threadneedle Street with Gropecunt Lane, and also presuming Cock's Lane is related to prostitution). You can see this by clicking the number next to the Petticoat text, noting the page number, then clicking that reference, and then clicking the highlighted book in the bibliography section. Then click 'preview', and navigate to the page number. If you can offer a reliable source that backs up your claim, we can change the article text to include the comments you have made. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

PS - if you can demonstrate the above, it'd still be a worthwhile entry, demonstrating that modern sensibilities were responsible for the change in street names. We'd need the book author, title, publisher, page number(s), isbn, and year of publication. A link would also be helpful. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to make wholesale changes or anything, just querying the use of Petticoat Lane specifically. Anyway, here's what I've got

"...before long, Huguenot silk weavers were selling their fares here and the street soon acquired the nickname "Petticoat Lane" on account of the silk petticoats on sale. In 1830 complaints about the street being named after an item of underwear led to the authorities renaming it Middlesex Street...." Earlier in the entry it says it was formally Hog Lane but doesn't give dates. The quote is taken directly from; Glinert, The London Compendium, Penguin, pg 289, 9780141012131, 2003. An entry in The London Encyclopedia says much the same thing with no real link to prostitution. 213.122.175.236 (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok give me a few minutes, I'll make a change that reflects this. By the way, have you considered registering an account? Working in a bookshop would place you in an ideal position to make a positive contribution to Wikipedia. Editing articles can be very satisfying. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I've made the changes based on the information you've provided. You can see the difference here. Is this ok? Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That seems fine from my POV. 213.122.175.236 (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Why was it listed as Ditmore in the first place? Ditmore is just the editor of the book. The actual author of the encyclopaedia entry is Angus McIntyre, as stated at the end of the entry. An error of authorship in a citation is something that FA reviewers really should have spotted. It does suggest, moreover, that no-one actually read the whole of the entry being cited. Uncle G (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed, thankyou for spotting that. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Heh, I've seen worse. John Churchill went through FAC with a bit saying he served as Master of the Rolls. You would think with none of his biographies ever mentioning this it would be a different John Churchill, but nobody picked up on it. Ironholds (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • That's an individual preference in citing a specific work that has multiple contributors. I have done it as well, particularly in compilations. To use a chapter or entry written by one contributor it would have to be cited as a journal entry such as citation #32 in Restoration of the Everglades. Either way is acceptable. --Moni3 (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Listing the correct author should not be an "individual preference". First, it's a matter of correctness. Second, identifying the author is a necessary part of determining the reliability of a source.

      And no, encyclopaedia entries don't have to be cited as journals. We have {{cite encyclopaedia}}. Uncle G (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

      • There's nothing mysterious about the citation. It tells you exactly where to look to verify information. I don't use citation templates and usually avoid citing other encyclopedias. Note: I did not participate in constructing this article, but I participate in constructing other FAs and am speaking to the way things are generally cited in FAs. Cite templates are often incorrect, have bugs, and are difficult to type, find, and tailor to each type of source. They're confusing and difficult to read around when constructing wikicode. You appear to be calling into question the reliability of the source and its authority. I cannot speak to that specifically, but more generically, it is obviously endorsed by a third party, its editor. --Moni3 (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
        • It's not mystery, but correctness, that is the issue. If citing the wrong person as the author of a work is "the way things are generally cited in FAs", then I strongly recommend that you look to rectifying that fault. Trying to lay the blame on the templates, or to have factual errors be a matter of "individual preference", is quite wrong. Having the wrong person named as the author in a citation is a simple error of fact, and it is such whether it is made using a template or otherwise. The correct attitude toward such things is excellently demonstrated by Parrot of Doom above. It is Parrot of Doom who deserves the credit for first calling the source into question, too. Uncle G (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • It isn't only Wikipedia that suffers these mistakes - a great many books that are considered reliable sources make mistakes as a matter of course. When you read 10 entries on something, with 20% disagreeing with the other 80%, it does make your brain hurt a bit. It makes you realise how sometimes authors can just copy material from other authors, without actually researching the original material. The Holt-Baker source is particularly good at quoting its sources though. I'm thinking of ditching the Ditmore source though, it doesn't seem particularly reliable given the mistakes it makes. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • That's the point, though. Ditmore isn't the author. McIntyre is. So in large part it's McIntyre's reputation and reliability that should be under consideration. The potted biography of McIntyre at the end of the encyclopaedia doesn't give any reason that I can see for thinking that xe is an expert, credentialed or otherwise, writing in xyr field of expertise. It describes xem as "a writer, translator and photographer who lives in New York City". So yes, there are reliability questions against any article in that encyclopaedia authored by McIntyre. Uncle G (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

