Talk:Gropecunt Lane/Archive 1

Image:Gropecunt-Lane.gif

According to various discussions, the image in question appears to be a photograph of a fake sign taken at an undisclosed pub. Further, it is a GIF file, and according to Wikipedia:Image use policy, the JPEG format should be used for photographic images. Finally, it's not clear if a "fake" image adds anything to the article, or presents any kind of legal problems for Wikipedia. Until this issue is discussed and resolved, the image should not be added back into the article. --Viriditas | Talk 07:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The photograph is not fake, is public domain (released by me) and clearly relates to the article. There are legal problems arising from copyright because I took the photograph and have released any rights I might have had. That's the only justification for removing the image, and it is not correct. Accordingly the image will be restored. Coqsportif 07:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Being fake or a copyvio are not the only reasons to remove a photograph. In this case, it's misleading (because it gives the impression that the street sign is genuine, and the street still bears that name), and unnecessary (it tells us nothing that it isn't in the article). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Coqsportif (talk · contribs) not only keeps re-adding the image, but is trying to persuade me to allow it to be left in the article, on the grounds that this will prevent it from being orphaned, and thus help it to survive IfD (for which I proposed it)... He also wants me to waste my time by explaining in the edit summaries each time why I remove it. I think that it's painfully obvious from the above discussion and the IfD why I'm removing it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Mel has embarked on a strategy to obtain the deletion of the image by orphaning it. I have repeatedly invited him to consider whether that is the appropriate course of action and to carefully reflect on the matter.

Mel proposed the image for deletion on the grounds it was fake. Having disproved that, it is now argued it is misleading (when the article copy I wrote clearly states the Gropecunt Lane in the City was renamed a long time ago) and "unnecessary" because it tells us nothing. What does a photograph of George Bush tell us about George Bush. What other image would be appropriate for the article? What would that add anyway.

In any event, Mel's arguments are not valid reasons for deleting the image, only the orphaning of the image is, as referred to above Coqsportif 11:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

So your argument is this:

1. I don't really think that the image should be removed from this article, but
2. I do think that it should be removed from Wikipedia, therefore
3. I'm removing it from the article in order to make it more likely that it will lose the IfD.

This is, of course, utterly batty, given that 1. and 2. are contradictory.

It doesn't matter whether the photo is faked or the sign is faked; either way, it's a fake. (Incidentally, you haven't disproved anything; dspite requests, you've said nothing about exactly where and when you took the photo.)

What does a photo of George Bush tell us about George Bush? It tells us what he looks like. What does this image tell us about Gropecunt Lane? Well, it tells us what a street sign would look like if a certain street in London still bore that name (which it hasn't for some two centuries).

Your other edits to the article are similarly bizarre; in what sense should this article be categorised in Category:Cities in England? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer you not to use insults like batty or bizarre. I have been very careful to treat you respectfully and would welcome reciprocity.

The image is not fake, I will happily provide the orginal to someone in responsibility at Wikipedia. Just let me know where to send it.

The photograph of the sign does indeed tell us what the street sign would look like if the campaign to reinstate the name is successful. It is therefore more consequential than a photograph of George Bush.

I won't respond to the personal abuse in your comments and ask that you not engage in any further abuse. Coqsportif 12:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Please explain why this image was deleted? Surely it would have helped illustrated the article. Of course I haven't seend the image as it is now deleted. Jooler 08:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The image was a photograph of a modern London street-sign, apparently for "Gropecunt lane". But there is no modern street in London with that title, so the sign was a fake - either a digital mock-up, or an authentic photo of a mock sign. Coqsportif eventually claimed it was the latter - photographed in a London pub, but he could not remember which one. Other editors suspected that he had simply created it himself. Paul B 09:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

And? So what? Plenty of images in Wikipedia have been created by Wikipedians. Any sign that said "Gropecunt Lane" would have to be mocked up by someone. What's the problem? Jooler

I'm not sure what point you are making. Wikipedians have certainly made many images - diagrams, maps etc. But this one was, in effect a 'fake' that was misleading. It ewould be like, say, creating an image of a non-existant 'death mask' of Shakespeare and adding it to the Shakespeare page. Paul B 21:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Well you bring up an interesting example the William Shakespeare page is illustrated with what is only an "alleged" painting of Shakespeare that is probably a fake. There is no confirmed portrait of Shakespeare! - What about the Colossus of Rhodes article - which is illustrated by a picture with the caption "This drawing of the Colossus of Rhodes ... is probably fanciful, as it is unlikely that the statue stood astride the harbor-mouth." and by another one which says "The Colossus of Rhodes, imagined in a 16th-century engraving". What about the villain article illustrated by a cartoon of a villain. What about the Jesus Christ article illustrated by many "fake" portraits of Jesus. I see no consistency in removing a picture that is used to illustrate an article because it is a mock-up. Jooler 08:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Please don't feed the trolls

Coqsportif is just trying to waste our time. This issue has been discussed already on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. --Viriditas | Talk 12:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, aside from the fact that he's been bombarding my Talk page with pleas to leave the image here, not feeding the trolls doesn't really do anything; our trolls aren't affected by feeding or starvation — they just keep on going regardless. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Shrewsbury????

This article seems a little dubious in many respects. It claims that there are still Gropecunt Lanes in Cheapside and Shrewsbury. Yet strangely I can't find these streets on any maps. The evidence for their existence is an ambiguous sentence in the Guardian and a Gay short-story website. And why are all these mysterious streets identically named "Gropecunt Lane" with no variations? Paul B 32:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I suspect that you're right — my London A to Z doesn't have it either. Be bold, and change the article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Shrewsbury has a Grope Lane, which was once known as Gropecunt Lane. David

Boldness is in the eye of the beholder

Paul, you may be right, but remember no original research. A number of things are clear from the text:

• It was a popular alley name/street name in red light districts and took various forms of Gropecunt Street, Gropecunt Lane, Gropecunt Alley etc.

• It was definitely phased out as the "c word" changed in meaning

• There are numerous sources suggesting there are residual Gropecunt Lanes.

• It is possibly the best sourced article I have seen on Wikipedia so by all means be bold but ensure that your changes are equally well sourced and verifiable.

By the way, is a Gay short story website less valid a source than a het one? Just curious.

Coqsportif 01:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

No a Gay short story website is no less likely to be reliable than a het one, it's just that that's what it was. The central point is that it is mainly concerned with fiction. The fact that it is 'gay' is only relevant to the extent that its author is interested in hidden sexual history. Paul B 10:42, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Look, it's easily verifiable. Tell us where the alley is and we can go take a look. -- Grace Note

---

1. We don't accept comments in blogs as adequate citations.
2. The stuff about Nigel Baker appears in one air-head gossip-column in The Guardian; no mention is made of his having done research on this. That doesn't look like an adequate citation for an encyclopædia either. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Baker's research is real enough - seemingly a sportive offshoot of his more conventional research into Medieval urban spaces, undertaken in collaboration with Richard Holt. It's been published in a collection of essays. Baker says that a Grope Lane (not Gropecunt Lane) still exists in Shrewsbury. I still can't verify that on any map I have access to, but accept, given his publications on Shrewsbury, that Baker is a reliable authority. Paul B 10:42, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)

addendum: It seems he is right [1] Paul B 10:48, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Picture

Would anyone feel it of value if I get a 'dark narrow ally' photo of Magpie Lane, Oxford, (if my skills and camera are up to it)? Or maybe we have someone in/near Shrewsbury that could do Grope Lane there as it's name has changed least? Darn it, now I'll have to look up where the place is and check the wikipedians by cat. Alf 20:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, sure, a picture of Grope lane in Shrewsbury would be good, especially if we can get one that shows both the sign and how the street bends. It would help make the debate about the name easier to understand. Unless Magpie lane still looks as though it's somewhere you might go for a "quicky", I doubt it would help, but if think it would, go for it. Paul B 20:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I have found a wikipedian in Shrewsbury and have asked for his assistance. Alf 22:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't really think that a photo of Magpie Lane would be of much help, to be honest (otherwise I could take it myself, possibly bumping into Alf); it's narrow, but no more than any of the similar lanes leading off the High, and rather too public for anyone to consider it for a sexual encounter... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Speak for yourself, Mel; some people like that sort of thing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:39, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Aha — the unlurking. I was, of course, tailoring my comments to the audience that I thought I had... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

David has kindly allowed me to upload one of his pictures of Grope Lane, so should be there soon. Alf 16:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Image:GropeLane.jpg The following is copied from my talk page: "The photos are mine and are free to be used by anyone so long as it's not for profitable purposes. You can also use any information from the articles written by me (ie Proud Salopian) as it's all common knowledge anyway - I get my information from various sources, etc. But the photos are mine and on Wiki can be used freely. David". Alf 17:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• We don't really want images under non-commericial licenses. If it needs to be in the article someone will have to go take a GFDL one.. Secretlondon 21:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Eh?! I took that picture. It's mine. I am a Wikipedian. I want it to be used. What's the problem?! David.

That we couldn't use it with "not for profitable purposes.". That means non-commercial only. Wikipedia doesn't want images with those restrictions. I've changed it to the GFDL license after you removed the non commercial tag. Secretlondon 00:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Image?

