Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:45, 30 October 2014

Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties

Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties is a nonfiction book by law professor Christopher M. Fairman about freedom of speech, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, censorship, and use of the word "fuck" in society. It was first published in 2009 as a follow-up on the author's article "Fuck". It cites studies from academics in social science, psychoanalysis, and linguistics. Fairman establishes that most current usages of the word have connotations distinct from its meaning of sexual intercourse. The book discusses the efforts of conservatives in the United States to censor the word from common parlance. Fairman wrote his article in 2006 and made it available on the Social Science Research Network. He had trouble finding a publisher for the article; it was rejected by the Kansas Law Review less than half an hour after submission. His article was published in 2007 in the Cardozo Law Review. Both the paper and subsequent book received favorable reception from news sources and library trade publications. Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries described the book as a sincere analysis of the word and its history of censorship. (Full article...)

• Most recent similar article(s): Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/recent TFAs shows a few books but on completely different topics not related to Freedom of speech and censorship.
• Main editors: — Cirt (talk)
• Promoted: 2014
• Reasons for nomination: Educational book about freedom of speech and censorship.
• Date requested: 15 December 2014 — 223rd anniversary of adoption of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution — a topic focused on in the book and included in the book's title itself ("...First Amendment liberties").
• Featured Article in the Chinese language Misplaced Pages.
• My prior Featured Article quality contributions on the topic of freedom of speech and censorship include: the article on the book Freedom for the Thought That We Hate and on the documentary Fuck (film).
• Note: See also similar prior discussion for Fuck (film) at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests/Fuck (film).
  • Notifications given: Using exact same notification text used by Bencherlite for Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests/Fuck (film), I've left notice of this nomination at Talk:Main Page, Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates, Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous), Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard, User talk:Jimbo Wales, talk pages of WikiProjects related to the article, my user talk page, and I've added the nomination to {{Centralized discussion}}. — Cirt (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support as nominator. — Cirt (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support - fine article, good choice of date, Misplaced Pages is not censored. Ivanvector (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support Article quality is good, the similar featured article was 10 months prior to this one. Date seems like a good match. 0x0077BE 22:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support, for the reasons cited above. Regarding potential controversy, I'll note that in the case of Fuck (film), the catastrophic fallout predicted by some never materialized. We saw the usual handful of "Think of the children!"-type posts (and little more). —David Levy 22:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Misplaced Pages is not censored, but as argued eloquently in this post, we still can and should exercise editorial judgment. Most readers will not be expecting to encounter the word "fuck" featured prominently on the main page, and we should avoid shocking and offending them unnecessarily. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  Discussions of this nature invariably draw comments similar to the above. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, but I've never understood the logic behind this one. To me, the argument seems to be "Misplaced Pages is not censored, but to avoid offending people, we should use our best judgement to decide when to censor Misplaced Pages." The exception swallows the rule. —David Levy 23:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support: We ran the article on the movie and had no problems. This is an article on a serious scholarly work that just happens to have a shocking title. My only beef with the article at this moment, and I'm not sure this is quite the place to raise it, is the use in citation templates of via fields where there is no url, and the phrase "Accessed via" in publisher fields (especially where the actual publisher of the cited work is different). The latter particularly may pollute the COinS metadata that those citation templates generate. I think it's an effort to somewhat help guide people to finding offline sources, but my understanding has been that first you try to use ISBN or ISSN, and fall back on OCLC numbers. I don't think it's necessary to state the service the editors who wrote the WP article used unless there's a particular reason to do so. I think that's an easy enough fix, but I thought I'd mention it. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 23:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  @Mendaliv:Thank you for the Support -- I'd rather leave the citation style as is because it was specifically requested at the WP:FAC to improve accessibility by noting the database archive one could use to check sources. I have, however, modified the cites to use the "via" field, instead of the "publisher" field. — Cirt (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not being censored means we don't prohibit the article from Misplaced Pages or hold back obscene language from one. It doesn't mean that we must advertise and promote offensive language on the Main Page. As Granger said above, this sort of thing is not what is expected to be found when one first arrives at Misplaced Pages. 331dot (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  I must say, it doesn't seem like either you or Mr. Granger is adding anything new to the "oppose" discussion that wasn't brought up and eventually found unpersuasive in the previous discussion for Fuck (film). I think most of us on the "support" side would say that the complete lack of negative response to the featuring of that article is a vindication of our position. I think if you're going to oppose this on editorial grounds, you need to address that there's a very strong precedent on that front and that everything turned out just fine. 0x0077BE 23:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  I was not aware of a prior discussion on a similar issue; I was commenting on this specific case.331dot (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  Firstly, past discussions have shown that the community at large doesn't share that interpretation of WP:NOTCENSORED. The main page is just as much a part of Misplaced Pages as anything else, and suppressing material on the basis that it's "offensive" is censorship.
