Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/April 1, 2009

Ashcroft

I would prefer if we could keep this lighthearted and neutral. If we're going to go after the corpulent Ashcroft on the toilet, then please include Norman Mailer too. They're both in the article, which is fine, but I'd just as soon leave them out of the blurb. Last time I checked, April Fool's Day is a bipartisan event.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

For the main page blurb, I think the mention of Ashcroft for humorous effect is more powerful than Mailer. The majority of readers will be unfamiliar with Mailer. His impact is not that recent. If it can be gracefully incorporated, I don't have much of an opinion, but as many times as I have rewritten the blurbs, if the mention of Mailer just to make the blurb politically correct makes it seem as if we're hammering graceful sentences apart, then I am not for it at all. I think it's fine the way it is right now, and my stress levels are just now coming down (though not for long). I may have to go away for several hours and think about how to add Mailer and be creative. Writing sucks. I much prefer honing my valuable looking skills. At walls or grass, preferably. --Moni3 (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The point is that the humorous effect of Ashcroft will be decidedly partisan, rather than uniform. If we want a blurb that will be funny for some people and perhaps mildly offensive to others, then including Ashcroft would be fine.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll think about this, but my gut reaction (per the Use in academic studies section) is that neither the blurb nor the article is here to be bipartisan. It's also not here to be offensive, but I can bet you a nickel someone is going to get their panties in a bunch about the "Old woman with an armchair glued to her ass" quote. John Ashcroft, regardless of his political affiliation, sitting on a toilet is simply much funnier than Norman Mailer in a dress. Anyone awestruck by his "On Wings of Eagles" turn at the microphone must surely agree. --Moni3 (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. It's just my opinion that some small corners of life (such as April Fool's Day) need not be used for political purposes.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The mention of John Ashcroft gives it a twist of surreal humor (and makes it that much more likely people will think it's a bad hoax). I don't see anything partisan about the blurb. Raul654 (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There was a reason why they picked Ashcroft instead of, say, Sam Nunn Walter Mondale or Bill Clinton or Bill Richardson, don'cha think? Anyway, it's no big deal as far as I'm concerned. I just find it more tiresome than humorous.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There was a reason why they picked Ashcroft instead of, say, Sam Nunn or Bill Clinton of Bill Richardson - yes, because the painting is the spitting image of Ashcroft, and not Nunn, Clinton, or Richardson. Raul654 (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Says you!  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the mention of Ashcroft is partisan or would offend anyone (well, anyone sane). I do think that a mention of Mailer would add humor, though. -kotra (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I certainly won't be offended. I just find it mildly tasteless to use a non-political thing like April Fools Day to score political points. Hell, I went to edit this article to get away from political crap!Ferrylodge (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it as political. John Ashcroft is just a random celebrity in this context, I think. -kotra (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a good line, but he's not really staring at the viewer, is he? His head, and presumably his gaze is more off to one side. That's probably clearer when viewing the larger version of the image, which by the way is somehow also funnier. I like this blurb overall, it's what I was trying to nudge Moni3 towards. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought that too, but wasn't sure. I've changed it from "staring at the viewer" to "gazing into space". Hopefully no humor is lost. -kotra (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed wording changes

• "...dedicated to featuring the finest artworks of Boston-area refuse." to
• "...dedicated to featuring the finest worst artwork."

(not all of it's from Boston, and not all of it comes from the trash, although stuff found in the trash is mentioned later in the summary)

• "The museum's aim is to take the sufferings of the artists featured within and pass them along to its patrons." to
• "The museum's aim is to take the artists' sufferings and pass them along to its patrons."

(seems clearer to me)

• "...instead focusing on frank emotional expressions executed with astonishing technical deficiencies." to
• "...instead focusing on frank emotional expressions executed with astonishing technical or compositional deficiencies."

(added "or compositional" because some pieces, like Sunday on the Pot with George", are said to be "technically well-executed", just a poor choice of subject)

• "The museum started in a pile of garbage, when an antiques dealer found..." to
• "The museum started in a pile of garbage, where an antiques dealer found..."

