Talk:Main Page

Main Page error reports

To report an error in content currently or imminently on the Main Page, use the appropriate section below.

• Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
• Offer a correction if possible.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 10:50 on 12 November 2024) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
• No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
• Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
• Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.

Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Please do not remove this invisible timestamp. See WT:ERRORS and WP:SUBSCRIBE. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(November 15)

Monday's FL

(November 18)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Notice to administrators: When fixing POTD errors, please update the corresponding regular version (i.e. without "protected" in the page title) in addition to the Main Page version linked below.

General discussion

todays TFA (think of the children) etc etc........

Has an admin come along and wiped all trace of the complaints about todays TFA? After all, if a work of fiction such as an episode of South Park or a silly gross-out horror film can cause such offense, surely the true life story of a murderer feeding her neighbours her victims must have traumatised a few seven year olds and led to a few awkward discussions with parents? Coolug (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You would think. — foxj 17:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow, Coolug (talk · contribs) is spot on, I was about to remark upon the exact same thing. Apparently choice of TFA is only offensive to certain people if it's less than 100 years old, or in a cartoon format, or something like that? :P Many thanks to Coolug (talk · contribs), for pointing this out! ;) — Cirt (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

No "anal", no "probe", no problem it would seem. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I hate those kinds of complaints about pop culture featured articles, but it's rarely to do with the offensiveness of the topic, it was always just because it was pop culture/in-universe "fancruft", it was the same story when it was Bulbasaur.. as I remember someone even crusaded to make sure no more pokémon articles were featured after that and was (for a time) successful =/ - filelakeshoe 22:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Quoting myself from last month's discussion:

These complaints seem to stem more from the perception that a subject is trivial or unimportant than from anything else (hence the flood of angry posts whenever an article about something from popular culture appears). A "naughty" word merely helps to stir up the sentiment.

—David Levy 22:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

<MrGarrison>Anuses are baaad, mmkay?</MrGarrison> Prioryman (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a form of systemic bias, maybe someone should write an essay/article about it and teach people how genre trash turned into respectable classics only after the passage of time. One of the best things about WP is its academic-ish documentation of pop culture. Green Cardamom (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Further discussion at Talk:Cartman_Gets_an_Anal_Probe#Cartman_Gets_an_Anal_Probe_vs._Murder_of_Julia_Martha_Thomas. — Cirt (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this comment by Green Cardamom (talk · contribs), above. — Cirt (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 2, 2012

Resolved

• Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 2, 2012

Archive is wrong, should link to March 2012, not February 2012, someone please fix it? — Cirt (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems to have been fixed by HJ Mitchel: [1]. meshach (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

POTD caption

Resolved

I just got a message to help improve the caption. I did but that is not reflected on the main page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I've copied over the updated text. Thanks! —David Levy 00:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin elected for the second time?

Would not it be more accurate to say he was elected for the third time? Or for the third term at least?--141.161.133.224 (talk) 06:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Can the picture be changed to that of Mayor Quimby from The Simpsons? Lugnuts (talk) 10:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you note relevance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.11.71.124 (talk) 10:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you take a joke? --WaltCip (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Did anyone else see this?

I noticed that since 2011, there have been some reports of news changes in the main page section. There are also rumors on 4chan saying that Anonymous has been changing wikipedia without anyone noticing. Has this been confirmed and should I be concerned? 4chan is not something to usually take seriously, but I hope I'm right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.198.45.62 (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"News changes"? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I am quite certain that there is no way to change Wikipedia without anyone noticing, and that you should not take anything on 4chan for fact. Shirudo talk 06:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Why would Anonymous even bother with Wikipedia? - Tenebris 16:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.121 (talk)

If no-one noticed the changes, did they really occur? HiLo48 (talk) 02:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment in Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list

The proposal in that Wikipedia talk page may suddenly affect Main Page. Nevertheless, I found a proposal too important for this talk page, as it may inspire renamings of Wikipedia namespaces and future pages of "WP:This week's featured list/<subpage>". Discussion in Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list#Renaming and re-stylizing Today's Featured List?. --George Ho (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you mean by "too important for this talk page" and "may inspire renamings of Wikipedia namespaces"... Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Main Page tabs hard to click in MonoBook