  Secondly, how are we to determine what words and concepts are "offensive"? Whose cultural standards do you consider applicable? Yours? Should we abandon WP:NPOV in favor of content tailored to the nationalities and religions most prevalent among the English Misplaced Pages's readers, or should everything widely considered "offensive" within anyone's culture be banned from the main page? —David Levy 23:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  I was directed to this page to give my opinion, which I have done. I don't seek to establish a regime to make broad judgements or restrictions. I respect your view but I stand by mine.331dot (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  Likewise, I'm not expressing disrespect. I'm attempting to engage in discussion, in the hope of better understanding your view. A statement that we should bar "offensive language" from appearing on the main page carries little meaning when "offensive language" hasn't been defined (apart from a single example). —David Levy 01:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  It carries all the meaning it needs to. It's not necessary to nail down every detail of the definition of "offensive language" for the purpose of this discussion; a single example is enough, since this discussion is about that single example. GoldenRing (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  In that case, I support the article's TFA appearance because it's snarfleticious. That's my new rationale. Don't ask me to explain how I arrived at that determination or how it's a workable measure of an article's TFA worthiness. All you need to know is that it's a good thing and the article under discussion is an example. —David Levy 03:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, I never thought you were disrespectful in any way. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose As a reader and an editor, I do not want material that may be constructed as offensive by a large number of readers on the main page without a very good reason. It's most certainly not against our policies to have it there, but I would, as a member of the community, oppose having this on the main page on the grounds of editorial discretion. wctaiwan (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  You "do not want material that may be constructed as offensive by a large number of readers on the main page without a very good reason". I assume that this includes content related to LGBT topics, abortion, and unveiled women (particularly photographs thereof). Right? —David Levy 01:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  Nice strawman, and the answer is absolutely not. We can easily address freedom of expression without putting "fuck" on the main page, whereas you can't discuss LGBT topics or abortion without mentioning them. As for unveiled women, it's thankfully a non-issue as far as our readership is concerned. Misplaced Pages is clearly not censored; there is no need to make a point of it. wctaiwan (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  Not a straw man. I can't read minds, so I didn't realize that by "very good reason", you apparently meant "inability to cover a broad topic otherwise". I understand that argument, but I don't see its applicability to this case. We certainly shouldn't place material on the main page (or anywhere in Misplaced Pages) for the purpose of offending people (or proving the point that Misplaced Pages is not censored). That doesn't describe this situation. The matter at hand isn't whether to pick this article or a different one on a subject related to freedom of expression. The question is whether this article qualifies on the merits. Of course, if you have a different date-relevant featured article in mind, feel free to propose that it appear as TFA instead. (I'm serious, by the way. Maybe there is one! If so, I certainly want to consider it.) Otherwise, perhaps you should have gone to the effort of improving such an article and getting it featured, as Cirt did in this instance.
