Talk:Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Checklinks analysis

• Checklinks

Will go through links in article and perform some minor fixes with Checklinks report in mind, above. — Cirt (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done, now Checklinks gives a clean report. — Cirt (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Copy edited lede

I've copy edited the lede intro section slightly, trimming out some duplicate word usage, see diff. — Cirt (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Chinese language Wikipedia article Featured quality

Many thanks to Jarodalien (talk · contribs) and the other people at Chinese language Wikipedia -- this article is now Featured Article quality in Chinese, as well.

See diff, and Chinese language Wikipedia article.

— Cirt (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Stages of review

The stages of review this article went through include:

1. Promotion to WP:GA by Diannaa with review at Talk:Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/GA1
2. Guild of Copy Editors member Baffle gab1978 copy edit with version at link
3. Peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1 with helpful feedback from Piotrus, Wehwalt, Jimfbleak, and Curly Turkey.
4. Copy edit from experienced admin John with version at link.
5. Promoted to WP:FA quality by Ian Rose after participation at Featured Article Candidates discussion subpage from editors including Curly Turkey, DMacks, Crisco 1492, Jimfbleak, John, Dr. Blofeld, and Wehwalt. Please see diff.

— Cirt (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Notification of a TFA nomination

In the past, there have been requests that discussions about potentially controversial TFAs are brought to the attention of more than just those who have WP:TFAR on their watchlist. With that in mind: Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties has been nominated for an appearance as Today's Featured Article. If you have any views, please comment at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Cites modified to use via field

I've modified the citations to use the "via" field, instead of the "publisher" field, as per comment by Mendaliv (talk · contribs). Please see diff. — Cirt (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Article history template

I've asked previously for help with article history template about these sorts of things and the people there seemed quite flexible about how to add entries in there, especially for copyedits where for example there is an edit summary that says "copy edit" in the edit summary. — Cirt (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

So every time some makes a minor copyedit to the article, you're going to update the article history? It now gives the misleading impression that the GOCE has been involved. Ridiculous. My small changes to the article do not require to be recorded in {{article history}}. If the template was used in this way by everybody, then article histories would get pointlessly bloated. Bencherlite^Talk 16:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

No it's most certainly not "ridiculous". And I'd appreciate it if you could please adjust your tone. I'm sure I've asked about this before and gotten an answer that the template should be no big deal. Not sure why it's being made into a big deal as such. — Cirt (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've asked about this one (1) year ago. I only got one response. From Czar (talk · contribs), who said: "For what it's worth, I use the GOCE flag for this template whenever I copyedit. GOCE is a loose affiliation anyway—it just means someone who ostensibly is versed in copyediting has given it a look.". Hopefully that clears things up that it's no big deal. — Cirt (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Well you'll have lots of work to do on TFA day, then, Cirt. Look forward to seeing every copyedit being pointlessly recorded in the article history. Bencherlite^Talk 16:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, please adjust your tone. No one said that is required to do it that way for every single copyedit. — Cirt (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, I use the article history instead of an independent template to mark when I've done a full, GOCE-style copyedit (regardless of whether the article was listed as an explicit GOCE request). I wouldn't note copyedits that are anything less than "full", e.g., one on an article that I primarily authored, or where the copyediting author considers their edits minor. Without reading past this thread, I think it's a reasonable concern if an article history is made to look like it has had a full copyedit when it hasn't, and that the tone on both ends could be much more reconciliatory, working towards consensus in the spirit of deescalation. If Bencherlite's edits are being construed as a copyedit when they disagree, I'd defer to them, as it shouldn't be a big deal to remove it from the article history. A better solution would be to expand their edits into a full copyedit either by choice or by polite request—voilà!  czar ⨹ 16:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done, removed it from the template, per polite informative and logical comment from Czar (talk · contribs), above. Thanks very much for your helpful explanation, — Cirt (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Plural of "word taboo"

The plural of "word taboo", isn't that "words taboo" rather than "word taboos"?

HandsomeFella (talk) 12:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Withdraw: it just struck me that it's a compound noun, where "word" acts as a modifier. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

No worries, — Cirt (talk) 18:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Use vs. mention

§ Background says near the end:

the word fuck is used over 560 times

I greatly doubt that. The word fuck appears many times on this talk page I'm putting these paragraphs on, but those aren't uses, and neither is its single appearance in this sentence: they're mentions. See Use-mention distinction. (Now, if I said "Fuck this confusion!", that would be a use.) So I have changed "is used" to "appears", which is neutral between user and mention. If you would like to discuss this with me, please {{Ping}} me. Thnidu (talk) 10:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

No problems with this edit, thank you. — Cirt (talk) 02:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Hercules and the Umpire

• Kopf, Richard George (July 21, 2014). "A disturbing anecdote about how some in the legal academy treated Professor Chris Fairman when he wrote his serious law review article entitled 'Fuck'". Hercules and the Umpire: The Role of the Federal Trial Judge. Herculesandtheumpire.com. Archived from the original on October 31, 2014. Retrieved October 31, 2014.

I've posted to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard about whether we can use the above source in this article. Link to thread at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Fuck:_Word_Taboo_and_Protecting_Our_First_Amendment_Liberties. — Cirt (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Update: Thread archived to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_179#Fuck:_Word_Taboo_and_Protecting_Our_First_Amendment_Liberties. I'll think on this a little bit more on how best to incorporate it into the article. — Cirt (talk) 01:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Consulted by?

In two places in the article this says that Fairman was "consulted by" CNN and a few other organizations. My reading of that particular wording is that Fairman asked CNN for advice, but I'm guessing it went the other way. Should it say that Fairman "consulted for" CNN, etc, or that CNN was consulted by Fairman? 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 23:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done, thank you, 0x0077BE, I've modified the wording as you suggested, it looks much better now. :) — Cirt (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this version is bad or anything, but after sleeping on it, I think I realized what my problem is, which is that there are two senses of the word, the transitive sense as in, "I consulted a dictionary" or "I consulted a doctor" and the intransitive sense, "I consulted for that company", and for some reason my brain was stuck on the intransitive sense. I'm wondering if maybe the old wording is better, since the new wording implies that he was hired as a paid consultant, which may or may not be true. Sorry about the confusion. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 15:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay then, I've changed it back. :) — Cirt (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I think what happened was that when I was preparing the spoken version of the article, I was reading it so slowly and repeating so many sections that it confused me - like how it's hard to spell while writing on a blackboard. For some reason I also managed to get it in my head that it was "Our First Amendment Rights" for some reason. I dunno what's going on with me today. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 19:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)