Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/March 1, 2014

Previous discussion

...is to be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Fuck (film). Bencherlite^Talk 20:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

TFA blurb text

All sorted, I think, closing to avoid distractions for others. BencherliteTalk 21:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Question for Bencherlite: At your revert here, most of my modifications were minor in nature. TFAR participants had wanted to include mention of the book Fuck by Christopher M. Fairman in its full title. Many of my edits were simply trimming overall total size of blurb text. I'm not sure why all my edits had to be completely reverted wholesale? For example, why can't the change from "Jesse Sheidlower of the Oxford English Dictionary" to "Oxford English Dictionary editor Jesse Sheidlower", remain, which is both more concise and more accurate? — Cirt (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC) I'm surprised you didn't realise that I had made a deliberate choice to write the blurb in the way that I did before jumping in and rewriting it. I often have to rewrite suggested blurbs for one reason or another, and this is no exception. I did exactly the same for "Mr Hankey the Christmas Poo", to take one example. Just because 50+ people wanted the article to appear on the main page does not mean that 50+ people were in total agreement with every word of the blurb. As far as I can see, only one person mentioned Fairman's book in the discussion, and that was someone who also wanted "F*ck" used in the blurb instead of the uncensored title, so that's hardly a ringing endorsement of the need to include Fairman by "TFAR participants" plural. I am not convinced that the main page summary needs the opinion of one law professor who has made a niche study of the word. I made it clear in my closing rationale that I would limit the number of times "Fuck" appeared in the blurb, and I have in fact got it down to one without distorting the text. The blurb length was correct when I wrote it - you only had to trim it after you had added back in unnecessary elements that I had obviously deliberately excluded. Finally, if you think that "OED editor Jesse Sheidlower" is "more concise and more accurate", I'd just point out that "Jesse Sheidlower of the Oxford English Dictionary" was what you put in your original blurb draft and is also the phrase currently used in the lead in the article, but that change is fine. BencherliteTalk 21:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Understood. I'll make my explanations in more detail here on the talk page point-by-point instead of just one subsection for it. Thank you for saying the modification regarding "Oxford English Dictionary editor Jesse Sheidlower" is alright, most appreciated! I've posted several other explanations, below. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Mention of amount of usages I've removed "which is used 857 times in the film" from the first sentence of the lede diff. I think it detracts here from the sentence, and makes the first sentence a bit long. It's also not in the lede of the article itself. — Cirt (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC) The fact that it is not in the article's lead does not mean that it cannot be in the blurb. In fact, it ought to be in the lead, so I have added it. It explains why reviewers found it repetitive and tells more about the film than a bland AFI quote. BencherliteTalk 16:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC) It is an important fact, and referenced by multiple sources, but I don't think it belongs in the lede. — Cirt (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Because...? BencherliteTalk 17:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Your change to the article lede makes it sound like The Washington Post and the New York Daily News were critical of the number of 857 usages, which they were not, they did not mention this. That seems to be a WP:SYNTH change in order to then go ahead and make the addition to the blurb seem supported by this change to the article. — Cirt (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC) In fact, the lead was inaccurately worded before my changes, since the WP and the NYDN criticised its length and others criticised its repetitive use of the word "fuck". I will reword this. BencherliteTalk 17:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Your change is more inaccurate. The two sources that mention 857 times did not criticize the film for this fact, just mentioned it as interesting. The film was not criticized for its use of the word itself in the film, certainly not the actual number. — Cirt (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC) "The film was not criticized for its use of the word itself in the film, certainly not the actual number." Oh really? Try reading the reviews section again. One reviewer, Jack Garner, "described it as educational, despite Fuck's repetitive use of the word" and another, Mick LaSalle, also "criticized the film's repetition of the word 'fuck'". My change is neither inaccurate or synthesis. BencherliteTalk 17:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Well, those reviews didn't mention the specific number 857. But I understand, Bencherlite, and as another show of good faith I'm willing to come to a compromise with you on this. Hopefully that is also satisfactory to you. — Cirt (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Actually the Boston Phoenix review did specifically mention the number of times, just underestimated it (or lost count, or saw an edited version, I know not) "more than 600 repetitions of the f-word". But there's no synthesis in putting the number of appearances of the word next to comments about its repetitive appearance. BencherliteTalk 18:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Okay, understood, no worries. Glad we were able to come to a good faith compromise on this issue. Thanks very much for your helpful explanations, — Cirt (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC) American Film Institute The American Film Institute said, "Ultimately, [it] is a movie about free speech ... Freedom of expression must extend to words that offend." The lede of the article ends with this text, I think the blurb text here at TFA should end with this text, as well. We can easily make room by trimming mention of Billy Connolly and Alanis Morissette, as Bencherlite had previously observed that TFAR participants thought there was a lot of name-dropping of celebrities. — Cirt (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Example of change at diff. — Cirt (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Update: I trimmed use of word "fuck" from this quotation, now it's a bit more concise at diff. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC) (1) You're paraphrasing me inaccurately despite giving a diff to my comments! I had no problem with celebrities being named, just a problem with people being named and everyone being expected to know who they were, hence my suggestion of explaining briefly who they were. (2) Except that the AFI quote is a general one about freedom of speech, not about something specific to the film, and so adds nothing to our understanding of it in the limited space available on the main page - apart from telling us that it is a film about free speech, which we already know without needing an AFI quote to tell us. BencherliteTalk 16:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC) I really think the AFI quote is more encyclopedic than name-dropping a bunch of celebrities in the blurb. If we have to choose, I think we should remove the name-dropping celebrities in favor of the AFI quote, please. — Cirt (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC) What do you mean by "encyclopedic"? It is an entirely general comment about freedom of speech, not tied to this film in particular. And as for "name-dropping" celebrities, they would appear to be an important part of the film and get mentioned in the blurb, so it seems apt to mention a couple of celebrities as well as the various scholars in the previous sentence. BencherliteTalk 17:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Bencherlite, I am engaging with you here on the talk page and I'm not going to strenuously object to the multitude of your recommendations here, but I would very much like, please, for the blurb to end with the quote from AFI, please? — Cirt (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC) You still haven't articulated a reason why, or explained why you disagree (if you do) with my point that the comment is general and not particular. BencherliteTalk 17:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Because it is such a poignant assessment of the film itself. And of the entire censorship debate around the word. — Cirt (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Bencherlite, as a show of good faith, I have compromised with you elsewhere on this page. I'm not sure if you've offered any compromises with me on your behalf. But can we please agree to disagree with regards to your personal opinion, and please end with this quote from AFI, Bencherlite, please? I know you would like the blurb to be worded a certain way as you see fit, and I am trying to be agreeable and discuss with you here, but I'm not even certain at this point if any of my suggested changes are presently in the blurb at all. But the only one solitary thing I would really really like is for the blurb to end with this AFI quote, please, Bencherlite? — Cirt (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Attempt at compromise: Now we can have the celebrity name-dropping, and still close with the American Film Institute quote, please see diff. Total characters in blurb text with spaces at 1,189. