Talk:Gropecunt Lane

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Votes for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on August 18 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Image?

Image: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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/r/o/Talk%7EGropecunt_Lane_ab6e.html"