An issue was posted to Wikipedia:Help desk#Oddity on front page. The Main Page tabs can be hard to click in MonoBook with Firefox, Google Chrome and Opera: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?useskin=monobook. If the mouse moves to the tabs from above then it works as expected, but not from below. The tabs don't become clickable until the arrow tip reaches around the top of the letters and turns into a hand. I guess the "Welcome to Wikipedia" box is too close to the tabs for MonoBook. It's positioned above the normal page area. I don't have problems in IE. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm using Pale Moon and have the problem, apart from the fact they are not click able at all. But I regularly use Vector. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 14:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I noticed this issue yesterday; must have been caused by a software update or some other tweak to the homepage in the last week or so, is my guess. Perhaps filing a Bugzilla request is the best course of action. — foxj 17:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Main Page too cluttered?

Moved from WT:TFL. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add that the front page seems to be such a clusterfuck of randomosity that I almost never bother to read any of it, and would like a far more minimalist portal, if feasable. In fact, the only main page content that ever really interests me is the picture, and it's too far down for me to bother scrolling to. I don't come to wikipedia to read the news. If I want to browse erratically I'll use the random article feature or google. The languages list in the sidebar is expanded by default, creating more clutter. I came to "en.wikipedia.org" knowning that "en" stands for something: english. One simple link to alternate language portal is sufficient, especially given the redundant list near the foot of the page. That's what the "wikipedia.org" portal is for. I opt for a far reduced amount of text in general, if you must list any of this nonsense, or offer a separate "main" with a more minimal layout. Reference wikihow, encyclopedia mythica, encyclopedia brittanica, or my favorite example, wordnik, for examples of seemingly less distracting mains. --24.52.143.225 (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Try WP:MPALT. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps make your landing page Template:POTD. — foxj 03:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

One person's nonsense is another person's treasure. For myself, a random collection of miscellania helps me avoid the mental rut of a too-narrow focus. It gives unexpected tangents and new directions. Sometimes I find myself looking further into things I had never previously thought even to ask about. - Tenebris 16:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.121 (talk)

On this day... (March 8)

It's strange to me not to see the International Women's Day listed in today (March 8) "On this day" section (whereas, for example, "Mother's Day in various countries" is listed though this celebration in this day is less world-wide known). --95.252.24.45 (talk) 08:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I have inserted it - it was not included as the citations were not in the correct format. — foxj 08:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

International Women's Day

Nice to see International Women's Day marked with a woman FA and woman-heavy DYK up right now. Just a shame every single woman, both real and fictional, is American. So much for the 'international' bit ... 86.133.209.235 (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Where were you a few hours earlier when there were European women on DYK????? --70.31.8.76 (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You missed the Australian part where there weren't any Australians, Kiwis, Asians or any articles really about women. --LauraHale (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

When is International Men's Day?Ryoung122 16:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it is today, judging by the picture of the Manly ferry :) Teemu08 (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The International Men's Day article says November 19th. --PFHLai (talk) 07:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I spent some time in Russia, where the International Women's Day tradition was kept alive. The male counterpart in Russia is February 23, Red Army Day when all men are congratulated just for being men. Somehow I always felt a bit odd about that. Our article tells it pretty well

"In Russia

Officially, as the name suggests, the holiday celebrates people who are serving or were serving the Russian Armed Forces (both men and women), but unofficially, nationally it has also more recently come to include the celebration of men as a whole, and to act as a counterpart of International Women's Day on March 8."

