Talk:The finger/Archive 2

Two dubious claims

In the third paragraph of "Origins" we have "Roman Gladiators reportedly used the gesture towards Nero when he sentenced them to die with his thumb.[16] The historian Tacitus wrote that German tribesmen gave the middle finger to Roman soldiers as they advanced during battle.[2]". I've thoroughly searched a veritable plethora of reliable specialist sources on Gladiators (essentially those used in the Gladiator article) for the first assertion, and the works of Tacitus for the second. I can find nothing to support either one; they're probably best removed, imho. Haploidavey (talk) 10:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Tacitus

Debunked here: http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat.html?func=view&catid=13&id=305955&view=entrypage - I will remove the Tacitus reference. Ratagonia (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Nero and Gladiators

Yeah, not a reliable source for ancient history. For the record, the ref is to a newspaper column: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=q1pQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mVgDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4381,3349445&dq=middle-finger+connecticut&hl=en but I am removing the ref, which read: Roman Gladiators reportedly used the gesture towards Nero when he sentenced them to die with his thumb.[16][dubious – discuss] Ratagonia (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Cultural impact section

First, this is a great expansion on a great topic to help clear up a lot of mythology. Nice work, User:Muboshgu. (Since you are involved with baseball you may be interested in high five, I have done work on, another source of mythological origins, but probably originated in baseball or basketball).

Second, question about the layout of the 'Cultural impact' section, the bullet lists. It probably would do well in paragraph form. Believe it was originally in paragraph form when you expanded the article, not sure who made the bullet points. For GA I think it would probably be better as prose. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Finger (gesture)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 04:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC) I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 12, 2012, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The article is indeed quite readable and good structure throughout.

2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited to proper sources.

3. Broad in coverage?:

1. Covers main aspects of topic.
2. However, for those wanting to know more, I'd suggest please including a See also section with five (5) or so relevant links to other related Wikipedia articles, a Further reading section, with four (4) or more books on the subject matter, and perhaps three (3) or more External links in that section as well.
3. Structure: I'd suggest splitting the Origin section into a couple or more subsections, perhaps by chronological time period. (Retaining the Origin main subsection on top of those 2 children subsections).
4. Cultural impact: Maybe this section could be split into 2 sub-headings under it, as well.
5. After the GA Review is completed, I'd strongly suggest going for a Peer review and soliciting input from previously uninvolved editors and also posting notices to WikiProjects, as the next step going forwards.

4. Neutral point of view?: Written in a clear and neutral tone throughout.

5. Article stability? Article is stable, upon inspection of article edit history and talk page history and archives. Please monitor this going forwards.

6. Images?: Image review passes.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I've split the "Origin" section into a few subsections. I think you're right that the "Cultural impact" section could use a few subsections to better organize the material, and I'll think about how to do that. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I found a few relevant books on Google Books and have listed them as "Further reading". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks great so far! I'd suggest maybe 4 or so more See also entries, one more Further reading entry, and I'll see about finding some related portals for See also, and then 2 or 3 more links in External links section. — Cirt (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the added see also's. I was still in the process of thinking about what to add there. I'm sorting through some potential EL's now, just want to make sure they meet EL criteria. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, no worries, — Cirt (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Got three in the EL section now. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Update

Promoted to WP:GA. — Cirt (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! – Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Archived threads

Hi there, GA Reviewer here. :) I've archived some stale threads and threads from over 6 months ago. — Cirt (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Image check

Sup y'all, GA Reviewer here. I checked all images used in the article and they're all free-use and appropriately licensed from Wikimedia Commons, so that checks out okay. :) — Cirt (talk) 05:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me noting few things (on behalf of WP:SOCIO). 1) lists vs prose - I still think this section should be rewritten into prose, this list does not look good; 2) there is a section "Other uses" - but there is no section on the primary use; 3) please try to incorporate the see also link to The History of Sexuality into the body if possible. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh sure, I don't mind additional notes here. I mean I'm the GA Reviewer and in this particular case don't have time to myself address all the issues raised, but hopefully others including the GA nominator will do so! — Cirt (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Nominator here. Someone else changed the prose into the bulleted list style around the time of the DYK, but I have no objection to going back to prose. I do wonder if it's more easily readable this way, though. I'll look into what to do with the "other uses", and integrate the see also tomorrow. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the prompt response! — Cirt (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The bulleted lists are gone, and prose has returned. Reading through The History of Sexuality, I'm actually not sure what the relevance here is. I think it should be removed (I believe it was there before I started expanding the page). Thoughts? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I was looking into this "Other uses" section, knowing only that I wasn't responsible for it. Through WikiBlame, I was able to track it down to this edit by an IP. Off the top of my head, I'm not sure what to do with it. Merge it into the "cultural impact" section? Delete it? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it should not be deleted. What to do; I think the section is fine by itself, but what we need is another section heading for the part that clarifies what the primary uses are. Or perhaps it could be merged with that section, into "Use"? The way I see it, we could have a section that explains how it is used, and a separate section that discusses the cultural significance of those uses. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

After giving it some thought, giving this one bit its own section seems WP:UNDUE. I moved it into the cultural impact section after the USS Pueblo incident, where it seems to fit decently. Open to any input on this, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense, looks better there, thanks! Good job, Muboshgu (talk · contribs), for addressing these issues promptly. :) I'll move on along to the rest of the GA Review soon. — Cirt (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Fuck featured article candidate discussion

• Fuck (film)

Fuck (film) is a candidate for Featured Article quality — comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck (film)/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

New Zealand

I would have thought the two finger gesture would have fallen out of favour in NZ because in my personal experience all obscene gestures were of the one finger variety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cc71 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Bird ?