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC) We don't need to repeat that it's about freedom of speech when the blurb makes that clear already at least twice, and it makes more sense to have the AFI quote (if we have to have it) with the other reviews. Happy? BencherliteTalk 19:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Yes, Bencherlite, that is a most wonderful compromise, thank you very very much!!! :) — Cirt (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Minor copy edit to first sentence I've made a minor copy edit to first sentence, diff, changing "an integral part of societal discussions" to more concise: "key to discussions". Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Law professor Fairman book on same subject I think there is an easy way to add Law professor Fairman without using another addition of the word "fuck", example text: Law professor Christopher M. Fairman commented on the film's importance in his 2009 book on the same subject. We can make room for it by removing mention of Bill Plympton, though most interesting, not essential to understand the subject of the film itself, at least, not in the lede text. — Cirt (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Update: Example at diff. This adds mention of the book by law professor Christopher M. Fairman, while avoiding another mention of the F-word in the title of the book, by simply stating, his "book on the same subject". Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC) As I already said, "I am not convinced that the main page summary needs the opinion of one law professor who has made a niche study of the word." You haven't answered that. Just because you happen to have written an article about his book does not mean that it needs a main-page link. I removed it first time round, and now again, because the sentence tells us nothing about the film and nothing about Fairman's views on the film, just that he commented on its importance. And to make room for it, you removed a sentence that told us something about the film (the animated sequences), which was a retrograde step. BencherliteTalk 16:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC) It goes to academic coverage of the film by scholars. Fairman was not the only professor who discussed the film from a scholarly academic perspective. — Cirt (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC) We have that it has been used on university courses - why single out Fairman? BencherliteTalk 17:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Because the work is so relevant both because it discusses the word itself, and the same topics of freedom of speech and censorship. — Cirt (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC) I note that all that the article says about what the book says about the film is found in one caption: "the most important film using 'fuck'". That's it. If anything, the equivalent sentence should be removed from the lead as giving disproportionate weight to the book. It's not worth mentioning on the main page when there are other, more useful, points to mention. BencherliteTalk 17:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC) I respect your opinion and respectfully disagree as to the article itself. As to the blurb text, I am willing to make a good faith attempt at compromise with you on this particular issue and defer to your judgement about what you wish with this issue. I hope that is satisfactory to you. — Cirt (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Minor trim to first sentence, removed: "the worlds of" If we trim "the worlds of", from the first sentence, it helps keep it more concise, without sacrificing meaning at all. :) — Cirt (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Looks much better Okay, the blurb text looks much better! :) Total size of blurb text including spaces is now 1,147 characters. Hopefully above are satisfactory improvements, — Cirt (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC) I agree with some, but not all, of your changes, for the reasons I have given. BencherliteTalk 16:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC) If anything at all, I really would very much like for the blurb to end with the AFI quote, please, Bencherlite? — Cirt (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Update: This has since been resolved amicably, per this edit by Bencherlite. Many thanks, — Cirt (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Minor edit: Split sentences I've made a minor copy edit and split a longer sentence in two, while also shortening total wording, please see diff, thank you. — Cirt (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Split up sentences in minor edit after A. O. Scott I've split up sentences in a minor edit, after the A. O. Scott mention, see diff. This also shortens blurb total wording slightly. — Cirt (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Minor edit to avoid use of word "linguist" so close to prior sentence I've made a minor edit to avoid use of word "linguist" so close to its usage in a prior sentence, please see diff. This also shortens total wording of blurb text slightly. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Release info should be before reception info Release info should be before Reception info in blurb text, I've reordered it here, diff. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Minor copy edit to DVD mention I've made a minor copy edit to DVD mention. diff. Changed from " It was released on DVD in America and in the UK and used as a resource in university courses. " to "Its DVD was released in the U.S. and UK and used as a resource in university courses." — Cirt (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC) More minor copy edits to this sentence, diff, no need for extra words "was released on..." and "has been..." etc. More concise this way. — Cirt (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC) "film" already used in prior sentence, changed to "it" "Film" was already used in a prior sentence, changed to "it" for next sentence. diff. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Changed "language or location" to "background" as variants of word "language" were used already I changed the phrase "language or location" to "background", as variants of the word "language" were used already earlier in the blurb text. Please see diff. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC) More concise wording, history and evolution Trimmed "history and", as evolution is simpler and states essentially the same thing. Please see diff. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Trimmed first sentence slightly Trimmed "director" from first sentence; as the sentence already states the film is "by Steve Anderson", we therefore know he is the filmmaker. Please see diff. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC) No need for both "which" and "that" in first sentence No need for both "which" and "that" in first sentence, when just one of them will do nicely. Please see diff. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Comedy is mentioned later as "comedian", and comedy is part of society Removed "comedy", as comedy is mentioned later as "Comedian..."; and comedy is part of society. Please see diff, thank you, — Cirt (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Taboo nature Changed from "it has power because of its taboo nature" to "its taboo nature gives it power." Less clunky this way. Please see diff, thank you, — Cirt (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Removed dup "that...that..." Removed duplicate "that" and "that...", please see diff, again, less clunky this way. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Hunter S. Thompson suicide I separated the sentences mentioning Hunter S. Thompson suicide from Bill Plympton animated sequences, seemed odd to have those two things together in same sentence. Please see diff, thank you, — Cirt (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Trimmed "as a resource in", to "used in university courses" Trimmed "as a resource in", to "used in university courses", as this is essentially the same thing. Please see diff, thank you, — Cirt (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