("when" to "where"... not sure why, it just sounds better to me) -kotra (talk) 21:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestions - I've implemented them. Raul654 (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a snappiness about "astonishing technical deficiencies" that makes it funny, whereas "technical or compositional" sounds more complex and less droll. In terms of accuracy, having vague blobs for feet could broadly be interpreted as a technical deficiency. An expert is quoted in the article as suggesting that many of the subjects are missing hands and feet because the artists probably couldn't draw them. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the "technically well-executed" quote is from the curator, Scott Wilson. I'm not sure if the lack of feet is a technical deficiency, since the artist does seem to have technical skill with a brush (according to Wilson, anyway). I think it's more of a compositional oversight that the artist just stopped painting at the feet. But your point is well taken: "or compositional" does detract from the snappiness. I see that Raul just simplified it to "...with astonishing deficiencies", which seems good to me. Another option might be "...with astonishing artistic deficiencies", but I think just "with astonishing deficiencies" is good. -kotra (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• "located underground next to two bathrooms". Spikebrennan (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Who is User:Moni3 to "reword" the intro blurb and then protect it? [1] The first sentence alone violates WP:NPOV by saying "world renown". I propose the main page intro blurb be reverted back to last reliable version by Raul. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Raul suggested below that Moni3 rewrite the blurb, because there was a consensus that the "funny" was being lost in a storm of accuracy edits. If he hadn't been happy with what she wrote and locked, he surely would have unlocked and rewritten or asked for input from others. For myself, I think Moni's final version does a great job as an April Fools blurb. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

For the record, there wasn't complete consensus that the funny was being lost (see my comments below), but I deferred to Raul's judgment because, well, he's the Featured Article Director... and also because I realized it's silly to war over something as subjective as humor. -kotra (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is often less than complete. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Restroom proximity

I think it'd be good to mention the museum's proximity to restrooms, unless it'd be too long. Maybe an additional sentence like this:

• "Since its founding, the Museum of Bad Art has expanded to the basement of a ramshackle theater in Dedham, Massachusetts and another in nearby Somerville." to
• "Since its founding, the Museum of Bad Art has expanded to the basement of a ramshackle theater in Dedham, Massachusetts and another in nearby Somerville. Both locations are enhanced by the sounds, smells, and constant flushing of nearby restrooms."

-kotra (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Other theft

Would it be worth it to add a sentence about the other theft? For example:

• "In 2004, a thief demanded $10 in ransom for Self Portrait as a Drainpipe, but soon afterward returned the picture with a $10 donation." -kotra (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Apart from it being more detail than is necessary, from a humour point of view it'd be better not to have it in the blurb. Best to leave that great laugh-point for the article itself, which has time to build up to it properly. I found it one of the funniest things in the article. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. I can't help noticing that the main article is a lot funnier than the April Fools' blurb. It should be the other way around! Of course, that's the nature of the subject matter, not our fault. -kotra (talk) 03:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• "A thief stole a work from the museum, but subsequently paid the museum to take it back." Spikebrennan (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Gratuitous mention of alcohol

I'm avoiding this blurb tonight because it's being changed so frequently that it makes me want to drink. But I'll get to it tomorrow, read through it and tweak where necessary. I think before the entire Western World discovers wtf is going on it on this page it should be protected at some point. I don't know what Raul's master plan is. Mine is drinking. --Moni3 (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Drunk Wikipedians are a dangerous lot. Sober ones marginally less so.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll all be glad to know I didn't go on a 3-day bender. It is still a consideration, however. I don't admit to being proficient at much of anything, but I do know funny. I am fairly masterful at that. It is from this vantage that I am making the following comments. Once more, we are faced with trying to determine what the goals of this blurb are, so instead of another 10 people tweaking it, how about we come to some kind of understanding?

• Should it be factual, funny, or partially factual and funny? The first line, dedicated to featuring the finest artworks of Boston-area refuse was changed to dedicated to featuring the finest specimens of the world's worst artwork for accuracy. The first line is funny and partially accurate. The second line is not funny and accurate.

• astonishing deficiencies was astonishing technical deficiencies. There is a cadence and rhythm in humorous English language. Technical deficiencies (which could be "technical defects" just as well) is partially accurate, because yes, there are compositional problems to its collection as well, but the line punches much better as "astonishing technical deficiencies". If the goal of this blurb is to be all encompassing of all issues involving the article, I can fairly safely say we should abandon trying to be funny at all and just put the actual lead as the blurb for April 1.

• So choleric was taken from Lucy's description, as is in front of a nuclear holocaust. Yes, that's a bit of embellishment in the blurb. This is the WP:IAR I was referring to. So it was removed and now there is a lackluster description of Lucy that could easily be tossed out.