File:Gropecunt-Lane.JPG

I see there has been a previous discussion on a supposedly fake image. Is commons:Image:Gropecunt-Lane.JPG the same image? dewet|™ 16:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yup, that's the one. Paul B 22:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

definately existed

A gropecunt lane in cheapside was mentioned as existing prior to th great fire of london.[2]

no-one disputes that.Paul B 01:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

threadneedle

I was just going to add a link to threadneedle street, unless anyone has any objections WookMuff 20:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Threadneedle Street is probably the most famous street to have been called Gropecunt Lane too. Even it's modern name reflects that. It's amazing that it's not in the article.

Threadneedle Street has nothing to do with prostitutes. It gets its name from the three needles in the coat of arms of the Worshipful Company of Needlemakers. Gropecuntlane ran north to south between Cheapside and Pancras Lane, roughly where No.80 Cheapside now stands. Grub Street was never Grope Street, nor was it Gropecuntlane. It was Grub Street, and is famous enough for being the home of hack writing as mentioned in Pope's Dunciad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.56.255 (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Newcastle

Which Newcastle street (if it exists today) was known as Gropecunt Lane? 217.155.20.163 21:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't exist anymore, since the whole town was reveloped by Grainger. Paul B 21:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, he didn't redevelop the whole town - some very old streets still survive, particularly in the vicinity of the Quayside/Sandgate, and I thought it possible (at a long shot!) that the street might exist in a renamed form today. 217.155.20.163 18:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

linked from digg

This article is about to become a front-page story on Digg, so I placed a high-traffic template on the talk page. ThreeDee912 06:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Grape Lane

In support of the "citation needed" by a mention of Gropecunt Lanes becoming Grape Lanes, Durham has a Grape Lane (54.775482,-1.581613) and I was once told by a History Lecturer that it traced its etymology this way. 87.194.118.205 (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wells

In lieu of a better source, I'm posting this image into talk while I consider what to do with it. One of the sources in the article does say that the street is still extant, but I deleted it as I couldn't find the street - if this image is correct, it would explain why. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Threadneedle

I'm fairly confident that the Threadneedle Gropecunt and Bordhawelane Gropecunts are one and the same - they're very close. I've seen mention on various unreliable websites that the Bordhawelane lane is near Queen Street and Pancras Lane. On the older 19th century maps there is a small network of narrow streets there, but they are not named. Sherbourne Lane is also in the immediate vicinity. I'll wait and see what the Lynne Bevan book says, but the precise location may be fairly ambiguous. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This source writes The property lay between Gropecunt Lane to the W., Bordhaw Lane and 105/2 to the E., Cheapside to the N., and the tenement of the rector of St. Pancras to the S and In 1540 the city viewers inspected a stone wall, belonging to Barnes, on the E. side of his property in St. Pancras parish, adjoining the tenement belonging to the churchwardens of St. Christopher le Stocks (105/1). The properties adjoined for a length N.-S. of 45 ft. (13.72 m.). The width of Barnes' tenement between 105/2 and 'Tupkyrtell' (Gropecunt) Lane was said to be 30 ft. 7 in. (9.32 m.) at the N. end and 36 ft. 4 in. (11.07 m.) at the S. end, but these 2 figures do not agree with a fuller view and description made in 1542.

This makes mention of a 'Popkirtle (Pupkyrtell, Tupkyrtell) Lane' which probably translates as Popkirtle Lane. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Unused material

Placed here so it isn't lost

It runs from The High between University and Oriel to Merton Street, and then on between Merton and Corpus down to Christ Church Meadow. The section north of Merton Street is called Magpie Lane, but the southern part is still called Merton Grove, and the Victorian building in the south-western corner of Merton is also called Grove. The presence of a number of trees in this area perhaps suggested the name — until it was leased in 1513 for building, the site of Corpus was planted as an orchard and used as a garden for the junior members of Merton.

Dublin's Gropecunt Lane was located near where the Savoy Cinema is now.

Our study is that these lanes seemed to be centres of prostitution and all the ones we can track down are associated with the market place or high street. The news is that prostitution was not banished to the suburbs – it was going on in the town centre as part and parcel of normal marketing activity

— Nigel Baker

Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Baker's quote would slot perfectly into the article, just after "Such streets were almost always centrally located". It nicely explains the implications of the study and I don't think it's too tangential. Nev1 (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I just need to find from where the quote was taken :) It isn't in the book. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Women's names

Somewhere recently I have the distinct memory of reading about the word 'cunt' being used in medieval women's surnames, and not as a derogatory term. I haven't been able to find it since. Its a pity as it would make a useful addition to the article. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You may have been thinking of Bele Wydecunte. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

1230

The OED certainly does use Ekwall's book on the street-names of London as a source for the earliest use of the word, but Ekwall is referring to Gropecuntelane in Oxford, 1230. Ekwall's first use in London was 1279. Ekwall, Eilert (1954), Street-names of the city of London, Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 164–5 Mr Stephen (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I only just noticed this. The OED states "c1230 in Ekwall Street-Names of City of London (1954) 165 Gropecuntelane." Is their entry therefore incorrect, and if so, and you have that book, would you mind correcting it for me? Also, what does it say about Addle, Fetter, and Shiteburn? Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Their entry is correct, it is the interpretation here (that Ekwall is dating a name in London) that needs fixing. I will do that later. Addle, Sherborne, and Fetter are all there. Mr Stephen (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Addle St: sometimes Watling St but sometimes from Addelane, lane full of cow-dung (OE "adela" filth, liquid manure). Sherborn Lane: many variations, earliest Shitteborwelane 1272–3 (probably from OE "scitan", to void excrements). Fetter Lane: earliest Faytureslane 1292 (ME faitor, impostor, cheat, esp a vagran who shams illness). Mr Stephen (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind putting some of that into the article? I'm not sure of the best format but as a text reference in the notes section perhaps? The FAC boys will no doubt flag it if it isn't quite correct for the MOS. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Norwich

I was going to add 'named after Amelia Opie' into ' Norwich's Gropekuntelane (now Opie Street)', until I saw the 'k'. Sandred and Lindstrom The place-names of Norfolk. 1. The place-names of the city of Norwich, EPNS 1989, doesnt have a 'k', it has a 'c'. Where has the 'k' come from? Mr Stephen (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Holt-Baker page 202 - "gropecuntelane (alternatively gropekuntelane) in norwich - now opie street - was also recorded in latin as...". Does your source state when the street was so renamed? I believe it may have been known as "The Devil's Steps" which certainly alludes to a bit of naughtiness, and would be a worthwhile addition to the article. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it does. Gropecuntelane 1305, 1308 in the rolls of the bailiffs' courts. Turpis vicus 1333 (& several other dates) in other sources. Opie Street 1885 OS (prob Ordnance Survey?). Also, "We have not been able to verify the names 'Evil Whore's Lane' and 'Devil's Steps' mentioned by Nobbs". Mr Stephen (talk) 06:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Annoyingly the earliest map of Norwich on www.old-maps.co.uk is 1887! Does your source state in which book or map the street is Turpis Vicus? Its always nice to get as close to the original source as we can. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok I checked a few sources, it was Opie St by 1873, in 1848 or 1849 Opie St doesn't exist, there are buildings in the way and a narrow alley a few dozen yards to the east. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Be careful, some of those maps don't have north at the top. If you look at this map of 1830 and go to the extreme bottom right. You should see the castle ditch. At about 2 o'clock there is a decent-sized road running vertically towards London Street. I think that's Opie Street. Mr Stephen (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that the narrow lane of which you speak is probably what's left of Gropecunt Lane. It certainly appears to be in the same area as that shown in the map on the Holt-Baker book although not strictly on the same alignment. 500 years is a long time. I would guess that what happened was the old buildings were knocked down, new ones built in their place, and a brand new Opie Street just a few yards to the west was created at the same time. Its all conjecture though unless someone actually goes and looks at the full size maps, which may well be in a library in Norwich. Based on my guesswork (although I'm no expert) I wouldn't include Amelia Opie, but if something can be found that suggests that the Devil's Step was the same street as Gropecunt Lane and that it was knocked down and replaced with Opie St, I'd probably reverse that position. I think I'll try and find a copy of the Historic Towns Atlas and have a look around. I'm still interested to know about Grape Street in Manchester - it no longer exists, but it once did (near Quay St) and it also pointed to the river - just like the Gropecunt in Newcastle. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Sandred, K.I.; Lindstrom, B. (1989), The place-names of Norfolk. 1. The place-names of the City of Norwich, vol. LXI, English Place-Names Society, p. 122. Gropecuntelane 1305, 1308 R; Turpis Vicus 1333, 1468, 1490 K, 1346 1397 NoRec, 1415 1426 OR; Opie Street 1885 OS. This is a thoroughfare from London Street to Castle Meadow. Kirkpatrick's references to the vernacular form of the name OE grāpian 'grope' + ME cunt + lane were suppressed by Hudson (K59 note 6). The name was a common one in Medieval England. We have not been able to verify the names 'Evil Whore's Lane' and 'Devil's Steps' mentioned by Nobbs. The present name comemorates Amelia Opie (1769–1853), a novelist. R is the Bailiffs' court rolls in the NfRO. K is J. Kirkpatrick, The streets and lanes of the City of Norwich [c1720] ed W Hudson, Norwich 1889.