  I'm interested in reading your explanation of why displaying photographs of unveiled women is "a non-issue as far as our readership is concerned". —David Levy 03:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  Photographs of unveiled women is a non-issue because the vast majority of our readership don't see it as an issue. My opposition boils down to "I don't think we should do this" and was never meant to be that strong, so I'm going to disengage. wctaiwan (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support. (edit conflict) It seems like a well-written article, and the anniversary of the US Bill of Rights seems like an appropriate moment to feature it. In response to the opposing voices, I've tried to imagine how I will feel when my young niece sees the link on the front page; I feel pretty sanguine. Discussion about offensive language does not offend me in the way that use of such language might. I realize that opinions vary, but on balance I don't think the likelihood of some people being offended outweighs the value of featuring the article. Cnilep (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not to take anything away from either the author of this book or the writers of our article about it, but, given Misplaced Pages's reputation as a sometimes uncivil, foul-mouthed boys' club, featuring this on our front page is only going to enhance that reputation. This choice for featured article seems "pointy" to me. Our first amendment liberties are about much, much more than the freedom to swear in public. Surely there are many books more deserving of front-page treatment who haven't taken their turn there yet. For example, why isn't our article on Capital in the Twenty-First Century featured yet? Have we put that on our front page yet? That book has more to say about the real risks to our first amendment liberties. Big Money is sucking all the oxygen out of the room that supports free speech for those who don't have a lot of money. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  Are you familiar with the meaning of "featured article"? If so, you should understand why our Capital in the Twenty-First Century article hasn't appeared as TFA. Instead of complaining, why don't you improve the article to make it eligible (rather than casting aspersions on an editor who took the time to do this with the article under discussion)? —David Levy 01:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. As for wanting to censor it as offensive/uncivil this addresses such concerns very well, both by being a quite civil and scholarly use of the word and by being precisely on the freedom of speech issues that are behind our censorship policy. I.e. it's both in line with policy and helps explain it, or lead readers to an explanation.--JohnBlackburne_deeds 01:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support This is a perfect example of what a properly uncensored, quality encyclopaedia can be and should do. To those in the "not censored unless I don't like it" camp, I say that I don't regard Misplaced Pages "as a sometimes uncivil, foul-mouthed boys' club". Given our very public policy of not being censored, those who do see it that way are clearly looking in the wrong place. They should take their concerns to those articles that show images of Mohammed, or images of dead Australian Aboriginal people. Both are very offensive to the respective interest groups. I must also note that the Opposes here are almost all framed in terms of what some unnamed other might think. In the vernacular of the language of my country, that's gutless. If you can't deal with the word "fuck" yourself, have the guts to say so. Stop claiming this is all about what someone else might think. HiLo48 (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose ooh, he said fuck! Juvenile, attention seeking title of article published in second rate law review. It has nothing to do with "freedom of speech" or censorship, it has to do with relevance. Google scholar gives it seven citations; Robert Bork's Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems has three thousand. I don't think readers will be offended, I think they'll be bored. NE Ent 01:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  @NE Ent:FYI, those are search results for the 2006 article, not the 2009 book. — Cirt (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  • No, NE Ent is correct. See --Fangz (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I think you're discounting sources simply because you can't view their full text on the Internet. That's completely inappropriate. — Cirt (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as bad editorial judgement and bad taste. GoldenRing (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  Other editors' similar sentiments notwithstanding, you're the first whose rationale for opposing this article's TFA appearance literally boils down to nothing more than "I don't like it." —David Levy 02:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  And is that invalid? Many things are down to editorial discretion, from article structure and the weight given to different aspects of a subject to the choice of which images to put in an article. Some processes are very much based on ticking boxes in policies, but I don't see why deciding what to put on our front page shouldn't incorporate personal opinions of individual editors. It might not be a convincing argument, as phrased, but it's a valid one in this context. wctaiwan (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  "I don't like it." (or similar) can be a valid rationale, depending on the context. In a discussion of whether to use a "prettier" color in template, it would be highly relevant. In this instance, we're discussing whether an article should appear as TFA – a decision on which users' personal like or dislike of its subject has no bearing. —David Levy 03:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  A curious argument, since, as you well know, there is no policy regarding what articles appear as TFA. So most arguments made boil down to editorial discretion - the only exception being where a nomination violates some more general policy. GoldenRing (talk) 04:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  Do you believe that a description of Misplaced Pages's conventions isn't valid until it's been placed on a page with a green check mark at the top?
  I don't assert that you can't oppose the article's TFA appearance because you dislike its subject. (There's no rule against it, after all.) Just don't expect that rationale to win the day. —David Levy 05:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support There are some accusations that the article is a shock piece that serves no other purpose than upsetting and unnerving readers. Looking at the actual contents demonstrates that this is a well-written and encyclopedic article about a legitimate academic work that just happens to contain a socially frowned upon word in its title. At the end of the day, Misplaced Pages is not censored (and we make this quite clear under our general content disclaimer). We are above all else an encyclopedia, and should not refuse to recognize good work just because it contains a socially frowned upon word. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support. This is indeed not a shock piece, but a mature, FA quality article. WP:NOTCENSORED still applies to our main page too. When we featured Fuck (film), the sky did not fall. Our confidence in the sophistication of our readers was not misplaced then, and I trust it shall not be again. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 08:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support The multiple claims that the world would come to an end when Fuck (film) was on the main page in March 2014 turned out to be wrong. This is a Featured Article and should not be treated differently from any other as long as it reaches the required standard.--♦IanMacM♦ 09:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support - The previous TFA has shown that our readers are more mature than we give them credit for. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, it's a decent article and I don't want to be seen like I don't appreciate the effort in bringing it to FA quality. But I don't think that risking negative press and reputational damage to the project by putting swears on the front page, either as a political statement on censorship or a juvenile desire to show naughty words to the unsuspecting, comprises good editorial judgement. Lankiveil 10:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC).