For the benefit of anyone coming later...

As you can see from the discussion above, the blurb has been pretty extensively edited since it was scheduled. I don't agree with all the changes, but some of them are probably WP:ENGVAR issues that sound odd to me on this side of the Atlantic whereas they probably don't on the wrong other side of it. However, I don't want any of the following things to be missed by people coming here later on:

• The discussion to run the film as the TFA is at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Fuck (film) and I gave an extensive set of reasons there for deciding to run it. For better or for worse, that was my decision based on an extensive survey of community opinion which produced the longest TFAR discussion ever and had the highest number of people ever commenting in such a discussion.
• As part of my decision to run the article, I decided that the blurb would use the word "fuck" as few times as possible. In fact, we've been able to get it to one (the title). Please do not edit the blurb to add the word more often, because I'm trying to get a compromise here between two very different approaches. It's probably impossible to keep everyone happy, but there we go.
• This page is not the venue to complain about the decision to run the article.
• This page is not even the venue to complain about the article.
• When this blurb is on the main page, if you spot something that you think is an error in wording in the main page blurb, report it at WP:ERRORS not here.
• When the article is on the main page, if you spot something that you think oughts or needs to be changed in the article itself, then edit Fuck (film) and / or discuss the issue at Talk:Fuck (film).

Thank you. Bencherlite^Talk 21:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above. My thanks to Bencherlite for these helpful explanations! — Cirt (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Main Page - Today's Featured Article discussion

Permalink of Talk:Main Page discussion about Today's Featured Article, at Talk:Main Page - Today's Featured Article discussion. — Cirt (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, permalink of version prior to archival. — Cirt (talk) 04:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Additional permalink to discussion about censorship of the film title in links to recently featured article pages. — Cirt (talk) 03:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)