Smallbones (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

When I started putting the Women's Day hook sets together, I had an Australian woman's bio (written by LauraHale!) on prep, slated to appear on MainPage at 0:00 UTC (already day time in Australia) on March 8th. Somehow that hook got moved while I wasn't looking..... sigh.... I regret not reverting the prep to my edits... Too late now... --PFHLai (talk) 07:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

There was some alternative proposals for TFA but they didn't really have any greater relevance and the eventual TFA was proposed first. You're welcome to get involved in the selection of future TFAs for IWD. I don't recall any of the examples being Australians, Kiwis or Asians, but you're welcome to being an article up to FA standard in time for next years IWD. (Although I'm not sure why you single out Australians and Kiwis, I'm kiwi but it seems to me a lack of Africans would be more significant given their much larger percentage of the population.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The lack of Africans is a systemic bias, I think. And it seems we are getting fewer India-related items these days, at least on DYK. --PFHLai (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

1910 airplane race

The below sentence is awkward; the comma after "28 April" is not necessary:

Despite Graham-White's best efforts, Paulhan arrived in Manchester on 28 April, and won the prize.

Also, I detest that we have Wikipedia by language, not by nation. "Aeroplane" is not a word in the USA.Ryoung122 16:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Creating separate BrE and AmE versions of Wikipedia would involve a ridiculous duplication of effort and would split the editor and reader bases for no real reason. Are you really that offended by the presence of such an easily grokkable and perfectly cromulent word? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 00:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind the need for CanE and AusE and probably others. Newfoundland English Wikipedia, perhaps? Resolute 00:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, there's the issue of countries with more than one national language. Under this new "nation-based domain" scheme, what language would editors use for the Swiss Wikipedia? I shudder to even consider the task of unifying an "Indian Wikipedia". GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 00:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

A Vatican City Wikipedia would be quite easy to make.--WaltCip (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I dunno. Latin and Italian are not the same. HiLo48 (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Congrats, Ryoung122, you've learnt a new word that you'll find useful outside that one country on this big planet. --PFHLai (talk) 07:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

As an American just let me say I have no problem with the word "aeroplane". However, I have a very large problem with the phrase "the below sentence". --Khajidha (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

BAM! Lugnuts (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Haha what? You want everything to be in US-English? What a troll. This is an international project. --Nutthida (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Gay pornography

Jeez guys. I left wikipedia a moment ago and my sister arrived and the main page was scrolled down and the words "gay pornography" emblazened on the front page of wikipedia on the screen when we entered the toom and that's the first thing she saw in the DYK section. Its very embarrassing! Must such content really be linked on the main page on weekends? "Not censored" appears to show no respect to parents who desire for their children to learn from wikipedia but ban them because wikipedia advocates such stuff on the front page at peak times and exposed them to it. The argument is that anybody at any time of the week or day in the world may be exposed to it but in my opinion there are certain topics which should not appear on the main page.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

You want us to ban the "certain topics" that you deem objectionable. As long as Dr. Blofeld isn't embarrassed in front of his sister, who cares what other people and cultures think? —David Levy 18:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Yawn. Hundreds of people killed in Brazzaville, dozens in the US, a gay porn video is somehow more objectionable than real life? Wow. No, okay, so we shouldn't link "objectionable" material at "weekends"? What the hell is this place becoming? (and I don't think you should be letting your sister and her kids into your "toom" by the sounds of things...) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

What the hell is this place becoming?