That's all I wrote. NfRO I guess is the Norfolk records office and NoRec the Norwich records; OR [I'm not sure]. OS is almost certainly Ordnance survey. Nobbs - no idea. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly there appears to have been a whores lane in Norwich. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, in Whitby and here again (see the footnote). While these are old books and probably not completely reliable, they are quite interesting all the same. Another one here.Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Relevant? or not?

I removed the following:

Selous Street in London was renamed as a mark of respect for Nelson Mandela, as the existing name could have been confused with the colonialist Frederick Selous, although the street was actually named after Henry Courtney Selous, the artist.

It was reverted, with the comment "text demonstrates modern need to rename streets in line with current sensibilities". I don't think it sufficiently demonstrates such a thing; the reader will have no idea after reading the Frederic Selous article why a city might choose to rename the street (in fact, the reader would be quite confused, as that article is something of a hagiography); and reading the Chris Partridge article doesn't help either; one needs a lot more context to understand why it's the same sort of thing as the other street name changes. Perhaps a better demonstration might be found; this one would have to be pretty belabored, going into the left-wing politics of the Camden council, political correctness, and so on. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Its there as an example of a modern change in a street name to suit current sensibilities. It matters not that the subject is unrelated - it just helps to demonstrate that this kind of renaming has been going on for centuries and is based more on perception rather than anything else. I'd be happy if you could find a closer match, to be honest I haven't given it much thought, I've been attempting to work out if Charles St/Grape St in Manchester was once full of prostitutes. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I do understand why it's there; I just don't think it's doing its job. I'll hunt around; certainly there have been other renamings motivated by changing norms of political acceptability. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

How about this? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well this article is about the street name in England, so I would say that that article would be less applicable. I've had a look around for other relevant street names but haven't yet found anything. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

What was the name of Selous street changed to? Nelson Mandela Street? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.168.90 (talk) 06:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I thought the section was about renaming streets due to changing mores. If you feel it needs to be restricted to English streets, I won't waste my time searching anymore. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There are similair examples in the renaming of streets in London's docklands in the 80s as the are went upmarket. Surrey docks was renamed to Surrey Quays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.70.209 (talk) 03:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Timberframe's edits

A conversation which began on Timberframe's talk page:

Hi, I reverted your edits. I accidently used rollback so was unable to explain why, but please allow me to explain here.

• "Streets with that name were often in the busiest parts of medieval towns and cities, and at in least one instance appears to have been an important thoroughfare." - this is, I believe, the proper grammatical structure. Your revision makes it unclear as to exactly what is being discussed.
• "The first record of the word "grope" being used in the indecent sense of sexual touching appears" - this is a direct reference to the OED entry for the word - indecent is the exact term used.
• " and in 1285 French prostitutes in Montpellier were confined to a single street." - this is used as a further example to demonstrate that such activities were not confined to England.

Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Parrot! Thanks for taking time to explain. Taking your points in turn:

• I can't get my head around "at in least" - perhaps I'm just being thick. I'm ok with "in one instance..." and with "at least one", but I don't get "at in least one instance" at all - help!
• Mea culpa, I committed the cardinal sin of not checking whether the wording is taken verbatim from the ref.
• This would be relevant to an essay on prostitution, even the association of particular streets with prostitution, but I'm not convinced that it has sufficient bearing on a peculiarly English street name to be included here; I think it's a bit of a distracting ramble into a different article. Feel free to convince me otherwise.

-- Timberframe (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with what you're saying. I wasn't at all sure about that Montpelier reference either. Let me have another think about that problematic sentence and see what I can come up with. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Rewritten as "Streets with that name were often in the busiest parts of medieval towns and cities, and at least one appears to have been an important thoroughfare." Seems more direct to me, hopefully to everyone else as well. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Well the first point is past history now but on the third point - I'm happy to go with whatever consensus we can form on that. I'd like it to remain. There are more instances quoted in the reference, but I don't like to copy too much from it. I wonder if we could find another source that gives another example of regulation of medieval prostitution? Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Fatuorum's version works for me and conveys the same meaning as I think Parrot and I intended; thanks for that. I'd be happy with examples of medieval regulation of prostitution if they were associated with the area / street to which the regulation applied adopting an associated name, as an illustration of the context in which Gropecunt came to be used. Otherwise, as with Montpelier, it seems too far removed from the core subject of this article. From "Etymology of Gropecunt Lane" to "area where prostitution was concentrated" to "concentration due to regulation" to either "similar regulation in another country" or "other aspects of regulated prostitution" just seems to be too many degrees of separation. Not that it isn't an interesting topic, perhaps a paranthetical "see also" would be in order. -- Timberframe (talk) 08:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Anyone know how to format these blasted things? (pronounced /groʊpkʌnt/ /leɪn/)? Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. garik (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The template adds 'pronounced' so I removed the extra instance. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

D'oh! garik (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Since the article deals with English towns, shouldn't the "o" sound be /əʊ/ instead of the more American /oʊ/? 82.24.182.239 (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Wictionary

I'm not at all certain that its necessary to include the Wiktionary links to Grope and Cunt, especially as neither is referenced. Even were they to be referenced, I'm not sure they would add anything to the article. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

If they were to be included, I think it should be in the external links section rather than in the middle of the article where it look incongruous. I also don't think they're necessary as the terms are explained in the article. Nev1 (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I added the links as I felt they offered the opportunity for this article not to dwell on the meanings of the components of the name but to concentrate instead on the use of the road name. The Wiktionary entries might get updated with some new etymology (ok, not highly likely but still possible), and the links from here would offer that new information directly without it needing to be copied.

I have no strong feelings about the placement of the links other than that it felt more intuitive to put them near where the component words were being introduced. Move them to a referenced footnote if that feels more natural and I'll be just as happy.

--ClickRick (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Cities

Do we need to link some of the cities in this article? York, Bristol, Oxford and others are listed/mentioned, but not linked. Under normal circumstances, I would expect these wikilinked. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

They were, once, but an editor removed them. I have no real preference on that so I just left them alone. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistency between lead and body

Hello, I noticed that in the lead of the article, it says Gropecunt, the earliest known use of which is in about 1230, appears to have been derived as a compound of the words "grope" and "cunt" but in the body of the article under Toponymy it says The first record of the word "grope" being used in the indecent sense of sexual touching appears in 1380. For the name of the street to be a combination of "grope" and "cunt" the word grope must have been used as a description of a sexual action before 1380, or the use of the street name cannot date to 1230, or thirdly, the original "gropecunt" street names must be derived from some other word/meaning. If I am missing something, and these statements do not contradict one another, please let me know. The Seeker 4 Talk 01:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not stating that the word grope was first used in a sexual sense in 1380, but that it was first recorded in that sense in 1380. Nev1 (talk) 01:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but wouldn't it be necessary to establish with written records that "grope" was used in that way in order to say the street name "gropecunt" is derived from those two meanings? I am not personally familiar with the norms in this area of scholarship but it seems to be inconsistent since nothing explains why the dates don't match. I am not sure it is a problem, which is why I brought it here instead of editing the article, but it just seems to contradict itself to me. The Seeker 4 Talk 01:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You may have a point, but this article reflects only the research already done on the matter, offering supporting evidence from the OED and other sources. For an encyclopaedic entry it may be worth including a line to the effect of what you have said, but the article must not be seen to form its own opinions on the matter. By the way the OED gives many instances of 'grope' being in use well before the 13th century (and not in a sexual sense), so this may be a case of the street name influencing the meaning of the word, rather than the word begetting the street name. Again though, that would be wp:or and has no place in the article. Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The Definition of "Cunt"

The article says:

The Oxford English Dictionary lists the word "cunt" as "Applied to a person, esp. a woman, as a term of vulgar abuse",[5] but during the Middle Ages the word was often considered merely vulgar, having been in common use in its anatomical sense since at least the 13th century.

The implication of the sentence above seems to be that the term "cunt" was a vulgar term (presumably for the female genitalia) in the Middle Ages, but is now a term of abuse for women.

Despite the citation from the OED, I would like to question this sentence. I don't have access to the Oxford dictionary, but I would be very surprised if "Applied to a person, esp. a woman, as a term of vulgar abuse" was the primary meaning of "cunt" in the OED. The problem is that the use of the word "cunt" as a vulgar term of abuse for women appears to be primarily an American usage. As an Australian English speaker, my experience is that "cunt" is (1) a vulgar term for the female genitalia, (2) a general expletive or term of abuse. In other words, in its primary sense, the meaning of the term has not changed at all, merely its degree of vulgarity and ability to shock. The fact that modern American speakers may feel that "cunt" is a sexist term of abuse for women may be relevant as a caveat for American readers, but to imply that the sexist term of abuse is the primary sense of the term, with a citation from the OED, actually distorts the facts.

I would suggest that the sentence should be modified to remove the incorrect implication.

