Talk:Main Page

Main Page error reports

To report an error in content currently or imminently on the Main Page, use the appropriate section below.

• Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
• Offer a correction if possible.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 03:55 on 5 September 2024) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
• No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
• Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
• Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.

Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Please do not remove this invisible timestamp. See WT:ERRORS and WP:SUBSCRIBE. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(September 6, tomorrow)

Monday's FL

(September 9)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Notice to administrators: When fixing POTD errors, please update the corresponding regular version (i.e. without "protected" in the page title) in addition to the Main Page version linked below.

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)

Current Events/Egypt

I believe the tagline "More than 70 killed" should be changed to "Nearly 80..." it more accurately describes the total number of kills, which is 79. 74.190.83.54 (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

See #Errors in In the news above. --70.31.8.76 (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Calabria earthquake

"The first of five strong earthquakes hit the region of Calabria in present-day southern Italy." Was Calabria somewhere else in 1783? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.190.77 (talk) 11:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

As 'Italy as a state' did not exist until the second half of the 19th century the statement is correct. Jackiespeel (talk) 11:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

But Italy as a geographical area has been around for considerably longer, and Calabria is in the southern part of it. 87.115.38.213 (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

To avoid this dichotomy, I changed it to "Calabria on the Italian Peninsula" instead. —howcheng {chat} 17:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia practices NPOV?

Really? So the 2012 European Men's Handball Championship, whose existence is known but to a few paltry millions, is more noteworthy than the Super Bowl, an event watched by hundreds of millions of people. Y'all wouldn't be suffering from a mild case of Americaphobia, would ya? 98.82.34.127 (talk) 04:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Not a right venue - the entries are prepared at WP:ITN, and the Super Bowl entry is here. Materialscientist (talk) 04:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link; I've posted over there. 98.82.34.127 (talk) 06:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

What the Dickens?

Nothing at all about Charlie on the main page today. Bit of a shame.--Rsm77 (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If Charles Dickens were a featured article, it probably would have been scheduled to appear on the main page today. Unfortunately, it isn't; its 2006 nomination was unsuccessful. —David Levy 00:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you see "Bloomsbury" in DYK? ;-> --PFHLai (talk) 03:10, 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)

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)

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)

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 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."[1] 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)

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)

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)

Well done!

On the handling of the two potentially-controversial sections of the main page. The nude painting's text clearly states "naked human form is the dominant theme and is not intentionally erotic" and the South Park episode's text is clearly shown to focus on the reasons for, and the cultural impact of, the gratuitous nature of the content within that episode. Wikipedia is indeed not censored and it's a shame that the same cannot be said of general education in the overwhelming majority of the planet's countries. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 09:37, 7 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)