A place where a cartoon episode about an anal probe provokes a firestorm, but a true story of murder and dismemberment is fine and dandy (as you know). —David Levy 18:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a family picnic. The point of an encyclopedia is to expose people to information. If you are fearful of being exposed to new information, or of inadvertently exposing others to new information, don't use encyclopedias. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Didn't we just have this argument last month?--WaltCip (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't we have this "argument" every month? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The point of an encyclopedia is to expose people to information yes, but certain "information" may be questionable in the same way certain images such as child pornography are inappropriate for the wikicommons for instance which attempts to provide as wide a scope of "encyclopedic" images as possible. Images of child pornography are images same as any other but are clearly inappropriate in the same way that certain topics are inappropriate at least for the front page of wikipedia. OK so child pornography is illegal, but why is this so then? It it because there is some sense of morality behind the decision to make it illegal and that more than one person morally object to it? After all they are merely images, and we should all be open to all images to broaden our "encyclopedic" tastes. Society has values on certain topics and is opinionated on certain issues like gay pornography, there's no no denying that. I endorse the view that we should treat all topics fairly but certain topics push the boundary in which most people would consider acceptable on the front page of an encyclopedia. There is a reason why this conversation appears to have been had many times before is because people have some strong opinions on such topics. I have no objection to coverage of articles on pornographic films or actors on here, even gay or tranny ones, I just think linking to to topics like gay pornography on Saturdays afternoons on the front page of one of the most widely visited sites in the world is inappropriate that's all. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Rewind just a second, Doc. Are you actually complaining not about gay pornography in Wikipedia, but the appearance of the phrase "gay pornographic" on the main page? And you're embarrassed that your sister found out you have looked at a webpage containing the words "gay pornographic"? Do you think use of those words is something that we are lacking a proper "sense of morality" about? FormerIP (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for my repeated use of the phrase "gay pornographic", btw, but it's quite difficult to discuss without saying it. I'll try tho think of a euphemism before I post again in this thread. --FormerIP (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no objections to articles on gay pornography on wikipedia. I acknowledge there are a sizeable number of readers who might want to search for and read those, I support that. I just think it inappropriate to link to such topics directly on the main page of the encyclopedia at times when there are likely to be a maximum number of ill-suited people seeing it, yes. There seems to be an acceptance here that gay pornography is as suitable reading for anybody on a main page as any other encyclopedic topic and I dispute that. And its not just the "kids might see it, hide their eyes" view. Its just certain people myself included think it is not appropriate material for the main page of an encyclopedia based on what is considered socially/commercially acceptable in society. Would you advertise a gay pornography film on daytime television advertisements? Absolutely not. Why is this? Because there is a moral code in which people decide what or what not is appropriate viewing. Why is there a watershed for television? People have a moral code deciding what or what is appropriate for viewing in the face of the viewing population at the time. I support wikipedia's "not censored" approach but I find the endorsement of linking to such articles as in your face and a "we are free to do whatever we wish" approach with little regards to the norms of how people generally view topics. My opinion is that featuring a gay pornography film on the main page at such a time is like advertising a gay porno during the advert breaks on Saturday morning kids television. Oh how cool is it that we can do this. Aren't we cool for our breaking down of social restraints on wikipedia. True revolutionaries.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Images of child pornography are illegal and viewing them promotes an industry that is harmful to children. Advertising pornography in the middle of the day is also illegal, irrespective of whether doing so would actually harm anyone. Merely stating the words "gay porn" is not illegal and does not harm anyone at any time. Concerning your notion that "most people would consider" mentioning gay pornography "[un]acceptable on the front page of an encyclopedia", I highly doubt you have any reliable sources to back up that assertion but are instead merely assuming "most people" share your own values--and your own values are insufficient reasons to censor the main page of an encyclopedia. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 20:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

OK if I advertised a gay porno on daytime TV lets say during the break of Loose Women and This Morning and the News. Do you think the viewing public would consider it suitable and appropriate advertising? I don't just think thousands of people would be outraged I know they would get thousands of complaints. I see the linking of such topics on the main page in exactly the same way, its alerting the public to them in the way adverts do on television.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

False analogy. 1) Advertising gay pornos on daytime TV is illegal under US obscenity laws (forgive me for assuming you're American if you're not--yet in many other countries, this isn't even illegal at all, further demolishing your point), as I already said. Stating the words "gay porn" is not, and is in fact protected by the Supreme Court under the First Amendment (unlike actual obscenity). 2) Stating the words "gay porn" is utterly incomparable to graphically advertising it. Daytime TV advertisements of pornographic films, which are a) graphical and b) designed to arouse people and sell a product, are distinct from a) textual information that is b) designed to educate. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 20:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

And what times would you want such a ban to take effect? Mornings/early afternoons, you say? Assuming you're in the US, that's nighttime in the UK, and early the next day in Australia, when one might presume such topics were "acceptable" in those locations. This is an international project, remember, so there's no way to pick some time period that's going to work everywhere. —howcheng {chat} 20:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Its just certain people myself included think it is not appropriate material for the main page of an encyclopedia based on what is considered socially/commercially acceptable in society.