Bathrobe (talk) 02:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The definition quoted in this article is the secondary meaning given by the OED. The primary meaning in the OED is "The female external genital organs". (I'm using the online version of the dictionary, btw.) Zagalejo^^^ 06:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I had the same reaction and have made the change. In the next sentence, I also de-euphemized "crotch" to "genitals" in the Miller's Tale gloss, for "queynte", which OED defines as

[< QUAINT adj. (compare later QUAINT n.2), either punningly after CUNT n. or as a euphemistic substitution for that word.]

The female external genitals. Cf. CUNT n.

Thnidu (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so it isn't the definition I understood it to be, i.e. the other editor in an edit war? --WebHamster 23:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Who are the main contributors to this article? I'd like to thank them for making my day.--CM (talk) 02:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Hah. --66.188.136.97 (talk) 02:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if you're asking seriously, but here's your answer. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 02:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

A most excellent choice of article, many thanks :) Aggamemnon (talk) 08:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This has got to be the best FA class article ever. Good luck keeping the vandals from the walls on this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.207.232.53 (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Iwas only have serious. I haven't been on for a long time and forgot the link. Two people, that doesn't seem unlikely.--CM (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree... Thanks to the contributors of this article. It brought a smile to my face, and taught me something new; that is exactly why I come to Wikipedia.

If the Romans placed the Fascinum on their streets of ill-repute... I wonder what the medieval English put on the street to mark Gropecunt Lane for the illiterate? Azoreg (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The Main Page

I find the inclusion of this article on the Main Page most satisfying. Many thanks to all those who worked it up to FA standard. Crafty (talk) 02:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well written, interesting, new info to me. But the inclusion of this article (with the words that it highlights) on the main page is irresponsible. It sends the message that if this is appropriate content for the main page then the content is and should be appropriate in any context. I'm speaking with regards to children. Respectfully. Grecosalata (talk) 04:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOT#CENSORED; Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern! Wikipedia is not censored except in cases of obvious inappropriate content such as clear vandalism or links to shock sites.

"Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available."

Personally, I think that the phrase that you're probably finding objectionable, "Gropecunt, the earliest known use of which is in about 1230, appears to have been derived as a compound of the words "grope" and "cunt".", is the most suitable version, as it explains the origin of the word in a succinct and easy to understand manner, whereas if you made the references oblique, it would cause many readers to become confused. -- ScaldingHotSoup ^(talk) 04:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

True but the main page is censored. See the list of featured images Howcheng has said will never place there; the FA Jenna Jameson has also been vetoed from ever appearing. It seems to me a bit hypocritical to allow this article, and links to cunt, but not a defaecating bird. 82.28.130.10 (talk) 09:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for the day when the defaecating bird will make it to the front page. Azoreg (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a substitute for parenting. To attempt to act in any way as such would itself be irresponsible. Wikipedia is not and is not trying to be the way all of life should be run, and the Main Page is not the litmus for what is acceptable in whatever culture a reader identifies with. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 04:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all of the liberal views expressed here. But I do disagree that making this a FA represents poor judgement and may bring Wikipedia into a degree of disrepute. There will be countless school classes taking place today where the teacher will pull up Wikipedia as an example of collaborative working, best practice, accessible information etc. And what they'll get is a classroom of school kids titillated by words which many find deeply offensive. Just because you can do something, doesn't always mean you should. However, I also see the difficulties if this logic is expressed across many many subjects (e.g. religion, territorial claims etc etc). Larkim (talk) 07:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

A lot of dedicated editors worked hard to bring this article up to the standard required for it to be featured on our Main Page. Their efforts should not be denied simply because some people feel a bit squeamish over the use of the word 'cunt'. Further the "ONOEZ WON"T SOMEONE THINK OF TEH CHILDREN" argument really has been addressed already. Crafty (talk) 08:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Call me a cynic, but (despite the dedication of the editors!) I strongly suspect that the reason this article has been well researched is purely and simply because of the titillating factor!! Of course its interesting, and of course Wikipedia should not censor itself. But I get the daily summary of FAs in my inbox at work, and to have the word "cunt" appear in my inbox falls outside of the standards that I believe Wikiepedia should be promoting. My Chambers dictionary at home has "cunt", plus plenty of other words included which are offensive, and that is right. But it doesn't use them on the dust cover as examples of how it defines words. Wikipedia's own reputation can only be harmed by promoting this article to FA. No matter how good the article is (and I agree, it doesn't even come close to being titillating) it will be a very simple (factually incorrect) story in the mainstream press which will trivialise Wikipedia, and that will be a shame. However, I appear to be in a minority with this opinion, and I accept that, and am glad we can debate it. Larkim (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that an encyclopaedia should suffer censorship to avoid problems like this, and honestly I don't see how a classroom with offended children is a problem. The subject matter is dealt with dispassionately, from wholly reliable source material, and is (in my opinion) a good example of how English street names were heavily influenced by the trades which occurred on them. Its an important part of our geographical history and deserves mention. Hopefully the inclusion of this article on the front page will spur some people (including children and teachers) to learn more about the more curious aspects of our history. As the article says, 'cunt' was once a relatively innocuous word. There is no real reason why it should not be so again. Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the vandalism rate has shot up recently. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Has it? I should have thought that this might have the opposite effect. If we have this as I front page featured article, then maybe some of the kids who put in rude words to offend us might feel that there is little chance of successfully doing so.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

While I have no problem with the word "cunt", my only concern is that filtering software in many schools will be blocking access to Wikipedia's front page today. --Joowwww (talk) 10:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

While this is not universal, schools in Australia are currently on their winter break. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm anticipating more comments on this during US working hours. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Brave choice for FA and front page. Good to see wikipedia is genuinely sticking to it's not-censored philosophy. siarach (talk) 11:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I've already handled seven OTRS complaints on this :/ Stifle (talk) 13:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yay for boilerplates! ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 13:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Anything in the complaints not covered in our fabulous new FAQ, Stifle? --Moni3 (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Very pleased to see it on the front page, good call and good work to all involved. Paulbrock (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

<--Outdent: Just as a matter of interest, re the comment above about Jenna Jameson - where is the discussion relating to that article never appearing on the main page? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Great FA, really glad that this got through the vetting procedure. I have to say that rather than damaging wikipedia's reputation as some assume I think it'll improve it - at least among those who aren't automatically offended that we used a naughty word on the main page - as it shows we can create a well researched, sourced impartial, factual and mature article from any subject, and that its treated just like any other article. AllanHainey (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

There are millions of pages on WP that are more appropriate for the front. This one was chosen just because of its lewd content. Shame on all of you. Also, those of you who think this place isn't censored are either naive or outright liars, there is a colossal amount of political censorship going on.69.138.153.225 (talk) 04:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

As a representative of one of the many users on Wikipedia, I thoroughly apologise that we do not meet the expectations of User:69.138.153.225, because we are outright political censors, and such vulgar people. After all, that is a wonderful generalization of all Wikipedia. (ahem...) -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

As a Whitby resident, I have added a parenthesis to the example of Whitby's Grape Lane, mentioning that Captain James Cook lived there for a while. Tihs can be seen if one visits the museum that still stands there. (ds (talk) 12:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

Hoax?

I admit that I haven't searched the original sources referenced, but the premise of this article doesn't pass the smell test.

I suspect it is another example of False etymology because English spelling was not standardized until fairly recently, and any consistent spelling across the centuries raises my suspicions. When one considers that the writing was based (inconsistently) upon the sounds of the words, with accents varying and words being slurred and otherwise corrupted over time, this seems too titillatingly good to be true.

It is the sort of hoax I might have carried out myself in my juvenile days, which may be one reason I hear alarm bells. Sincere or hoax, one must always be cautious of folk etymology.

(I reacently read an account of book of London street names and their origins that claimed Bleeding Heart Court was so named because of the artifacts of a murder there. Of course that is fanciful explanation and any historian would immediately sense that the name really comes from the heraldry of a previous owner of the area. Unfortunately, the canard will survive because, having appeared in a published book, it will be cited by future unsuspecting researchers.)

I could be 100% wrong about this, bur for the meanwhile, color me skeptical. (And if I'm right, quiet but only brief admiration (from my juvenile days) to those who pulled it off.) --StanZegel (talk) 05:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not significantly involved in the article, but I can assure you it's not a hoax. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ditto for not being involved, and ditto for it not being a hoax. This has been discussed in many books about the history of the English language. Also check out the ref list. Manning (talk) 07:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw something on tv ages ago presented by Germaine Greer where she discussed the development of the word 'cunt' and brought these streets up. Not that I can be bothered to find the citation, but it's real. 94.193.10.120 (talk) 08:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The article is not a hoax. The street name was quite real. Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I am a little skeptical also. I am having trouble finding references to the name in the online sources the article mentions. I can't even find reference to "Parson's Lane" in reference #34. I am requesting a library book to look further. Does anyone have a link that verifies this? 75.159.232.28 (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Page 38 of this book preview seems to verify: Medieval Yorkshire Towns. 75.159.232.28 (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Why oh why...