<ri> Splendidly informative! While it does show that WP is not censored, why footer aboot with the tame "Fetter Lane (once Fewterer, meaning "idle and disorderly person")" when there's that traditionally lewd source foutre claimed for the Scots expression (still current)? OK, presumably it's what your source says, and this does cite Foutre as a source of the name, but claims it now means "blackguard". Even French is getting Bowdlerised! Anyway, well done. . . dave souza, talk 17:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Even French? Thomas Bowdler 1754–1825. Ad usum Delphini 1670–1698. Hans Adler 20:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, hadn't heard of that one. Why don't they think of the Dauphins? More to the point, there's the intriging possibility that Fetter Lane might be another name for a red light street, so to speak, and the amusement that a term in common use in Scots,[1] even used without explanation in an English newspaper,[2] has such dubious roots. . dave souza, talk 22:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability

How did this article even get past Wikipedia:Notability?

If I throw up an article on "1st Street" with links to books that show that, yes indeed, there is a 1st Street in many cities, pictures of maps that show 1st Streets, and street signs that say "1st Street" and in some cities they actually were the first street in those cities (Wow!) does that it make such an article notable/noteworthy of even having an article, let alone becoming a featured article? Even if I add comments that many 1st Streets were in fact renamed to Johnson Street or 2nd Street after they were discovered to not truly be the first street in their cities, does that become noteworthy?

The interest in this article is based solely on the salaciousness of the name itself.

I agree with the idea that this would make a suitable April 1st article (assuming it would be taken down immediately afterwards); when I hit WP this morning I had to double-check myself that it wasn't April 1st.

63.227.152.123 (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:Notability. It may answer all of your questions. It is not a suitable article for April 1, because it was not, and never will be, related to a hoax. Unlike '1st Street', it was a real place name bowdlerised to suit modern conventions. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Museum of Bad Art was never a hoax, just a hilarious idea. Although that escaped an Associated Press reporter who assumed it was. --Moni3 (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

My question is in the notability of such a topic for its own rather short article; the topic could be summed up in a few sentences with an appropriate citation under Prostitution such as "Many areas had functional names such as "GropeCunt Lane" until the mid-sixteenth century, when such names fell out of favor due to changing public mores." 63.227.152.123 (talk) 14:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This is more about what constitutes notability. The street name and its associated social implications: prostitution and class in London, and the transformation of the term "cunt" into the hair trigger offense it exists as today, is supported by the multiple reliable sources cited in the article. You are suggesting that the discussion in this article should be minimized and folded into another article, but the sources are clear that they address the issues in this one. Even unpleasant topics deserve academic attention, which this one has received. --Moni3 (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel that "The interest in this article is based solely on the salaciousness of the name itself." is untrue. That just appears to be IMO a rather myopic viewpoint. Wikipedia is not about dictionary definitions, it is about exploring the topic to the full extent of explanation and understanding - that is what is meant by 'coverage'. I think this article does pretty well. SGGH ^ping! 14:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

We do have Main Street and High Street, so your example of First Street isn't as ridiculous as you might have thought. --NE2 20:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Extremely disappointed

My primary school class often use the site. Imagine how I felt when they started giggling and saying it out loud. A terrible decision. Whoever made it should be throughly ashamed of themselves. 'Bashereyre (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:AFP and WP:NOTCENSORED. It is not the responsibility of Wikipedia to vet every website your class may visit. I do believe that, as a teacher, that is your responsibility. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You may also want to use [3] which is a port of Wikipedia where all of the naughty bits have been taken out. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You should be glad that this might inspire your students to take interest in the obscure and usually dull seeming field of toponymy! --86.135.177.168 (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well statistics show that many children visit our "ruder" articles. Admittedly this article is a filthy subject and one wonders why one editor found it so fascinating as to develop it to a featured article, and I can definately see why parents might not want their children to see it, but wikipedia is not censored. Personally I don't think such an article should be on the front page as testament to "our finest work" but some of the concerns about kids and censorship are really quite naive with what they know about today. Wikipedia is generally used by older kids and adults, as far as I'm aware most younger children would find its content far too advanced on most subjects which is why we have simple english wikipedia. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Has to be said though that the main editor User:Malleus Fatuorum has produced a great number of fine articles on wikipedia. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