• Other works in MOBA's collection are John Ashcroft in a diaper, titled Sunday on the Pot with George, which offers patrons endless questions about who the corpulent man may be, and why he is depicted at his toilet footless, as he stares at the viewer, and a hula skirt-wearing weiner dog juggling bones. was changed to Other works in MOBA's collection are Juggling Dog in Hula Skirt, depicting a hula skirt-wearing wiener dog juggling bones, and Sunday on the Pot with George, depicting a corpulent man, tentatively identified as former United States Attorney General John Ashcroft using a toilet while gazing into space, which is stunningly dull. I didn't think George could be dull, but there it is. Again, what are we going for? Accuracy or humor? How much does it matter where George is staring? For God's sake, it's an impressionist painting in pointillism. How many critiques are we going to get on April 1 that formally protest that he is, in fact, not staring at the viewer but around and about?

• So $6.50 was taken out for no monetary value at all. Yawn.

• I'm such a huge proponent of ending a lead and an article with a punch. It had a great one with The museum's standards are remarkably exclusive; works must be extraordinarily compelling, portraying a sense of mystery often unable to be explained by the artists themselves. Now it's The museum's standards are remarkably exclusive; works must be extraordinarily and compellingly bad. I'm telling you, folks, the blurb we have now is not good. Can we make a decision as a group to have either a very funny blurb that takes facts out of context in a very humorous light, or one that dryly explains what MOBA is? If the consensus here is it should be accurate, then let's scrap what there is now and just put in the article's lead as is the normal procedure. This will alleviate stress on me because we will admit no one is trying to be funny, so it can't fail at that. However, there is nothing more awkward — including having your panty elastic break while you're wearing a skirt so your knickers fall down in public — than trying to be funny and failing. We either should go at this all the way or stop trying to do it halfhearted.

• I think this version is funny, as accurate as it should be for April 1, and quite sufficient. I would like to revert the blurb back to this version and have it on the main page. I don't know what Raul's plans are for consensus, or even if he's going to take input into this, but I had to speak my mind. --Moni3 (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• • My four cents. When we got to this point on Ima Hogg, we had too many cooks in the blurb broth. I pretty much cut through it to go with The Fat Man version; there was good input from others, but we needed one style of humor. Having too many people going too many directions dilutes the humor. Have Raul protect it, and have only Moni and Raul edit it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good, but Moni3 still needs an answer to this question: "Should it be factual, funny, or partially factual and funny?" First and foremost it should be factual, and fully supported by the article. Secondly, it should fool the reader into thinking we must be lying. Thirdly, if there's still room to make it funny, then make it funny, but not if that detracts from having it be factual. IMO. Aside from that, I agree with SandyGeorgia.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking over the diffs, I think it's been getting less and less funny in the name of pedantic accuracy. Raul654 (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Shall the blurb discuss a nuclear holocaust even though the article says nothing about it?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The anon edit was me tweaking the blurb to add a bit more humor. Raul654 (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it only the nuclear holocaust thing, or must it be accurate through and through? What if we removed the reference to nuclear war? Are there are issues that are deal-breakers? If not clear, I think it's fine to have the holocaust thing, but I can just as easily edit it to make something equally ridiculous. There's enough about Lucy to make that possible.

Lucy cannot be described as the Mona Lisa of MOBA. They actually have a Mana Lisa, which is a hideous genderless rendition of the Mona Lisa. In fact, Michael Frank's first email to me was complaining that the article in its state on March 1, before I began editing it, described Lucy as MOBA's Mona Lisa. --Moni3 (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Are there are issues that are deal-breakers? The only deal-breaker is that you can't make up something whole cloth. Try to be as accurate as possible, but the more ridiculous (and more likely to be considered an obvious hoax) the better. More flowery language than usual is OK for April fools too. Moni, why don't you take a swing at it and see what you can do? Raul654 (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

So, I'm the person responsible for most of the pedantic accuracy. I'm also a comedy writer (I used to edit and do much of the writing for a pretty well-received satirical website), so I guess I have that vantage point too (don't judge me on my Uncyclopedia stuff, I can be funnier than that). I agree that some of my pedantry reduced the humor. I disagree, though, that all the changes Moni3 lists above are dull/unfunny. A couple I think are funnier because they're less wordy. But humor is subjective, and what's funny for one person is unfunny for another. I obviously agree with Ferrylodge that we have to be at least factual. Selection of the most unbelievable facts is what will make it funny. Not exaggerations or inaccuracies (this is still Wikipedia, not Uncyclopedia). Anyway, that's just my opinion, and in the end, it's up to Raul. -kotra (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be best now to let Moni have a crack at it, and then let Raul have a look before it gets altered further. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I'll refrain from editing it myself, in any case. -kotra (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)