Why oh why was this article not kept in reserve for next year's April 1 main page FA? It would have been perfect. Manning (talk) 07:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought so too, but Parrot of Doom and Malleus Fatuorum (the article's primary contributors) both preferred that article be run today. However, Parrot has "volunteered a more suitable article, which hopefully will be FA by that time, in Mary Tofts." —David Levy 07:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite possibly because it isn't a joke, but rather a genuine street name? Velkyal (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

But we never run jokes on the main page on april fool's day, we run perfectly accurate but intentionally misleading summaries (see WP:AFMP). However, given the wishes of the contributors and the huge amount of discussion this article has generated, I think not using it on april fool's day was a good decision. Modest Genius ^talk 16:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Map & FA status?

The map File:Bread street ward and Cordwainer ward 1720 john stow with streets highlighted.jpg says that it is in the public domain. However if you go to the source image it is clearly watermarked (and is cropped off the wikipedia version) "(c) Sara Douglass Enterprises". Added to that the blue bits referred to in the caption are not on the original source, are not a road or path on the original and no mention of Gropecunt Lane appears on that image. This makes the whole article stink as a bad joke. Whatever..., it is not deserving a featured article status. -- SGBailey (talk) 09:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The map in the source cannot be copyrighted. The website cannot claim ownership of it, since it is a derivative work of a map made by a man who died far more than 70 years ago. It is irrelevant what watermark they use. If you read the article you will see in the image caption that a source is given (holt-baker) for the streets that have been highlighted. I would have included the map from the holt-baker source, but I could not reliably ascertain the copyright status of that since I do not have access to the source material which they used.

If you can source me a copy of the Historic Towns Atlas then I will gladly use the older map in there. Perhaps you'd be willing to help? Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a featured article - this shows precisely why wikipedia will never be taken seriously! And the wikinazi's deleting any comment remotely criticising wikipedia can only further damage wikipedia. 124.185.146.184 (talk) 11:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

And you will be taken seriously? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

FAQ?

Anyone think it might be time for a FAQ to answer some of the questions this article will inevitably get throughout the day? --Moni3 (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a one question two question FAQ with one answer:

Q1) (every forseeable question about this article)

A1) Please see WP:NOTCENSORED. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Q2) How did an article like this become featured?

A2) See WP:WIAFA. What is your specific objection?

Q2A) See Q1...

So ammended... Fine, but we all see where that one is going as well. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The question below indicates a general unfamiliarity with the criteria for a featured article. So that's two questions. I'm for short FAQs. --Moni3 (talk) 12:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The FAQ template at the top of this page does not seem to wrok properly: I can't see the answers until I click on "edit". Richard75 (talk) 13:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That's because this page needed to be "purged" (i.e. the cache dumped and updated). I took care of that. You should be able to read the full FAQ now. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Silly

Big waste of time. This is silly and reflects badly on Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with a slippery slope. Any knuckle head would consider this 9th grade naughtiness. It's just not worth FA status.Longinus876 (talk) 12:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

If that is your opinion, I doubt you've read more than the title of the article before judging it. The article is impeccably sourced, comprehensive, and well written, standards which every article on wikipedia should aim for; just because it's not a subject you deem worthy does not mean the article isn't good. Nev1 (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to excuse me for not paying much attention to one who has twice been warned about his edits to articles on this encyclopaedia. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Do not feel the trolls. :) SGGH ^ping! 13:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm going to assume good faith on that user's part and not call him names, but I agree his premise is...poor. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I have to agree with Longinus876. It reflects badly on WP to have this as the FA. I'm *certainly* no prude (far from it) and I did read the article before posting. Yes it is well sources and written but IMHO it doesn't matter. Having cunt as one of the first words you see on WP is just bad. Robert Brockway (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. If an article can get up to the standards required for Featured status, they deserve to be featured as much as the next article. Ironholds (talk) 14:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be a standard response. This isn't about censorship it is about good taste. I don't have a problem with the article appearing in WP, in fact I found it interesting. I do have a problem with it appearing on the main page as that is what people will see when they first come to the encyclopedia, regardless of what it is they want to view. I'll just reiterate that I think this relfects badly on WP. I'll say no more on the subject. What's done is done. Robert Brockway (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I was involved in a discussion and vehemently and vociferously opposed to placing Super Columbine Massacre RPG! on the main page this past April 20, which was the 10th anniversary of the Columbine shootings. To me, a former resident of the Denver area, that seemed to be deliberately provocative. This article is much less so, and given a few days I might be able to put into words why. --Moni3 (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

" I'll just reiterate that I think this relfects badly on WP." - why should your modern sensibilities in any way affect the treatment of Featured Articles on Wikipedia? I find many things offensive. It doesn't stop me reading about them, or wanting to know more. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Given that Longinus876 has a stunning 41 edits including 13 mainspace he may wish to temper his outrage, and while I'm not saying that large edits counts are needed for an opinion the editors of this page have made the effort to get an article to FA status, and if you have a problem with this being on the main page then talk to Raul. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

External links

Is there a 'box' for wikitionary links to both cunt and grope that could serve better than the two bullet pointed links? Or even just merge them into one bullet point containing both? SGGH ^ping! 13:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Cunt has an entire article, with detailed etymology. Paul B (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood my point. I simply wondered if it would be more visually pleasant to change:

• The dictionary definition of grope at Wiktionary
• The dictionary definition of cunt at Wiktionary

To a box for wikitionary links for cunt and grope in the style of the below, but for wikitionary, not commons. SGGH ^ping! 13:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Like...{{wiktionary}}?  Skomorokh  13:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Presumably! Added per WP:BOLD, feel free to revert if wish to discuss. SGGH ^ping! 13:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Petticoat Lane

Really like the article and have no issues with the FA status but I think Petticoat Lane has possibly been mis-used as an example of prostitution in the area. It was named because of the sale of petticoats in the area, which was an area where succesive waves of immigrants tended to settle (from what I know, similar to the lower East side of NY and in this instance I think the Hugenots). It was renamed Middlesex Street during the Victorian era to reflect the somewhat prudish values of the age. I can't remember the exact details, but worked nearby until recently and have quite a geeks interest in things like this -also I now work in a bookshop, so my be able to dig out references. 213.122.175.236 (talk) 13:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The source used (Ditmore) does make a few mistakes (for instance, confusing Threadneedle Street with Gropecunt Lane, and also presuming Cock's Lane is related to prostitution). You can see this by clicking the number next to the Petticoat text, noting the page number, then clicking that reference, and then clicking the highlighted book in the bibliography section. Then click 'preview', and navigate to the page number. If you can offer a reliable source that backs up your claim, we can change the article text to include the comments you have made. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

PS - if you can demonstrate the above, it'd still be a worthwhile entry, demonstrating that modern sensibilities were responsible for the change in street names. We'd need the book author, title, publisher, page number(s), isbn, and year of publication. A link would also be helpful. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to make wholesale changes or anything, just querying the use of Petticoat Lane specifically. Anyway, here's what I've got

"...before long, Huguenot silk weavers were selling their fares here and the street soon acquired the nickname "Petticoat Lane" on account of the silk petticoats on sale. In 1830 complaints about the street being named after an item of underwear led to the authorities renaming it Middlesex Street...." Earlier in the entry it says it was formally Hog Lane but doesn't give dates. The quote is taken directly from; Glinert, The London Compendium, Penguin, pg 289, 9780141012131, 2003. An entry in The London Encyclopedia says much the same thing with no real link to prostitution. 213.122.175.236 (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok give me a few minutes, I'll make a change that reflects this. By the way, have you considered registering an account? Working in a bookshop would place you in an ideal position to make a positive contribution to Wikipedia. Editing articles can be very satisfying. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I've made the changes based on the information you've provided. You can see the difference here. Is this ok? Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That seems fine from my POV. 213.122.175.236 (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Why was it listed as Ditmore in the first place? Ditmore is just the editor of the book. The actual author of the encyclopaedia entry is Angus McIntyre, as stated at the end of the entry. An error of authorship in a citation is something that FA reviewers really should have spotted. It does suggest, moreover, that no-one actually read the whole of the entry being cited. Uncle G (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed, thankyou for spotting that. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Heh, I've seen worse. John Churchill went through FAC with a bit saying he served as Master of the Rolls. You would think with none of his biographies ever mentioning this it would be a different John Churchill, but nobody picked up on it. Ironholds (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • That's an individual preference in citing a specific work that has multiple contributors. I have done it as well, particularly in compilations. To use a chapter or entry written by one contributor it would have to be cited as a journal entry such as citation #32 in Restoration of the Everglades. Either way is acceptable. --Moni3 (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Listing the correct author should not be an "individual preference". First, it's a matter of correctness. Second, identifying the author is a necessary part of determining the reliability of a source.

