I know I'll get in trouble for this, but in the spirit of "be bold" I deleted the [[Fuck]] article. It just seemed pointless to have an article called f***.
If someone wants to write an article on obscenity or censorship, and treat the problems the term f*** has had, fine. But I don't want to see every dirty word (or word that's gotten the dirty end of the stick) have its own article.
Ed Poor An "old fart"
Ed Poor wrote:
I know I'll get in trouble for this, but in the spirit of "be bold" I deleted the [[Fuck]] article. It just seemed pointless to have an article called f***.
You're supposed to be bold about *updating* articles, not *deleting* them!!!
If someone wants to write an article on obscenity or censorship, and treat the problems the term f*** has had, fine. But I don't want to see every dirty word (or word that's gotten the dirty end of the stick) have its own article.
That may well be true. So did you copy the information on [[Fuck]] to [[Obscenity]] and then make [[Fuck]] a redirect to [[Obscenity]]? Or did you just delete the information?
(Here I am assuming that [[Fuck]] did actually have information on it, and wasn't one of the "microstubs" that another thread is going on about.)
-- Toby
Toby Bartels wrote:
Ed Poor wrote:
I know I'll get in trouble for this, but in the spirit of "be bold" I deleted the [[Fuck]] article. It just seemed pointless to have an article called f***.
You're supposed to be bold about *updating* articles, not *deleting* them!!!
If someone wants to write an article on obscenity or censorship, and treat the problems the term f*** has had, fine. But I don't want to see every dirty word (or word that's gotten the dirty end of the stick) have its own article.
That may well be true. So did you copy the information on [[Fuck]] to [[Obscenity]] and then make [[Fuck]] a redirect to [[Obscenity]]? Or did you just delete the information?
(Here I am assuming that [[Fuck]] did actually have information on it, and wasn't one of the "microstubs" that another thread is going on about.)
-- Toby [Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
I agree. Link all the random obscenities to a single "obscenity" article, which gives the whole subject a thorough treatment... and that includes etymology, history and usage of the commonest / most vulgar as in the [[Fuck]] article.
Neil
--- Neil Harris usenet@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
Link all the random obscenities to a single "obscenity" article, which gives the whole subject a thorough treatment... and that includes etymology, history and usage of the commonest / most vulgar as in the [[Fuck]] article.
I don't think [[obscenity]] is the proper article title though, since it has a specific definition in law which does not include profanities. The general overview should be at [[profanity]], which is where it is already. Nevertheless, I think important words like "fuck" and "nigger" deserve their own encyclopedic treatment, especially since other encyclopedias shy away from them.
Note that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" does not mean that we can't have encyclopedia articles about certain words.
Axel
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com
|From: Axel Boldt axelboldt@yahoo.com |Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 11:05:33 -0700 (PDT) | |--- Neil Harris usenet@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote: | |> Link all the random obscenities to a single |> "obscenity" |> article, which gives the whole subject a thorough |> treatment... and that |> includes etymology, history and usage of the |> commonest / most vulgar as |> in the [[Fuck]] article. | |I don't think [[obscenity]] is the proper article |title though, since it has a specific definition in |law which does not include profanities. The general |overview should be at [[profanity]], which is where it |is already. Nevertheless, I think important words like |"fuck" and "nigger" deserve their own encyclopedic |treatment, especially since other encyclopedias shy |away from them. | |Note that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" does not |mean that we can't have encyclopedia articles about |certain words. | |Axel |
Axel is correct as to the need for articles on certain individual words.
We can also have a constellation of articles like [[taboo]], [[profanity]], and, now, [[obscenity]] to cover different angles on the same basic subject.
Tom Parmenter Ortolan88
On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Tom Parmenter wrote:
|From: Axel Boldt axelboldt@yahoo.com
...
|is already. Nevertheless, I think important words like |"fuck" and "nigger" deserve their own encyclopedic |treatment, especially since other encyclopedias shy |away from them. | |Note that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" does not |mean that we can't have encyclopedia articles about |certain words. | |Axel |
Axel is correct as to the need for articles on certain individual words.
We can also have a constellation of articles like [[taboo]], [[profanity]], and, now, [[obscenity]] to cover different angles on the same basic subject.
I agree fully with all of the above.
I'd like to add that we should go out of our way to write the article as if we were adults with a scholarly interest in the subject, rather than immature eedjits who are snickering as they type, because they think they're using the trappings of (pseudo-) scholarship to put something over on more mature people with sense and good taste. Moreover, I'm convinced this is actually possible with these topics. :-)
Larry
--- Axel Boldt axelboldt@yahoo.com wrote:
I don't think [[obscenity]] is the proper article title though, since it has a specific definition in law which does not include profanities. The general overview should be at [[profanity]], which is where it is already. Nevertheless, I think important words like "fuck" and "nigger" deserve their own encyclopedic treatment, especially since other encyclopedias shy away from them.