These are the same arguments that were made in the discussion about Fuck (film), and there was, as far as I can tell, no negative press or fallout from that, or from any of the previous articles featured on the front page that were opposed for similar reasons. I suggest taking a look at that discussion. 0x0077BE 11:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Just because you smack yourself in the face with a hammer once and suffer no permanent injury, does not mean it's a good idea to keep doing it. Lankiveil 14:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC).

Well it's just that this has come up several times, with Fuck (film), a DYK hook for The finger (with photo) and Gropecunt Lane. Each time the "oppose" votes predicted dire consequences and the "support" crowd felt it was overwrought. So far, we've never had the predicted problems materialize. There are plenty of people walking around who have been injured by getting hit with a hammer, but so far we have no examples of this sort of thing causing problems. So even if all you care about is preventing any kind of backlash or negative attention (which many of us would not find to be in keeping with the spirit of WP:NOTCENSORED, which is that sometimes you need to endure a bit of heat if you want to make a quality encyclopedia), the argument that this particular action is likely to be harmful is getting less and less plausible each time it fails to happen. 0x0077BE 14:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has already ran a Featured Article with the F-word in it on the front page. I checked and the only attention it got was a reaction or two from a non-notable blog. There was no media coverage to speak of. I feel that the risk of negative press is being really exaggerated. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, as per Wbm1058. Certainly folks took a good deal of time and effort to make this a quality article, I just don't want to see it on my desktop when I'm looking stuff up. By choosing the photo of a man smiling, instead of the front cover of the book, its pretty clear that the intent here is to re-enforce the "foul mouthed boys club" atmosphere. But hey, I'm a woman, and I've already been told that if I think it's too rude here I should leave. Sometimes all this in-your-face sexual content is just tedious and wearisome. There's a difference between viewing this sort of stuff when you're looking for it, and having to see it when you're really not in the mood, or when a co-worker is looking over your shoulder. When sexual content is no longer optional, it stops being fun. When I'm asked repeatedly, "you can participate, what do you think? Join Misplaced Pages! and this is the kind of discussion that is here, I feel like I am being cynically exploited by volunteering on this site. Come for the culture, stay for the swear words, and if you get pushback in real life for running with such a crew of barbarians, well hey, shut up and write more articles about women scientists, the cool girls like to swear and say sex stuff, if you don't, clear out! -- Djembayz (talk) 11:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The cover of the book is the word "Fuck", clearly visible, with some white out wiping out some of it. I'm thinking that the photo of the author (a respected law professor) was chosen for two reasons, 1.) the principle of least surprise and reasonable deference to those who would be offended 2.) the photo of the author is released on a free license, while the cover image is fair use. 0x0077BE 11:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@0x0077BE:You're correct, I unfortunately was unable to obtain a free-use-licensed image of the book's cover, but was able to obtain one of the book's author, confirmed via the WP:OTRS process. I'm glad I did because it appears it's been used on multiple pages in the Chinese Misplaced Pages. — Cirt (talk) 12:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, upon reflection, it's actually the juxtaposition of an image of a man smiling that causes strong offense, not the content of the article itself. A perfectly ordinary photo of someone smiling for the camera suddenly takes on a different meaning in context. If it's possible to make arrangements to use some version of the book cover, you might consider resubmitting this request with a different image as an experiment to see if the image chosen makes people react differently. The book cover really makes the point about censorship in a graphic fashion. The image of the author makes a strong point too, but possibly not the point you are intending. -- Djembayz (talk) 12:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Djembayz:I will attempt, again, to obtain free-use licensing for the image as you suggested. But I think it's totally appropriate to have a picture of the author along with the blurb of the book by the author. — Cirt (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Djembayz: I do have to say, I'm not quite sure I understand the objection here. What is offensive about a smiling photo of the author of the book? Maybe if it were an article called "Fuck (sex act)" or something, but the article title includes the book's subtitle, which mentions first amendment liberties and academic subjects. A picture of a lawyer-looking guy next to that seems pretty mundane to me. 0x0077BE 14:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Uh, well, guys don't smile at gals and use language like that without, uh, suggesting that perhaps someone has something in mind, uhmm, that um, isn't exactly, uh, "writing an encyclopedia." Sorry I can't be more explicit here, I don't know you well enough. Images, and especially facial expressions, modify the emotional impact of textual content. You may not realize this, but "looking