      And no, encyclopaedia entries don't have to be cited as journals. We have {{cite encyclopaedia}}. Uncle G (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

      • There's nothing mysterious about the citation. It tells you exactly where to look to verify information. I don't use citation templates and usually avoid citing other encyclopedias. Note: I did not participate in constructing this article, but I participate in constructing other FAs and am speaking to the way things are generally cited in FAs. Cite templates are often incorrect, have bugs, and are difficult to type, find, and tailor to each type of source. They're confusing and difficult to read around when constructing wikicode. You appear to be calling into question the reliability of the source and its authority. I cannot speak to that specifically, but more generically, it is obviously endorsed by a third party, its editor. --Moni3 (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
        • It's not mystery, but correctness, that is the issue. If citing the wrong person as the author of a work is "the way things are generally cited in FAs", then I strongly recommend that you look to rectifying that fault. Trying to lay the blame on the templates, or to have factual errors be a matter of "individual preference", is quite wrong. Having the wrong person named as the author in a citation is a simple error of fact, and it is such whether it is made using a template or otherwise. The correct attitude toward such things is excellently demonstrated by Parrot of Doom above. It is Parrot of Doom who deserves the credit for first calling the source into question, too. Uncle G (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • It isn't only Wikipedia that suffers these mistakes - a great many books that are considered reliable sources make mistakes as a matter of course. When you read 10 entries on something, with 20% disagreeing with the other 80%, it does make your brain hurt a bit. It makes you realise how sometimes authors can just copy material from other authors, without actually researching the original material. The Holt-Baker source is particularly good at quoting its sources though. I'm thinking of ditching the Ditmore source though, it doesn't seem particularly reliable given the mistakes it makes. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • That's the point, though. Ditmore isn't the author. McIntyre is. So in large part it's McIntyre's reputation and reliability that should be under consideration. The potted biography of McIntyre at the end of the encyclopaedia doesn't give any reason that I can see for thinking that xe is an expert, credentialed or otherwise, writing in xyr field of expertise. It describes xem as "a writer, translator and photographer who lives in New York City". So yes, there are reliability questions against any article in that encyclopaedia authored by McIntyre. Uncle G (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

<ri> Splendidly informative! While it does show that WP is not censored, why footer aboot with the tame "Fetter Lane (once Fewterer, meaning "idle and disorderly person")" when there's that traditionally lewd source foutre claimed for the Scots expression (still current)? OK, presumably it's what your source says, and this does cite Foutre as a source of the name, but claims it now means "blackguard". Even French is getting Bowdlerised! Anyway, well done. . . dave souza, talk 17:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Even French? Thomas Bowdler 1754–1825. Ad usum Delphini 1670–1698. Hans Adler 20:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, hadn't heard of that one. Why don't they think of the Dauphins? More to the point, there's the intriging possibility that Fetter Lane might be another name for a red light street, so to speak, and the amusement that a term in common use in Scots,[3] even used without explanation in an English newspaper,[4] has such dubious roots. . dave souza, talk 22:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability

How did this article even get past Wikipedia:Notability?

If I throw up an article on "1st Street" with links to books that show that, yes indeed, there is a 1st Street in many cities, pictures of maps that show 1st Streets, and street signs that say "1st Street" and in some cities they actually were the first street in those cities (Wow!) does that it make such an article notable/noteworthy of even having an article, let alone becoming a featured article? Even if I add comments that many 1st Streets were in fact renamed to Johnson Street or 2nd Street after they were discovered to not truly be the first street in their cities, does that become noteworthy?

The interest in this article is based solely on the salaciousness of the name itself.

I agree with the idea that this would make a suitable April 1st article (assuming it would be taken down immediately afterwards); when I hit WP this morning I had to double-check myself that it wasn't April 1st.

63.227.152.123 (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:Notability. It may answer all of your questions. It is not a suitable article for April 1, because it was not, and never will be, related to a hoax. Unlike '1st Street', it was a real place name bowdlerised to suit modern conventions. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Museum of Bad Art was never a hoax, just a hilarious idea. Although that escaped an Associated Press reporter who assumed it was. --Moni3 (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

My question is in the notability of such a topic for its own rather short article; the topic could be summed up in a few sentences with an appropriate citation under Prostitution such as "Many areas had functional names such as "GropeCunt Lane" until the mid-sixteenth century, when such names fell out of favor due to changing public mores." 63.227.152.123 (talk) 14:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This is more about what constitutes notability. The street name and its associated social implications: prostitution and class in London, and the transformation of the term "cunt" into the hair trigger offense it exists as today, is supported by the multiple reliable sources cited in the article. You are suggesting that the discussion in this article should be minimized and folded into another article, but the sources are clear that they address the issues in this one. Even unpleasant topics deserve academic attention, which this one has received. --Moni3 (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel that "The interest in this article is based solely on the salaciousness of the name itself." is untrue. That just appears to be IMO a rather myopic viewpoint. Wikipedia is not about dictionary definitions, it is about exploring the topic to the full extent of explanation and understanding - that is what is meant by 'coverage'. I think this article does pretty well. SGGH ^ping! 14:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

We do have Main Street and High Street, so your example of First Street isn't as ridiculous as you might have thought. --NE2 20:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Extremely disappointed

My primary school class often use the site. Imagine how I felt when they started giggling and saying it out loud. A terrible decision. Whoever made it should be throughly ashamed of themselves. 'Bashereyre (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:AFP and WP:NOTCENSORED. It is not the responsibility of Wikipedia to vet every website your class may visit. I do believe that, as a teacher, that is your responsibility. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You may also want to use [5] which is a port of Wikipedia where all of the naughty bits have been taken out. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You should be glad that this might inspire your students to take interest in the obscure and usually dull seeming field of toponymy! --86.135.177.168 (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well statistics show that many children visit our "ruder" articles. Admittedly this article is a filthy subject and one wonders why one editor found it so fascinating as to develop it to a featured article, and I can definately see why parents might not want their children to see it, but wikipedia is not censored. Personally I don't think such an article should be on the front page as testament to "our finest work" but some of the concerns about kids and censorship are really quite naive with what they know about today. Wikipedia is generally used by older kids and adults, as far as I'm aware most younger children would find its content far too advanced on most subjects which is why we have simple english wikipedia. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Has to be said though that the main editor User:Malleus Fatuorum has produced a great number of fine articles on wikipedia. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

A note on Wikipedia's "ruder" articles: kids are more likely to go search for articles like fuck, shit, nigger, porn, vagina, penis, and It Hits the Fan, than to be amused by an article about the history of the name of a street, in my opinion. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

ahem! Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a site for minors. Children can easily encounter images and words online that are inappropriate for their age. I find it hard to believe that primary school students know the word "cunt" to begin with, but simply, Bashereyre, if you permitted your class of young children to go online while in your care, and because you weren't supervising them carefully enough they came across content inappropriate for their age group, then the fault is yours and you should be "extremely disappointed" in yourself. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Bashereyre said nothing about it happening during his watch. They might have seen it in the morning before going to school (or one child might have and spread the word), or they might have seen it in a different class, or on their mobile phones, or anything. We needn't be so quick to attack other editors. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 21:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually Bashereye said "my primary class" which gives the impression that they were in charge. And the supervision of children on the internet is not our preserve. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

My comment was neither incivil nor an attack. I'm simply pointing out that the internet is filled with things that are inappropriate for children, and that children need to be properly supervised when online, especially when surfing sites that aren't primarily intended for them, such as this one. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd be more concerned about the crap education kids get these days than hiding them away from a harmless rude word. When kids leave school thinking that text-speak is the Queen's English, then that to me tells me that someone's priorities are somewhat skewed. --WebHamster 21:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Exploding Boy your comments were both uncivil and an attack. A website promoting itself as an encyclopedia should hold some responsibility for its content, especially if it wants to be taken seriously as an encyclopedia. 203.3.197.249 (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It was neither. It's really very simple: Wikipedia is not aimed at children, but adults. It is not censored. Children should never be allowed to use the internet unless they are properly supervised. Anyone who has visited Wikipedia before, as Bashereyre says s/he has, knows that it includes content of all types, including some which certain people might find offensive. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Must agree with Exploding Boy. The Internet was not created for children. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I've yet to see anyone explain what actual harm could come to a child upon reading the word "cunt" in this academic sense. Especially as they can simultaneously learn the etymology (also learn what etymology means) of that word. So can someone please explain to a father of two girls what the actual harm is when caused by this word (or any word for that matter)? --WebHamster 12:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Im sorry but I agree with the teacher! I am by no way offended by the article and actually found it interesting, but for kids to come accross it on the main page i think is wrong. Ok we cant wrap them in cotton wool but from the teachers point of view she is responsible for what the children learn and if the kids go home and tell the parents it doesnt look good on the teacher. It is not her fault that wikipedia decided that they would put an article up as the main page feature that includes a vulgar word in it!! Its like the BBC if they went and put on their news page on their site about sexual content, vulgar words etc and kids logged on to do work for school then i dont think that would be appropriate either. But there again they wouldnt do that as they have standards. I think that there should be standards that should be met to feature articles of such on the feature page area! The teacher may be responsible for what the kids see, but you the wiki team are also responsible for what your site contains, and seen as it is not a restricted website im sure there are regulations of showing pornographic material or vulgar scripts? such as the first photo on here Sexual intercourse. It depends what people think kids should be learning in primary school, but we wonder why we live in a society like we do today when kids can view almost anything on the internet! which is made more accessable by search engines. Someone also mentioned about well the teacher is responsible for what the kids see... well wikipedia alot of school use and it is seen as a search engine, it will not be blocked like a porn website so its a bit obvious that the teacher is not entirely at fault! maybe it may be on the front of a news paper? "WIKIPEDIA TO SHAME RE FEATURED ARTICLE"? --Bankhallbretherton (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Children aren't born wearing clothes, and as with WebHamster above, I fail to see what damage is caused by them becoming aware of such topics. The BBC website presently has articles about deaths in Afghanistan, and people being gored to death in Spain. You really think that the word 'cunt' is more offensive than people dying in pain? More fool you. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thats is a rubbish come back! The BBC may have deaths but there again kids may have had a relative or even a friend die, Death is an active part of life that we all have to accept, kids loose pets too, Vulgar language can be avoided, no wonder lots of kids have no respect in todays world! --Bankhallbretherton (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Language only becomes vulgar because people choose it to be so. If you bother to read the article you'll note that in its original context the word was not the obscenity it is today. Knowledge of a word has little to do with respect. The lack of respect you talk about is more to do with ignorance, something which you appear to want to prolong. How ironic. It belies your argument that you find painful death and mutilation inoffensive, but the sight of the word 'cunt' sends you into a rage. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If you "bothered" to read my first reply you would have seen that I did read the article and thought that it was interesting, historically, I dont see why your trying to pin me as being ignorant when your the one obviously trying to stir the situation, sad that some people have to hide behind their computers to do that! it doesnt offend me about painful death or the war no, its unfortunately the way our world is today. Also I hardly get raged about the word i just think that it is inapropriate to be featured on the main page of a website that is used by many people of all ages. You wiki people stick together. but maybe for a future site development you should bring out "wikipedia polls" if you havent already and see how many people would be disgusted if their kid came home from school and had learnt the word "cunt". see where im coming from now...?