Note that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" does not mean that we can't have encyclopedia articles about certain words.
I agree. There is so much material that can be written on those two words in particular; if they were left in a general profanity article, it would grow to an obscene size.
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com
|content-class: urn:content-classes:message |Content-Type: text/plain; | charset="us-ascii" |X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 |X-MS-Has-Attach: |X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: |Thread-Topic: F*** |Thread-Index: AcJjEBr1GQ6enRJrSfmkuR9aC0/GKAAFwWHg |From: "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com |X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Sep 2002 17:34:35.0788 (UTC) FILETIME=[7C2B44C0:01C26327] |X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ross.bomis.com id g8NHasZ24176 |Sender: wikipedia-l-admin@nupedia.com |X-BeenThere: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com |X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.4 |Precedence: bulk |Reply-To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com |List-Help: mailto:wikipedia-l-request@nupedia.com?subject=help |List-Post: mailto:wikipedia-l@nupedia.com |List-Subscribe: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l, | mailto:wikipedia-l-request@nupedia.com?subject=subscribe |List-Id: An unmoderated discussion of all things Wikipedia <wikipedia-l.nupedia.com> |List-Unsubscribe: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l, | mailto:wikipedia-l-request@nupedia.com?subject=unsubscribe |List-Archive: http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/ |Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 13:34:35 -0400 | | |I know I'll get in trouble for this, but in the spirit of "be bold" I |deleted the [[Fuck]] article. It just seemed pointless to have an |article called f***. | |If someone wants to write an article on obscenity or censorship, and |treat the problems the term f*** has had, fine. But I don't want to see |every dirty word (or word that's gotten the dirty end of the stick) have |its own article. | |Ed Poor |An "old fart" |[Wikipedia-l] |To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: |http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l |
It's not every dirty word, Ed, it's one important word, so important that one of the most distinguished American lexicographers wrote a whole book about it.
It's back now, and is being edited.
Tom Parmenter Ortolan88
I hadn't realised we actually had an article on it, but would have got round to it sooner or later: The f word has a fascinating history. The article still needs more work though. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. There are a number of other swear words which will probably need a similar treatment.
rgds
Steve Callaway
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Parmenter" tompar@world.std.com To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Cc: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 10:46 PM Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] RE: F***
|content-class: urn:content-classes:message |Content-Type: text/plain; | charset="us-ascii" |X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 |X-MS-Has-Attach: |X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: |Thread-Topic: F*** |Thread-Index: AcJjEBr1GQ6enRJrSfmkuR9aC0/GKAAFwWHg |From: "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com |X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Sep 2002 17:34:35.0788 (UTC)
FILETIME=[7C2B44C0:01C26327]
|X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ross.bomis.com id
g8NHasZ24176
|Sender: wikipedia-l-admin@nupedia.com |X-BeenThere: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com |X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.4 |Precedence: bulk |Reply-To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com |List-Help: mailto:wikipedia-l-request@nupedia.com?subject=help |List-Post: mailto:wikipedia-l@nupedia.com |List-Subscribe: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l, | mailto:wikipedia-l-request@nupedia.com?subject=subscribe |List-Id: An unmoderated discussion of all things Wikipedia
<wikipedia-l.nupedia.com>
|List-Unsubscribe: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l, | mailto:wikipedia-l-request@nupedia.com?subject=unsubscribe |List-Archive: http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/ |Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 13:34:35 -0400 | | |I know I'll get in trouble for this, but in the spirit of "be bold" I |deleted the [[Fuck]] article. It just seemed pointless to have an |article called f***. | |If someone wants to write an article on obscenity or censorship, and |treat the problems the term f*** has had, fine. But I don't want to see |every dirty word (or word that's gotten the dirty end of the stick) have |its own article. | |Ed Poor |An "old fart" |[Wikipedia-l] |To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: |http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l |
It's not every dirty word, Ed, it's one important word, so important that one of the most distinguished American lexicographers wrote a whole book about it.
It's back now, and is being edited.
Tom Parmenter Ortolan88
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 01:34:35PM -0400, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
I know I'll get in trouble for this, but in the spirit of "be bold" I deleted the [[Fuck]] article. It just seemed pointless to have an article called f***.
If someone wants to write an article on obscenity or censorship, and treat the problems the term f*** has had, fine. But I don't want to see every dirty word (or word that's gotten the dirty end of the stick) have its own article.
I happen to agree with you on this one, but could you put it on the deletion queue next time?
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org