Some explanation of the origin of the 'bird' reference would be welcome ...

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Notification of a TFA nomination

In the past, there have been requests that discussions about potentially controversial TFAs are brought to the attention of more than just those who have WP:TFAR on their watchlist. With that in mind: Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties has been nominated for an appearance as Today's Featured Article. If you have any views, please comment at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 02:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Further reading

I've added Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties to the Further reading section. — Cirt (talk) 07:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on WP:GA promotion

Belated congratulations to those who brought this article up to WP:GA status. Last time I checked in on this article (sometime last year and I think earlier this year as well), it was a mess. It has surely come a long way.

Muboshgu, as someone who has worked with you on the 2011 Tucson shooting article and helped that reach GA, I'm taking this time to state that I appreciate your good work. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 02:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Only took me 10 months to get your message, Flyer22. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

LOL!! Yes, I thought you'd saw it, considering that you watch this article. Or do you not use a WP:Watchlist? Flyer22 (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I do, and I have this watchlisted. I just hadn't checked the talk page in a while. Or the article in a few weeks, it seems, since someone had tagged the article without any discussion about it. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Main picture is horrendous

Can we have a more professional one please? 220.246.157.183 (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC) ...And how would you propose we do that? Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 14:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Variations on the gesture

There is the fist with the middle finger extended, and there is the version with the hand held flat, and all the fingers but the middle one bent all the way except for the knuckles of the fingers and the palm joint of the thumb (dunno the name, the thumb joint that is closer to the wrist and inside the palm) which are kept unbent. Does anyone got any additional information about the differences and similarities, including possibly origin and cultural factors, between these two variations? --TiagoTiago (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Censored

I am missing the censorship section. It is routinely censored by Daily Mail as of 2018. Zezen (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Not obscene

From a legal sense the middle finger is not considered obscene. Offensive, yes, but not obscene. Furthermore I don't see any sources indicating it is obscene so I am removing those references in the article. Here is my primary source. http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2010/03/middlefinger.pdf Thelegendofvix (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a legal article, so we shouldn't jump to using a legal definition for "obscene" instead of the ordinary everyday meaning. See, e.g., wikt:obscene. As used in this article "obscene" has the sense as in Obscene gesture, not a legal sense as in 18 U.S.C. § 1465.

I'm going to revert for now; however, I have no objection to using a strictly legal sense if you can establish a consensus to so so. TJRC (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It clearly is not obscene, and since it isn't obscene in the eyes of the law, telling people that it is obscene creates a real danger for people who go before a jury on bogus obscenity charges - see David Justin Freeman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.193.246 (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Origin

What about the supposed origin of the French soldiers menacing the English ones at the Hundred Years War(?), about to cut their middle fingers after their incoming defeat, for them not to be able to manage again their bows; instead, the English soldiers won and shew their middle fingers to the Frenchmen?--Manfariel (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2021

Just watched a youtube video of the Beatles interview in Japan 1966, where Paul Macartney gives the finger to the press. I think this needs to be included just before the Ronald Reagan and Johnny Cash instalments on here. Dawalt009 (talk) 09:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jack Frost (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2022

The finger length experiment Cmechen01034 (talk) 13:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 13:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Too many images

I feel like there are too many images of people giving the middle finger on this article. One or two is probably enough to give you the idea. More than that is excessive. Thoughts? RteeeeKed (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed a few images. If they should be here, let me know. RteeeeKed (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Why only have humans? Don't you know that's incredibly species-ist? (sarcasm) I want to see a pic of a monkey giving the middle finger. MightyArms (talk) 07:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Early 1800s?!

the Wikipedia page currently says "In the early 1800s, it gained increasing recognition as a sign of disrespect and was used by music artists (notably more common among actors, celebrities, athletes and politicians; most still view the gesture as obscene)." This seems to conflict with the information given later down the page, where the finger is first cited in America in the extremely late 1800s/early 1900s. Perhaps this is referring to European usage? Or perhaps it was simply a typo for 1900s? We need a source here either way... Dingolover6969 (talk) 06:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2023

Can someone add a 'see also' to the Political/Military section of 'the Finger' to reference this Wiki site 'Russian warship, go fuck yourself' 2601:19C:4400:6540:508:6D22:835:8F27 (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Not done. This is about the use of the physical finger, not just any expression of "fuck you". Otherwise a good idea. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

-

§ United States says Old Hoss gave the finger to the rival team, but FSR, the image caption says he's giving it to the cameraman. So… which one's correct? ― Greater Intosh 11:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)