like an attorney" is not a disqualifying factor with regards to amorous intentions. And you may be surprised to discover, if you ever visit DC, that even lawyers do things in their spare time with women that do not involve "writing encyclopedias." Sometimes double entendres like a smiling fellow next to an article like this get taken the wrong way, causing considerable offense and distress. Perhaps causing offense and distress is the intention here-- that's certainly been part of my experience as a female editor. Painful and demeaning experiences tend to discourage volunteers, and it's increasingly painful to be told to "move on", assume good faith, develop a thicker skin, stop being offended, etc., and just get back to work. In contrast, if you used the book cover, the point about censorship would be crystal clear. If you used the article alone, the point would also be clear. People might still take exception to featuring the article, but not on the basis of it being a double entendre. -- Djembayz (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if maybe being shown the photo with the implicit question, "Is this too offensive to be featured on the front page" has maybe biased you towards thinking that way in a way that a casual glance at it would not, I think it's taking things a bit far to imagine that he's saying he wants to fuck you or something, it's a portrait photo - I doubt he had any amorous intentions towards the cameraman when it was being taken. I imagine the worst that will happen is people will find him creepy and/or awkward-looking, since it's a posed photo which doesn't always read as natural, but I've never known anyone to be offended by someone looking creepy. Either way, I don't think it's fair to pre-emptively level charges of dismissiveness. I think Cirt has gone above and beyond in soliciting input on this topic (given that he probably could have soared through on precedent from Fuck (film)), and he's even gone so far as to try to secure rights to the book cover (which I think is very unlikely since these things tend to be tied up with multiple rights-holders, almost none of which have any incentive to pay a lawyer to determine how releasing their copyrighted materials on a free license could affect their business). 0x0077BE 15:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Djembayz:Per your recommendation, I've contacted the book publisher. They've agreed to license the image of the book cover by a free-use license. I've uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons. I removed the image of the male author smiling, from the blurb text. I've added the image instead of the (now free-use licensed) book cover to the blurb text. I hope this is now satisfactory to you, Djembayz. — Cirt (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Holy crap! I feel like that never happens. Great job Cirt! Awesome of the book publisher to release it, too. 0x0077BE 17:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Query I've already !vote-d, but it occurred to me, in the discussion of Fuck (film), it was decided that in the "recently featured articles" links, it would be stylized "F-star-C-K", because the film itself was occasionally stylized that way in marketing materials, and it was deemed a sort of compromise. Given that this book does not have a convenient "out" in that way, is the proposition to just leave it be, or is some sort of accommodation planned again? Personally, I think it will be fine, given how well everything went last time (no significant negative feedback, that I've heard about, mostly just positive things), but it's pretty much the main thing that will be different from the last time. 0x0077BE 11:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@0x0077BE:I don't recall any negative impact the day of the TFA for Fuck (film), so I think your analysis is correct. — Cirt (talk) 12:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support free speech and the discussion of words vs. attitude when we talk about civility. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support Misplaced Pages is not censored. That includes the front page. I got The finger to DYK a couple years ago with the lead picture as the image. So, this TFA request should be based on quality issues alone, and this one seems fine to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Nominator did not supply adequate reason for making the article featured, but instead offered a subjective opinion of the subject matter (that the book is educational). This, together, with the proposed date, marks a clear attempt to use the front page to advocate for a particular (albeit laudable) political cause, which is not the purpose of FAotD. This also smacks of self-congratulation. WP:NOTCENSORED is a rebuttal to one counter argument, but is not in itself a positive reason. WP:SOAP applies.-Fangz (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • To expand, I question the notability of the article in the first place. My google searches show up a grand total of 81 entries for 'christopher fairman fuck book -wikipedia' and 52 entries for 'fuck "word taboo and protecting our first amendment" fairman' (both not in quotes) . This points to a minor work of low interest, that could well fall afoul of the notability brigade if rigorously applied. Are we judging the appropriateness of this TFA nom on a fair basis, or do we just want an excuse to get something very mildly offensive on to the Main Page again? --Fangz (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
    • @Fangz:The book was the subject of reviews in publications including: Library Journal, Publishers Weekly, Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, and The New Yorker. — Cirt (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