Please define "society".

"Certain people", based on their cultural norms, find the theory of evolution, religious beliefs other than their own, or photographs of unveiled women (or women in general) highly objectionable. Should we ban such content from the main page, or are your moral standards the correct ones? —David Levy 20:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The point of an encyclopedia is to expose people to information yes, but certain "information" may be questionable

And who decides which information is "questionable"? You?

in the same way certain images such as child pornography are inappropriate for the wikicommons for instance which attempts to provide as wide a scope of "encyclopedic" images as possible

You're comparing the words "gay pornography" with child pornography? Really?

Images of child pornography are images same as any other

No, they aren't. To understand why, please consider how they come to exist.

but are clearly inappropriate in the same way that certain topics are inappropriate at least for the front page of wikipedia.

You truly don't recognize the distinction?

And again, how are we to determine which topics are "inappropriate"? Whose moral standards should we apply? Yours?

Society has values on certain topics and is opinionated on certain issues like gay pornography, there's no no denying that.

Please define "society". Are you under the impression that every culture in the world shares your values? —David Levy 20:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there are some restrictions on what featured articles are permitted to hit the front page based on exactly the same judgement unless I'm mistaken. Not at any time to I consider the linkage of such topics on the main page of an encyclopedic acceptable but to me it appears even more in your face on the weekend. Not a false analogy as the gay pornography link directly links to discussion of a topic which discusses material generally considered obscene otherwise it would be advertised in the mainstream. It needn't contain graphic images to be considered inappropriate, it is the reading material of a topic generally considered obscene which is ill-suited to be directly linked on the main page. Certain topics David are taboo, almost universally so, you can't deny that, whether some gays waving colored flags fully support them or not. Again there is proof that such topics are not considered appropriate in mainstream media by the decisions which are made to not feature them and it comes down to a moral code. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Stating the words "gay pornography" is not obscene. An encyclopedia page on the topic is not obscene, though it may discuss material that IS obscene. The way you get to anything obscene requires at least three steps: clicking on the link on the main page, then clicking on the sources the article provides, and then from there possibly finding a link or reference to obscene material. If you don't want to view obscene material, it's quite simple: don't view it. No one is pushing obscenity in your face. The only thing they're pushing in your face are two words--"gay porn"--and while it's unfortunate you are offended by those two words, they're not legally obscene, they're not factually obscene, and as part of "society" (whatever you define that as), they're not going away. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 20:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It links directly on the main page to material discussing a topic generally considered obscene by society which clearly is considered so because otherwise it would be advertised and promoted in daily mainstream culture. Yes, society is a generalisation and there are obviously thousands of people who watch and enjoy gay pornography and very familiar with them. But general taboos do exist, there's no denying that. Should we as an encyclopedia make a judgement morally on individual people and activities which go on in the world? Absolutely not. I don't want wikipedia to be censored. I just think there are certain topics which stand out as ill-suited to appearing on a main page. That's my opinion, in the same way it is the opinion of media executives and govenrments who decide not to advertise pornography on daytime telvision and on billboards in the streets. They make such decisions for a reason. If gay pornography or any other "taboo" topic is generally and not harmful to anybody, why don't they endorse it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that dose of sanity Prototime. This discussion has many bad aspects. Firstly, I'm not American. Every cultural reference here is purely American. (The daytime TV programs and all that.) That highlights a fundamental problem. This is a global encyclopaedia. Every post that put this argument in an American context is of no relevance to me, or 95% of the world's population. Do the Americans posting here actually realise that? Secondly, it was just words. "Gay pornographic". There is absolutely nothing wrong with those words, in any context. They are just words. What they may link to might be questionable. I don't know. I can't be bothered looking. Do you see my point yet? Only someone wanting to look at "Gay pornographic" material would bother looking, and there's nothing wrong with that. As the good doctor above says, Wikipedia is not censored. Thirdly, the rest of the sentence where those two scary words are mentioned is actually quite negative. It's hardly a celebration of or promotion of gay porn at all. So let's be blunt. Gay porn exists. It's legal for consenting adults to access it in much of the world. To ban even mentioning here it would definitely be censorship. And we don't do that. (Well, not much anyway.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Am I wrong though HiLo48 in thinking there are some restrictions on what featured articles are permitted to hit the front page based on exactly the same judgement?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're wrong. (See my reply below.) —David Levy 21:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there are some restrictions on what featured articles are permitted to hit the front page based on exactly the same judgement unless I'm mistaken.

