Talk:Hair's breadth

So there is a dispute about what prominence the phrase "red cunt hair" should have in this article. The main reason to retain it is that it's legitimate sourced content and that Wikipedia is not censored. The reason to remove some, most or all mentions of it are that it gives undue weight to a relatively unusual phrase which appears to be from US military slang, in a way which just so happens to make an innocent article substantially focused on female genitalia. From the page history it appears that this material started off as a whole article on Red cunt hair that was then AfD'd and merged onto this page. Whether that is germane to what we do now, I'm not sure. In my personal view, the principle of least astonishment is also relevant to this situation.

In the last few days there have been several versions:

1. the most full-on version
2. retaining all of the material but with lower prominence
3. retaining mention of the subject but with less material and reduced prominence
4. removing "red cunt hair" entirely

Which of these version should we adopt for the future development of the article? Regards, The Land (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The question seems unnecessarily vague. This does not seem to be any thing other than an attempt to censor wikipedia. WP:UNDUE does not apply, as no undue weight is being given to any particular viewpoint; rather, the objection appears to simply be to the word 'cunt', and the term, as somehow inappropriate or 'shocking'. A quick review of the edits edits and edit summaries will show this to be the real motivation. Obviously the 'principle of least astonishment' is completely irrelevant, as it is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. Dlabtot (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

What I read in the edit summary is a number of occasions over the last few years when people have removed that section, and have been reverted by someone (usually you!). And you may have missed the bit of WP:UNDUE where it says "an article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject" which is exactly what has happened here. We have a very through, well-sourced section on a relatively minor part of the article that just happens to heavily use the word "cunt". I wonder why? The Land (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The section has been substantially edited and revised by another editor. Adding sources, text and references was a good way to resist attempts to censor and bowdlerize the encyclopaedia. You are free, of course, to add citations to the rest of the article to bring it up to the standard you now admit. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Remove entirely. This is a no-brainer, for me. It does not require delving deeply into arcane Wikipedia rules and convoluted reasonings. Common sense prevails, for an encyclopedia. The article is about the common English expression of a "hair's breadth." Bringing in an obscure and vulgar reference that is not in common usage does a disservice to readers. The word 'cunt' is commonly regarded as among the most obscene and offensive words in the English language. As the Wikipedia article says: "The word 'cunt' is generally regarded in English-speaking countries as unsuitable for normal public discourse. It has been described as 'the most heavily tabooed word of all English words.' " Thank you, The Land, for pursuing this edit. Benefac (talk) 03:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

It is by no means obscure, as evidenced by the numerous, and mainstream sources. Pynchon, for example, is one of the most highly lauded American authors of the 20th century. Whether it is vulgar, obscene, or offensive is irrelevant, as Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED - contrary to your assertions, Wikipedia policies do apply. Dlabtot (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The usage by Pynchon and a few others citing him, and as vulgar slang in certain circles, by no means make it worthy of a section in an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not censored, but it is also WP:NOTANARCHY. The Ngram chart shows just how obscure the vulgar phrase is, in comparison not only to the main topic of the article (hair's breadth) but to the other phrases mentioned in the article which also do not deserve separate sections (by a nose, skin of his teeth, by a whisker).

The use of 'red c**t hair' is basically a flat-line (zero) in comparison to the others. https://books.google.com/ngrams/interactive_chart?content=hair%27s+breadth%2Cby+a+nose%2Cskin+of+his+teeth%2Cred+cunt+hair&year_start=1700&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=0 Benefac (talk) 05:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• 3 I'll assume that the definition and use are sourced, assuming that, there is no reason to give a very obscure, US-specific, military slang term greater prominence than widely used English terms. If the use is not source-able, then 4. Pincrete (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• I've added lots of referwnces and further defintion and examples. I also added the source, whcuih antedates army slang. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 04:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

If you are going to comment on an RfC, it is frankly, not best to assume anything. An RfC is an attempt to resolve a content dispute. One thing you should definitely not do, is take any of the assertions of the editors involved in the content dispute at face value. You should look at the conflicting arguments, and the sources, with an open and fresh viewpoint. Try not to have any preconceived notions about what is the right answer. Look at the applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines and try to figure out how your input can contribute to making a better encyclopedia. Just my 2 cents. Dlabtot (talk) 07:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment The definition and use are amply sourced. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I've substantially reorganized, condensed and better sourced the entire section. The link above to "the most full-on version" is now hopelessly outdated, is irrelevant and a false choice. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"""Your "anarchy" argument is an illogical Straw man, Red herring or Slippery slope fallacy. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Keep that section as presently presented. Many other writers use the C word - Shakespeare, Chaucer,Lawrence (most tenderly) Joyce, Pepys,Beckett, and it was not taboo until recently. But the debate is not about the word. Is it really rather about objecting to the mention of a common type of male-bonding humour that often arises in construction, military or other dangerous work environments where men are most often at risk ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 20:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that the section in question is kind of divorced from the actual subject of the article. It's a slang term with a similar meaning, but it doesn't seem entirely germane to the main subject of the article. It's perhaps worth mentioning briefly, but I think the section as stands gives it far too much prominence. I second Pincrete's suggestion: either (3) reduce the size of the section substantially, or, failing that, (4) cut it completely. Gimubrc (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I had the same thought when I first read the article, but then I found out that RCH used to be its own article and it was decided to merge it here. That happens sometimes on Wikipedia - an article contains material only tangentially related to its subject because it's better than having a whole article for that less notable material. So I accept its inclusion here. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Remove entirely, or, failing that, reduce to a single short sentence at most. It's obscure to the point of absurdity relative to the rest of the article. Although wikipedia isn't censored, it also isn't appropriate to include or unduly emphasize things that otherwise fail to meet our inclusion criteria purely because they're titillating or to "make a stand"; the bare handful of usages of the term that people are referencing above absolutely do not meet our inclusion criteria for neologisms. --Aquillion (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

R'amen. :-) Benefac3 (talk) 01:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• 2 Then 1, 3, 4. When I read 1, I get the impression this is a more prominent term than it is. The sources convince me it's prominent enough for Wikipedia to acknowledge its existence, though, and having lots of details doesn't make me think it's an an important part of the language; if fact, it works just as strongly the other way: it looks defensive. I give no weight to the fact that "cunt" is highly offensive. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• 2 or 3 would be due weight. Leaning towards 3, but not going to fight over a storm in a teacup. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
• Per WP:UNDUE: remove. Leave one sentence max. (I was invited at Template talk:Convert). -DePiep (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• 3 or a sort of 2.5 at the most. As a percentage of the whole article 2 and 1 are seriously WP:UNDUE, but it is worthy of a passing reference. There is a fine line (RCH?) between WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:GRATUITOUS and I feel option 2 has strayed over it. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

A quick glance at the thread seems to point to a majority of users in favour of removing or seriously cutting down the size of the section. My tally is 2 in favour keeping it, and 8 in favour of removal/reduction. Does anyone have any ideas on what a good proportion of material might be? I'm in favour of one or two sentences only; pending any further ideas I'll edit the section tomorrow. My personal suggestion is that it be cut to 1-2 sentences and merged into "other body part measurements". Gimubrc (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Step back for a moment. The article is not about a unit as it claims, but about expressions with a particular meaning. As such, it could be renamed By a hair's breadth. However, I opine that this article has transgresses WP:NOTDICT. —Quondum 00:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)