      • @Cirt:The New Yorker is the only mainstream publication in that list. Where is this review you reference? The only citation of the New Yorker is to this article (posted in the New Yorker's online blog) which does not in fact discuss the contents of book itself at all, but has a single sentence describing its cover, as part of a slide show gallery of books with Fuck in the title. Hardly a sign of impact. In reference to the article itself, I'd suggest it's also kinda messy. The lead paragraphs are filled with unreferenced claims. Other parts confuse discussion of the 2009 book with a 2006 academic paper Fairman wrote. IMHO, if this article was not called 'Fuck', there is no conceivable reason it would be considered for TFA.--Fangz (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
        • @Fangz:The lede is cited later in the body text, per WP:LEADCITE. The reviews are referenced in full citations in the article. The other reviews are all mainstream publications. They are all major book review sources. — Cirt (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
        • @Cirt: "Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads." The lead here for example refers to 'favourable reception from news sources, despite the fact that no citation is given - and as far as I can see, such reception from news sources simply does not exist. Library Journal, Publishers Weekly, Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries are not mainstream publications, they are all trade publications aimed at librarians and academics. The linked to reviews also do not discuss the book in any great depth, in general. The degree of confusion between the book, and the article, and Fairman's advocacy activities, to me makes a reasonably strong case that really, the entire article should simply be merged into Christopher Fairman.--Fangz (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
          • @Fangz:With respect, you're mistaken, those sources are indeed mainstream publications, and especially so for articles about books. I'm not sure if you've actually read those book reviews themselves. — Cirt (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
            • @Cirt: Please link a non-trivial work focusing on the book then, as per Misplaced Pages:Notability#Self-promotion_and_indiscriminate_publicity. None of what I have seen linked on that article satisfies that.--Fangz (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
              • @Fangz: Library Journal, Publishers Weekly, and Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries are most certainly not trivial works, and they definitely focus on the book. — Cirt (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
                • @Cirt: This is the entirity of Publisher Weekly's review , the only one that is available online. It is a single paragraph rewrite of press release material, of a standard form used for many, many books each day, and can be obtained for a simple payment of $149. It gives little sign of the sort of wider recognition that the notability criterion demands. I do not have access to the other reviews. Ultimately I see nothing that sets this book aside from the many, many academic articles and niche books that are published, that quickly sink without a trace in the mainstream. It's just not notable.--Fangz (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
                • @Fangz:, this is not a deletion debate. If you truly believe this article does not meet the notability threshold, please take appropriate action elsewhere. If not, please drop this line of discussion -- it's not relevant to the present discussion. -Pete (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
                  • TFA status is contingent about the article being a featured article. Featured article status is contingent on the article fulfilled Misplaced Pages requirements on content. If there is an argument that an article should not exist in the first place, that is an argument that the article should not be FA, and hence should not be TFA. It would be ridiculous for the article to be both accepted as TFA, and then deleted. I think the appropriate course of action is to firstly reject the article as TFA, and *then* to proceed to consider a potential merger with Christopher Fairman.--Fangz (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
                    • "Nonfiction Book Review". — Cirt (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
                      • @Fangz: You're entitled to your opinion. I suspect that most Wikipedians will, like me, decline to engage with arguments that are not germane to a TFAR decision on a TFAR nomination page. -Pete (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose You're just asking for trouble by having this be featured on the front page of the site. Yes it's great we can say the word, yes it's great there's an article about the book, yes it's great that the article is a FA, but to have this shoved in people's faces is like asking them to read a TFA about the Muhammad cartoons. It's just a bad idea. Hasteur (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too bad no one thought to get United States Bill of Rights up to FA status so it could be featured on this date instead. But there would be no shock value in that. -- Calidum 16:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support. This appears to be a valuable exploration of a worthwhile topic, and the anniversary date is a relevant tie-in. I don't see any downside to this; I think alleged "shock value" that seems to concern some people is minimal. -Pete (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Gropecunt Lane. Lugnuts 20:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages Today's featured article pending nominations