You're mistaken. Our featured article director has stated that he decided against making the Jenna Jameson article TFA — not because its content is objectionable, but because he doesn't want to deal with complaints to that effect. (Users have commented that he's scheduled articles more likely to draw such criticism, so we don't quite understand this decision and aren't certain that it still stands.)

The only other featured article disqualified from TFA contention was Wikipedia, which subsquently lost its FA status.

Certain topics David are taboo, almost universally so, you can't deny that, whether some gays waving colored flags fully support them or not.

Telling words. —David Levy 21:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

But I ask David why then people would complain about Jenna Jameson being on the main page in a featured article? After all, they don't have to click the article and can avoid it as pornography exists right? Why do you think so many people would complain and think it inappropriate is the point I'm trying to make.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Because some people wish to restrict the main page's content according to their personal standards (though few equate gay rights activism with pornography).

As I've commented previously, such complaints generally seem to stem more from the perception that a subject is trivial or unimportant than from anything else (hence the controversy when a Pokémon-related article appears). A word or concept perceived as "naughty" helps to stir up the sentiment.

And when the TFA blurb refers to real-life murder and dismemberment, no one says a word about protecting children from "inappropriate" content. —David Levy 21:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Well I'd agree with you that personal standards can interfere with a lot in the information world and that wikipedia is revolutionary because it attempts to rid of society's prejudices. Maybe its a 21st century norm to make it acceptable to discuss gay pornography as you eat your lunch, at least on the Internet, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who would rather not be exposed to it. even if you don't click the article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course you aren't. Likewise, many people don't wish to be exposed to the theory of evolution, religious beliefs other than their own, persons of mixed race, photographs of unveiled women (or women in general), and countless other things. Fortunately, Wikipedia forces no one to visit its main page. —David Levy 21:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

"That's my opinion, in the same way it is the opinion of media executives and govenrments who decide not to advertise pornography on daytime telvision and on billboards in the streets. They make such decisions for a reason. If gay pornography or any other "taboo" topic is generally and not harmful to anybody, why don't they endorse it?"

Your definition of "obscene" is grossly incorrect. Since media executives and government officials--in the United States, mind you, and this is an international encyclopedia--have decided not to endorse tobacco advertisements, does that make a link to tobacco "obscene"? Would you argue with equal zeal against a link to the tobacco article being placed on the main page? –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

They make decisions based on what they perceive is harmful to people. Tobacco is known to cause lung cancer. Is anal intercourse between two males the same as somebody enhaling some cigarette smoke? Why do you think they make Obscenity laws which makes it illegal to promote such subjects on mainstream daytime TV if it isn't considered a "harmful" topic. And its not just "arousing imagery" which is forbidden from mainstream media distribution such topics as a whole are generally avoided in mainstream daytime TV are they not? If so, why are they avoided? This is the point I'm trying to make, You cannot hide the fact that taboos exist in society which people, generally make decisions together and agree are not suitable. As I say I view an article appearing on the main about a gay pornographic film in the same way I would think about hearing it in a radio advert or TV advert, even without graphic imagery.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I find that attitude strange. Tipping the Velvet was a rather popular TV programme from the BBC, and I don't recall anyone objecting the the BBC's promotion of it. Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I must say I am utterly shocked that this complaint is coming from someone who's been involved with Wikipedia for six years and made more than 400,000 contributions to the project. This is somewhat worrying, to be honest. That someone who is so involved in the project can be so ignorant of basic policies and guidelines on censorship. This isn't even of the Human Centipede or the South Park episode level -- those were featured in the most prominent spot on the Main Page for twenty-four hours. We are talking about a phrase at the bottom of a section that is below the fold on most people's computers. And, as you see, almost no one has come to your defense. So, how about instead of complaining about how you or your sister are so sheltered in this 21st-century world that you can't even handle two damn words and just get over it. More embarrassing to the project than these two simple words is that we have someone contributing to a global encyclopedia as much as you do with these kinds of views. -- tariqabjotu 21:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

