This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Library of CongressWikipedia:WikiProject Library of CongressTemplate:WikiProject Library of CongressLibrary of Congress articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An editor has been attempting to add an extensive sentence about the use of "fuck" in non-mainstream films. As this is an article about a mainstream film, and the entire point is that the use of "fuck" in M*A*S*H was the first occasions of its use in a mainstream film, I have been reverting. However, as the information is interesting, if not directly relevant, I have converted it to a footnote.
This is, after all, not an article about the language of films in general, or one about non-mainstream films, or one about the use of "fuck" in general society, but an article about one specific film and its use of the word as a first-time incident in a specific medium. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Asterisks redux
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I find the evidence above curious. Other than the stylize poster using some small asterisks, all other usage is after the fact. The military didn't use them, the novel didn't use them, the title screen doesn't use them, Altman's movie doesn't use them anywhere. Had the Wiki page been created that way initially, at what point would people have said, "You know, it was publicized this way, and people confuse it with the TV show, so let's make them match."? NjtoTX (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
"Making love"
Latest comment: 10 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The article says "With help from Radar, the Swampmen sneak a microphone into a tent where the couple are making love and broadcast their passion over the camp's PA system, embarrassing them badly and earning Houlihan the nickname "Hot Lips."
Ok, it's 2023 now. Do people still say "making love" when it really should be something like "having sex"? "making love" is a euphemism for "having sex" of even "fucking" that seems archaic and perhaps even Victorian. Why not change it to "having sex"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.233.56.35 (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it would make more sense to say "having sex," and it is Wikipedia's policy in general to avoid euphemisms (see MOS:EUPH). Thank you for catching that! Feel free to be bold and just go in and change the text. Also please remember to sign talk page comments with four tildes like this "~~~~". Happy editing. Ronsaur (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
