Jump to content

Talk:Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Talk:Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties

This is an archive of past discussions about Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Please do not remove sources with no explanation

In this edit here, a total of at least four (4) sources were removed from the article with no explanation as to why.

Please do not remove sources with no explanation.

Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Portal bar formatting

Please keep use of the {{Portal bar}} formatting instead of {{Portal box}}.

{{Portal bar}} is more appropriate for this particular article.

Please at least let's discuss this before this change.

Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Lccn link

LCCN 2009-16762

Please do not remove this link from the External links section, with no explanation or prior discussion as to why.

I think this is a useful link for the reader.

Let's please keep this link in the External links section, thank you. — Cirt (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Removal of infobox fields with zero discussion

Please do not remove infobox fields with zero discussion.

I think that all of these infobox fields are useful and provide the reader with interesting and helpful information.

Please, let's discuss further before such summary removals, thank you. — Cirt (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The changes to the infobox have been within the template:Infobox book parameters. The only one subject to discussion is the artist, but seems non-controversial, as no particular artist is named in the book credits. LCCN was removed from the external links because it's used elsewhere in the article. I hope the article achieves GA. Good work! – S. Rich (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing to talk page discussion here! Well, the only artist credited in the book I believe is the term "Cyanotype Book Architects", so that's what we can credit. LCCN was removed from external links ... but then also removed from elsewhere in the article so it was then not located in the article anywhere. I've added it back in both places because I think it's extremely useful as a link for the reader. — Cirt (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

According to their website, this is who we should credit for the book design cover because: "Cyanotype is a graphic design firm specializing in book covers". — Cirt (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I've got no heartburn with the artist in the infobox. But – why put the portals at the footer, MOS:SEEALSO calls for portals in that section; external links should not duplicate data already provided in text; the book is not part of a series, so "preceeded by" is not within infobox parameter usage. – S. Rich (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Portals at the footer so we can have more of them linked without later people coming and trimming them down to one or two because someone else trimmed down the See also section to one or two links and now all of a sudden there's no room. External links can duplicate data already provided in the text just like Further reading might, in order to suggest helpful links for the reader for further useful information. The "preceded by" is used in this particular case to notify the reader that the book was preceded by the article, if the reader wishes to go and read that article. — Cirt (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, it's your article so I'm not going to mess with it. (And I can't think of any other gnomish tweaks to make.) – S. Rich (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your helpful and polite talk page participation, it's really appreciated! — Cirt (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Notice posted about new article creation

Posted notices about new article creation to the following talk pages:

Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Retard

That's a nice read. On the CNN/retard thing, I think you could tell the reader more about Fairman's (I think sensible and nuanced) understanding of the issue. In one of the CNN discussions he says, "By focusing on the word itself, you reinforce the negative connotation and actually strengthen the taboo," ... "The focus should be on the acceptance and inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities. This breaks down the cultural taboo that creates word taboo in the first place." That is, "nigger", "queer", "retard", etc. are problematical because of the implied tone of the words, not the words themselves. Society needs to rethink it's attitude, not change its vocabulary. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Done, I've added that quote from CNN, as suggested, above. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Promoted to GA quality

This article had a GA Review and was successfully promoted to WP:GA quality. Review at Talk:Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/GA1. — Cirt (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Peer review for this article

I've listed this article Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties for peer review.

Help with furthering along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Removed Further reading sect

I've gone ahead and removed the entire Further reading sect, per peer review comments by Curly Turkey.

Please see DIFF.

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 03:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a shame. I agree wholeheartedly with the decision and rationale, but it was a good list. Since many of those books have their own articles, maybe some of them can be added to the "See Also" section?

Alternatively, maybe they can form the core of a list article about either books about vulgarity, books about freedom of speech or about censorship in the US? I think the major hurdle to such a list would be the notability criterion. Censorship in the US, free speech and individual books about the topic are all notable, but it can get fuzzy when you want to talk about the notability of the group of books on that subject. If it's not worth doing anything with it's not a major loss, but it seems like a good and useful bibliography so it's something to think about. 0x0077BE (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this idea. I had researched and created several of those articles, so perhaps if I create some more, I could make a list page at that point. :) — Cirt (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties for Featured Article

I've nominated Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties for Featured Article candidacy.

Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 05:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments? Great idea, but... The conservatives won't be aware of this discussion because they don't look at articles with "fuck" in the title, and when it becomes a featured article they will bleat very loudly. HiLo48 (talk) 05:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting comment, thanks! I've also posted neutrally worded notices to a whole slew of WikiProject talk pages. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk page archiving

I would like to express my continued objection to the obsessive and unnecessary talk page archiving going on here. Considering the very nature of this complaint, the explanation that the complaint has somehow been "addressed" does not exactly hold water. This is a low-traffic talk page, I really think the archives should be restored to the page until there's a practical reason to create the archives. It masks the history of discussion to prematurely archive like this. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 20:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. That recent archiving was done by a bot because it had been set to archive inactive threads with zero new posts for over one month. I reset the archival for the bot, so it will only archive after three (3) months, and leave a minimum of at least five (5) threads on the page. I also took the liberty of moving some threads from the archives back here to this talk page. Hopefully this is satisfactory, 0x0077BE, — Cirt (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Amicably resolved to the satisfaction of both parties, per diff. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk page archived?

Why has this talk page been completely archived? The archive only has 7 entries in it, it doesn't seem like it's a particularly high-traffic page. Usually when archiving you wait until the page starts getting unwieldy, and even then you leave the most recent discussions up. Based on the very small size of the 1st archive, I'd be in favor of un-archiving all old posts. 0x0077BE (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It helps me keep track of addressed issues throughout the quality improvement process. — Cirt (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but it similarly might help you to keep track of the articles you're editing by posting them on the front page, but that's not an appropriate way to edit Wikipedia. If you'd like to keep track of whether talk items have been addressed, maybe mark them with different colored Check marks and leave them on the talk page for future editors to look over at a glance. 0x0077BE (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll think about that in the future, thank you for the idea. But like I said, generally I archive threads where those threads have been addressed and are no longer outstanding issues. Thanks for the suggestions, — Cirt (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Amicably resolved to the satisfaction of both parties, per diff. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Quotes removed from cites

Per FAC comment, quotes removed from cites, please see diff. — Cirt (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Promoted to Featured Article

This page was promoted to Featured Article quality.

It may take a while for a bot to come through and update the Article History template.

Please see [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5].

Thank you very much to all who helped with this successful quality improvement project related to freedom of speech and censorship,

— Cirt (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-03-26/Featured content. — Cirt (talk) 09:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Please keep at full subtitle for location of this page

Please keep at full subtitle for location of this page.

This is needed for disambiguation purposes.

Fuck (book) will not work, as there are other books that start with the a similar title for their beginning.

In addition, both the first word of the title, and, separately, the phrase after the first colon in the title, have been used to refer to the book. It has been reviewed in secondary sources and only referred to in some reviews by the title, Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties.

Please, don't move this page unilaterally if you disagree with above, but discuss here on the talk page, first.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 06:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fuck:_Word_Taboo_and_Protecting_Our_First_Amendment_Liberties/Archive_1&oldid=1136744577"