I had read your reply. I think your argument is ignorant for assuming that children would be in some way 'damaged' by learning such a word. Can you tell me how children would be so badly affected by 'cunt'? The project is quite explicit at stating that some people may think that certain articles may not be suitable for children (see above FAQ). Frankly, I don't care what people who would be 'disgusted' at what their children have learnt, think. They're prudish imbeciles of exactly the mindset that also believes the earth is 6000 years old - in other words, idiots.

I'll ask again though - what damage is caused to children who learn what the word 'cunt' means? Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess it must be a matter of social class, beliefs and what environment you are brought up in, i think you are rude and ignorant full stop and at least i can hold my head high and say that i have not been rude to you.--Bankhallbretherton (talk) 14:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Until then anyway... Nev1 (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

How? --Bankhallbretherton (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

So you're a believer in the class-system then. And still, you can't answer a very simple question - what damage does the word 'cunt' do to a child? And can you show me what I've said that has made you believe I've been rude to you? Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Your aggressive nature of words and manner of the way you say them. I need say no more. Its not just the children it damages its the whole issue of them being children... children should be children and not forced to grow up so soon with adult words like that!--Bankhallbretherton (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

My words weren't aimed at you. You still haven't answered my question. Can you? Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

They won't because they can't. There is no proven link between a kid seeing any rude word and then coming to 'harm'. Unless of course it was shouted loud enough direct into their ear canal. Then I would concede that some harm may result. --WebHamster 15:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

ALL I WILL ANSWER TO THE LOT OF YOU IS YOU ARE WHAT YOU WRITE!! I AM NOT WATCHING THIS TOPIC AFTER I HAVE POSTED THIS SO GOOD BYE. If not aimed at me then whom? I am not going to waste anymore of my life sat here talking to people i shall galdfully never meet, who find this fun! well you can battle between yourselves about this but im not interested what you do. as i say... morals belifs and class... thats what this type of culture and the english language is all about!--Bankhallbretherton (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I see, your response to reasoned argument is to shout a lot, and refuse to answer a very simple question. You won't be missed. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I think they'll find that the expression is "you are what you eat". Mind you I do have to own up to eating a fair few cunts in my time! --WebHamster 15:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

As a father of two I would not be concerned about my children learning ANY word so long as it was taught to them the where's, why's and what's of the word, its meaning and its context. My kids have learnt that no word is dangerous and that certain words can only be used in certain contexts and situations. I do not think that my kids education is increased by hiding them away from certain words. They are now grown up and have come to no harm by learning far worse words than cunt and the other 6 dirty words. They understood them from a very early age. I don't know about you but that's what I call education. --WebHamster 14:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I fully support this position. garik (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Well not all kids are as fortunate as your two some words are dangerous, it just depends in what context they are used and who they are said to! lol!! can just imagine little kid: your a "cunt!" and school bully *SMACK* LOL!! --Bankhallbretherton (talk) 14:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

All words can be dangerous. What is so inherently dangerous about 'cunt'? Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, words are like guns, ie in their own right they are quite safe. It's how people choose to use them that's dangerous. The biggest danger of all is a gun in an untrained hand. The same is true of words. Kids should be taught all about all words. It's when they don't understand them that gets them into trouble. So it's pretty much guaranteed that the young kid who is hidden away from "cunt" who then subsequently finds the word, doesn't know how to use it, but uses it anyway. as opposed to the kid who is shown the word and then taught all about it. That's the kid who will know when and where it can or can't be used. Security through obscurity is an ethos that just doesn't work. --WebHamster 15:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

So if person A went up to person B and complemented them, then are they more likely to get smacked in the face by complementing them or calling them a cunt? the danger here is obviously getting hurt.... ;) think about it!--Bankhallbretherton (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Which is more likely to happen using your methodology of hiding the kid away from the word instead of allowing them to see it and then explaining its meaning and usage. Way to go bud, sheesh! --WebHamster 15:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

As a former teacher who at times dared to propose to my young students that Christianity was not the only religion in the world, and was furthermore chastised for reprimanding my students for high-fiving each other when material was presented that acknowledged Christians viewed themselves as the most dominant religion, this fuss is all relative. It's impossible as a teacher sometimes to keep students off of sites that will introduce them to ideas their parents aren't ready for them to learn yet. Asking my students to research the White House brought them to a pornography website with whitehouse in the URL. I talked to them about their responsibility on the computer and they understood I wasn't trying to push pornography on them. This anger is misplaced. Your children and the teacher's students will be faced with media images about sex, drugs, violence, gruesome death, religion, and all manner of concepts adults are squeamish or just plain do not know how to talk about. There is a time to shield them for their own protection, and there is a time to educate them, to deconstruct the ideas that make us afraid, apprehensive, and shocked. Yes, there are prostitutes and there are places and times not so long ago where it was quite open. Why do women become prostitutes? Economics, morals, feminism, self determination ....think of the conversations you can have. --Moni3 (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

with primary school kids?--Bankhallbretherton (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

What this all (still) boils down to is, if you have children in your immediate care, and those children will be using the internet, it is your responsibility to ensure that they use it in such a way that they will not be exposed to things you think are not age-appropriate for them. One way you can do this is by thoroughly researching any site you plan to let them access. As a teacher you should know that you need to watch kids like a hawk when they're online because not only can one click create an avalanche of porn popups, but as you yourself pointed out even the most seemingly innocuous search can return material not intended for children. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok then how do i delete my account cause i am disgusted with the management of this website and wikipedia should be ashamed to have people like this working on or editing this site! I shall not be using it again i can asure you! --Bankhallbretherton (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You can't be deleted - you're contributions have been released irrevocably. Deleting comments from large parts of a talk page breaks up a debate and makes it difficult for others to read and/or understand. You may however, leave at any time you wish by ceasing to add content. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like today hasn't been a total write-off then. --WebHamster 17:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I subscribe to the "Featured Article of the Day" mailing list at work, and I did have to explain to a bemused manager why Wikipedia was sending me emails full of naughty words. Luckily my manager was cool once it was explained, but I don't think it's out of the realms of possibility for someone to innocently surf to the Main Page only to end up having to explain themselves to an angry boss/spouse/whatever. And yes, yes, I know, WP:NOTCENSORED, but it can't hurt to consider the potential ramifications of sticking an article like this up prominently on the front page. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC).

Grope postdates gropecunt?

From the article:

Gropecunt, the earliest known use of which is in about 1230, appears to have been derived as a straightforward compound of the words grope and cunt.

But later on...

The first record of the word 'grope' being used in the indecent sense of sexual touching appears in 1380...

Perhaps "gropecunt" came about before "grope" did? Or perhaps there's simply no literary usage of it prior to Chaucer? Either way, this is confusing to me and it seems to warrant clarification. --Golbez (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This point is discussed above. Sorry, short answer, I don't mean to be flippant. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I must have missed it when skimming through. No need to apologize. --Golbez (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

A few thoughts from a semi-amateur Wikipedian...

Ok, so, I had read this article years ago, I thought it was interesting, I'm not at all offended by it or by the content. Nothing in Wikipedia offends me. But putting it on the front page... I feels like a stunt to me. Yeah, I know, Wikipedia is not censored. But as has been noted, the front page IS. Is a nude photo ever the featured picture? Is the infamous ejaculation .gif ever going to be shown on the front page? If the article warrants FA status, will we ever see "Cunt" or "Fuck" or "Nigger", etc, as the front page featured article? I suspect not.