What amuses me greater Tariqabjotu is how many people fully support the promotion of gay pornography on the main page of wikipedia with quite some passion and the lengths they will go to defend it. |Not to mention the need they feel to insult me because I feel that such content stands out on the main page. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

There was no promotion. HiLo48 (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Featuring articles on the main page DYK or featured is promoting it as a topic because it alerts the readers to it and says "look here, here's this article". ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

"Inviting people to read about x" ≠ "promoting x". —David Levy 22:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

"The promotion of gay pornography"? By that logic, are we currently "promoting" Ponzi schemes? —David Levy 22:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've got some confessing to do. Previously, I've been a bit of a floating-voter when it comes to gay pornography. Didn't really know whether I was into it or not. In fact, because it's existence is so rarely mentioned by anyone and it is so difficult to find online, I wasn't even really aware of it. But all that has changed in the last few hours, since Wikipedia began promoting it so aggressively on the main page. In fact, I don't know why I'm even typing this. I have better things to do now.

So, whilst the idea that merely mention of the phrase "gay pornographic" could irreparably corrupt the morals of multiple English-speaking countries may sound absolutely ridiculous, I'm here to shake you all out of your sorry complacency. We may well have finally broken society with our stupidity. Our only saving grace may be that it is Sunday tomorrow, so most people don't have to get up for work anyway. Hopefully it will have worn off by Monday.

DYK has rotated now, by the way. --FormerIP (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

So you would not argue with equal zeal against a link on the main page to the tobacco article. Then clearly, your own values are the ones dictating your opinion, not "society's" values, or else you wouldn't selectively apply the "censorship standard" established by the media and government officials to only topics you personally disagree with being on the main page. I think that's all anyone in this conversation needs to know to reject your reasoning. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Truth be told I couldn't really care less about either tobacco or gay pornography! They exist and have reliable sources written about them. Yes, the discussion of gay pornographic films on my web screen whilst eating lunch strikes me as a little alarming, but not exactly going to have be tearing my hair out. I really just wanted to see if anybody was really into that sort of material appearing on the main page and its told me a lot. It seems everybody is perfectly happy to eat their lunch and read about gay porn! Thanks guys!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Not me! As far as I'm concerned, you can forget lunch from now on... FormerIP (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Really? That's not the impression I'm getting here. The impression I've got from everybody here is that they find it perfectly normal to read about gay pornography during dinner and its as normal at that hour as drinking a cup of tea and perish the thought I might find it inappropriate reading.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you must have missed my post above. I won't be eating lunch from now on, because I will be busy. FormerIP (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• How old is this sister that Dr. Blofeld is trying to protect? If she's old enough to be able to read and understand the DYK hook, which read "... that a review for the 2000 gay pornographic video A Young Man's World said its portrayal of fictional middle-aged men was demeaning to actual middle-aged men?", my guess is that she is already well aware of the existence of gay porn. --Orlady (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

She's 30 and is of the same opinion as me that it stands out as inappropriate viewing at that time of day and as a teacher she remarked that would be very embarrassing for a parent to walk into the room and see their kid looking at it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)*

What should said parent be embarrassed of except their own inadequate parenting skills? If there are certain things they don't want their child to know, for whatever reason, then allowing that child to access an uncensored encyclopedia freely is probably a bad idea. If you're implying this might happen at school - because your sister is a teacher - then that would still be a concern for said parent to raise with their child's teachers. It is not our concern, we are not substitute parents. (e • nn • en!) 01:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)