ahem! Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a site for minors. Children can easily encounter images and words online that are inappropriate for their age. I find it hard to believe that primary school students know the word "cunt" to begin with, but simply, Bashereyre, if you permitted your class of young children to go online while in your care, and because you weren't supervising them carefully enough they came across content inappropriate for their age group, then the fault is yours and you should be "extremely disappointed" in yourself. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Bashereyre said nothing about it happening during his watch. They might have seen it in the morning before going to school (or one child might have and spread the word), or they might have seen it in a different class, or on their mobile phones, or anything. We needn't be so quick to attack other editors. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 21:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually Bashereye said "my primary class" which gives the impression that they were in charge. And the supervision of children on the internet is not our preserve. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

My comment was neither incivil nor an attack. I'm simply pointing out that the internet is filled with things that are inappropriate for children, and that children need to be properly supervised when online, especially when surfing sites that aren't primarily intended for them, such as this one. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd be more concerned about the crap education kids get these days than hiding them away from a harmless rude word. When kids leave school thinking that text-speak is the Queen's English, then that to me tells me that someone's priorities are somewhat skewed. --WebHamster 21:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Exploding Boy your comments were both uncivil and an attack. A website promoting itself as an encyclopedia should hold some responsibility for its content, especially if it wants to be taken seriously as an encyclopedia. 203.3.197.249 (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Grope postdates gropecunt?

From the article:

Gropecunt, the earliest known use of which is in about 1230, appears to have been derived as a straightforward compound of the words grope and cunt.

But later on...

The first record of the word 'grope' being used in the indecent sense of sexual touching appears in 1380...

Perhaps "gropecunt" came about before "grope" did? Or perhaps there's simply no literary usage of it prior to Chaucer? Either way, this is confusing to me and it seems to warrant clarification. --Golbez (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This point is discussed above. Sorry, short answer, I don't mean to be flippant. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I must have missed it when skimming through. No need to apologize. --Golbez (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

A few thoughts from a semi-amateur Wikipedian...

Ok, so, I had read this article years ago, I thought it was interesting, I'm not at all offended by it or by the content. Nothing in Wikipedia offends me. But putting it on the front page... I feels like a stunt to me. Yeah, I know, Wikipedia is not censored. But as has been noted, the front page IS. Is a nude photo ever the featured picture? Is the infamous ejaculation .gif ever going to be shown on the front page? If the article warrants FA status, will we ever see "Cunt" or "Fuck" or "Nigger", etc, as the front page featured article? I suspect not.

Add to that the fact that the front page is, essentially, off limits to edits from all but a select few... and thats a good thing! BUT there is a trust between vast majority of wikipedians who can't edit the FP and the few that can, and this make me think that trust might have been bent a little. Is it true, as has been mentioned, that the Jenna Jameson article, while a FA has been essentially blacklisted from ever being Todays FA? If that is the case, then there is some severe hipocracy going on here.

The whole thing actually strikes me a bit like, oh, Climbing the Reichstag Dressed Like Spiderman, maybe? It seems to me that people might be trying to make a point about policies such as "WP is not censored" by promoting an article that is well written, academic and emotionless but still chock full of language that is offensive to a great many people.

I appreciate the argument that promoting such an article to the front page is a chance to show how mature and serious we are. But I can't shake the feeling that shock value has something to do with it.

Anyway, a long time (if infrequent) editor signing off. The above are my opinions only, etc. Brian Schlosser42 (talk) 22:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This is probably the wrong place to post. You're better off joining the fun here :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

But I can't shake the feeling that shock value has something to do with it. Shock value has nothing to do with it, but there's nothing we can do about your feelings. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No? Prove it. Prove to me that shock value, or intentionally pressing a point had nothing to do with the descision? I very much doubt you can. From what I can see, there was no public discussion or debate on this article once it was scheduled to be a TFA. So it seems to me that it is very much in the air what the motivation was. Maybe it was 100% pure. Maybe not. Brian Schlosser42 (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

What difference does it make? It's encyclopedic and presented in a scholarly manner. That's all that matters. Everyone has an axe to grind about somethign. Soon this article will be replaced, and people will start complaining about the next featured article instead. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Its a bit difficult to prove something like that. The article was scheduled on 24 June. It isn't like people didn't have much time to discuss its placement. By the way, you should assume WP:good faith unless you have evidence of its absence. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)