Add to that the fact that the front page is, essentially, off limits to edits from all but a select few... and thats a good thing! BUT there is a trust between vast majority of wikipedians who can't edit the FP and the few that can, and this make me think that trust might have been bent a little. Is it true, as has been mentioned, that the Jenna Jameson article, while a FA has been essentially blacklisted from ever being Todays FA? If that is the case, then there is some severe hipocracy going on here.

The whole thing actually strikes me a bit like, oh, Climbing the Reichstag Dressed Like Spiderman, maybe? It seems to me that people might be trying to make a point about policies such as "WP is not censored" by promoting an article that is well written, academic and emotionless but still chock full of language that is offensive to a great many people.

I appreciate the argument that promoting such an article to the front page is a chance to show how mature and serious we are. But I can't shake the feeling that shock value has something to do with it.

Anyway, a long time (if infrequent) editor signing off. The above are my opinions only, etc. Brian Schlosser42 (talk) 22:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This is probably the wrong place to post. You're better off joining the fun here :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

But I can't shake the feeling that shock value has something to do with it. Shock value has nothing to do with it, but there's nothing we can do about your feelings. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No? Prove it. Prove to me that shock value, or intentionally pressing a point had nothing to do with the descision? I very much doubt you can. From what I can see, there was no public discussion or debate on this article once it was scheduled to be a TFA. So it seems to me that it is very much in the air what the motivation was. Maybe it was 100% pure. Maybe not. Brian Schlosser42 (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

What difference does it make? It's encyclopedic and presented in a scholarly manner. That's all that matters. Everyone has an axe to grind about somethign. Soon this article will be replaced, and people will start complaining about the next featured article instead. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have an axe to grind, I am not offended by the topic in the slightest. I LIKE the article. I simply feel the placement on the FP was poor judgement and possibly hippocritcal (see the jenna jameson brou-ha-ha). But anyway, the article is here to stay on the FP til Saturday so, I guess it doesn't matter, does it?Brian Schlosser42 (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Its a bit difficult to prove something like that. The article was scheduled on 24 June. It isn't like people didn't have much time to discuss its placement. By the way, you should assume WP:good faith unless you have evidence of its absence. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I do assume good faith. But I find the level of histrionics going on over on the FP talk page interesting. I see people saying, over and over and over "WP is not censored! WP IS NOT CENSORED!!" despite the fact that the FP most certainly IS held to a different standard. Also, assuming good faith does not mean that nothing is ever done in bad faith... Not that I think this WAS, mind you.Brian Schlosser42 (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You're the one who made the accusation that shock value was the desired effect. The onus should be on you to prove it, not the other way round. --WebHamster 22:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I said I thought that shock value MIGHT have played a part. Darren said explicitly that it wasn't. So I challenged him to prove the negative. Naughty me. For the record, I can't PROVE what ANYONES motivations are, and no one else can prove it either. I know, I know, assume good faith.Brian Schlosser42 (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, there are 11 minutes (as of my writing this) left until the next TFA is put in. Then, we can enjoy the peaceful, uncontroversial discussion of John Calvin ;) Dabomb87 (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the point of the article, which is a summary of information written about the topic, is that historians and cultural analysts take what our standards are today and trace them back to their origins. Like scientists, they want to ask why things are the way they are. This information presented in this article looks at our current morals that we put right out in public by naming streets and other public places by a person that we honor, or merely describe what the street is or what's on it. It speaks about the kind of society that we live in: an efficient one merely numbers the streets or names them something logical. A more culturally advanced one has heroes and such. In this case, it forces us to look at our own opinions about sexuality (and class) and compare them with people who are not very different from us. You can either react to this comparison with humorous indifference at the inevitability of it, or you can resist the comparison and deny its truth. This is what creates offense and shock value. The battle inside is over where we decide to align ourselves. Moni3 (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Think of the children? Rather fallacious, I must say, given that there are much more serious things children are browsing on the internet. At a young age, if they don't know about it, they won't understand it, so they won't go looking further into it, as it doesn't grab their attention unlike things like Sesame Street and The Wiggles; at an older age, they're bound to know about it, and they're definitely going to search for it sooner or later, so censorship is like putting a bear trap in a deciduous tree to help protect fugu populations. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Where it says (pronounced /ˈɡroʊpkʌnt ˈleɪn/) The page where the link goes - Wikipedia:IPA for English has no entry on the pronunciation of the "Y" looking letter. The page has an entry for "g", which is how I presumed gropecunt is pronounced what is the "Y" supposed to be pronounced as, it doesn't explain if it's another symbol for "g" or another sound?

It looks like one of the pages (Wikipedia:IPA for English or Gropecunt Lane) is wrong - or at least not clear I would change one myself if I was sure but I'm not. Can someone change the relevant page as they are not clear. Or explain to me what I'm missing if I am wrong. Carlwev (talk) 01:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"Y" seems to be used a lot on Wikipedia but is not on the Wikipedia:IPA for English chart I have added question on talk page there. Carlwev (talk) 04:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

TFA hit count

• 207.3 thousand hits while on the main page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • For comparison, is that high or low for a TFA? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It's double the hits To Kill a Mockingbird got last July. Stonewall riots got 57,000 this past June 28, but that was a Sunday. Harvey Milk got 92,000 on Thanksgiving Day last year. Restoration of the Everglades got a sad 35,000 in May or April. --Moni3 (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That's actually one of the highest I've ever seen. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Why do I always forget this one? Museum of Bad Art got 235,000 when it appeared this past April 1. It's difficult to accuse people of using gimmicks when gimmicks is what people respond to. --Moni3 (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

As geni noted on wikien-l, our general readership appears to be really interested in the history of 13th century British street names - David Gerard (talk) 11:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Pfft. English street names, not British - although I did try to find other examples. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to put this in perspective, Thriller (album), on the main page and heavily-linked from Wikipedia's most read article, got 187,000 hits while on the main page. – iridescent 16:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a lot of very offended people then. So offended that they all went and read it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

And 37.9K readers the next day. Thats only 1K less than the featured article of the day John Calvin.©Geni 02:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Fry commented on twitter (positively) about this article being on the main page. Raul654 (talk) 07:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't want this to turn into some kind of back-slapping exercise, but a mate texted me today to tell me she'd heard the article mentioned on Rock FM Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

And 52.4K on Saturday, more than the featured article for that day. Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it appropriate for the article to have coordinates? I don't think it is since this article is about the name, and there were several Gropecunt Lanes, so which set of coordinates should be picked. Nev1 (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

bah, when did they appear? I removed the last lot, as I'll do to these. You're correct, the article is about the street name, not a particular place. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I found the culprit: User:The Anomebot2! [6] Hans Adler 19:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Pillory him! Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way to prevent the bot adding the missing coordinates tag again? Nev1 (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

1720 Strype illustration

It is interesting that the ancient street named Bordello Lane became Bird in hand Alley by 1720. I don't think too many people would have been fooled by the name change. (fotoguzzi) 131.252.212.132 (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

How interesting that Bordello Lane was changed to Bird in Hand Alley. The Italian word for bird is uccello, which also happens to be the popular Italian slang term for a penis.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Offensive!

This article is offensive and should be taken down immediately! 74.196.127.221 (talk) 07:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTCENSORED --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 07:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I think they have a point... if by "Offensive!" they meant "Awesome!" and by "taken down" they meant "re-read".--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Dubious Sentence

Currently the article has this dubious line: "Organised prostitution was well established in London by the middle of the 12th century, initially mainly confined to Southwark in the southeast, but later spreading to other areas such as Smithfield, Shoreditch, Clerkenwell, and Westminster.[7]". Alright, this line immediately raises some issues: first of all, obviously, prostitution was, "by the middle of the 12th century", organized or not, nothing at all new in London, and the city itself was not was hardly a recent settlement. Yet here we have a citation claiming that prostitution somehow was limited to a specific area and then spread out, without giving a specific date or noting the uncertainty of what came before it. Huh? The problem here is not necessarily the source but the wording. Obviously there needs to be more of an explanation for this to fly, and the application of some "perhaps", "theorized by..." or "may"s. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The source claims that organised prostitution was confined to a limited area. Per WP:V if a reliable source says it we can include it in an article. If you disagree you must provide sources contradicting the statement, otherwise you're engaging in original research. Nev1 (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Please, one look at my user page should make it painfully obvious that I'm very well aware of Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. What I'm asking is when and how is this theorized? Does the source not go into detail about this? As it stands, it smells fishy, and I'm surprised that this already hasn't come up as an issue. If there's no further detail given, the author of the work cited needs to be mentioned in the article as "theorizing" this conclusion. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Stating the author who makes the claim is a good way of adding a caveat to the article, in this case warranted. But your attitude that you know best because you've got a handful of trinkets on your user page is pretty poor. You removed a sourced statement from an article that is clearly of a high standard and maintained without so much as a question to the authors for more information. Nev1 (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, my attitude was my response to pointlessly being waved to WP:V despite my points. Furthermore, I wasn't pointing to any trinkets, but rather the fact that I'm well aware of policy enough to bring "a handful" (47) articles up to GA standard, a standard that needs to be applied to this specific line. The source may be of a "high standard", but this sentence is very low quality indeed (and where I am, there's no preview available of said line, and a proxy isn't helping).

That said it seems that we agree that there's an issue, so let's cut the crap and fix it. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)