What Is Wikipedia Hiding About Donald Trump's Tiny Shrimp Fingers?
When the faceless editors of Wikipedia decide an article is not fit for public consumption, it’s gone, only accessible to the site’s top editors—at least, it was. But now we’re keeping track of all the articles Wikipedia doesn’t see fit to print, to present you with very best of the site’s weirdest and worst. Please, enjoy.
Short-Fingered Vulgarian
Thirty years ago, in the now defunct Spy magazine, Graydon Carter referred to the perpetually sundowning Donald Trump as a “short-fingered vulgarian.” Trump did not like this. As Carter wrote in Vanity Fair this past November, “To this day, I receive the occasional envelope from Trump. There is always a photo of him—generally a tear sheet from a magazine. On all of them he has circled his hand in gold Sharpie in a valiant effort to highlight the length of his fingers.”
This phrase has become intrinsic to our nation’s political dialogue. And now, Wikipedia wants to rip it away.
Best line:
Trump has long denied the accusation that his fingers are short, claiming that “my fingers are long and beautiful, as, has been well-documented, are various other parts of my body.” Trump, however, has neither objected nor commented upon the claims of vulgarity, nor has he provided documentation verifying the size of his digits or genitals, in response to the claims of shortness, and thus his boasts must be taken as anecdotal.
Why it got deleted:
The discussion surrounding deleting Short-Fingered Vulgarian is lively, intense, and fraught with emotion. I highly suggest reading it in full here. The general argument is that the article itself is “definitely not encyclopedic content” and “borders on harassment.”
Although, as other editors argued, not only has the nickname made its way into common usage all over the world, but Wikipedia has also kept far more directly offensive entries in the past. Most notably, Barack the Magic Negro still exists (thought it is being considered for deletion).
Why it shouldn’t have been:
The article could very easily have been merged with the current Donald Trump entry, but this—perhaps more than any other article in all of Wikipedia—deserves to live. The phrase has been written about extensively.
What’s more, this vulgarian does in fact have remarkably short fingers.
Anti-Violation Technology
Technology that is anti violation.
Best line:
This particular entry is jam-packed with helpful safety tips and absolutely no paragraph breaks whatsoever. A few highlights:
The use of anti illegal technology, like the human body after injection of vaccine, even if the virus into the body, it will not cause disease, that the human body has a disease resistance. The use of anti violation technology, is to make the technology and equipment with anti violation.
As well as:
Robots will also be due to the “poisoning” and other reasons for the “illegal” operation.
That is the only mention of “robots” in the entirety of the entry. What is happening to the robots? When does poison come into the picture? Are the robots our friends? We may never know.
Why it got deleted:
It’s likely because it was translated from a Chinese language, but I cannot make much of what this is... It appears to be more of a concept of technology, and from what I can tell somebody is developing it. But this said, it almost feels like a bit of an advert... I’m not entirely sure, however I’m pretty certain it does not belong here quite yet if at all.
Why it shouldn’t have been:
The robots won.
Mask fetishism
Like other fetishes, but with masks.
Best Line:
Since we’re only working with three sentences, I present the article in full:
Mask fetishism is a fetishistic desire to see a subject wearing or taking off a mask. The mask may be of any kind such as diving masks, which is very common. Some people often get sexually attracted by videos of women diving or snorkeling.
Why it got deleted:
“Practically non-notable. Cites no sources.”
It was also probably just an excuse to put up the following photo:
Why it shouldn’t have been:
Not notable, huh? Tell that to Shutterstock:
List of National Debate Tournament Resolutions
As one of the largest and most prestigious forensics competitions in the country, it’s (probably) safe to say that whatever gets resolved at the National Debate Tournament should be as good as law.
For instance, in 2014 it was decided that “the United States should legalize all or nearly all of one or more of the following in the United States: marijuana, online gambling, physician-assisted suicide, prostitution, the sale of human organs.” Or, as in in 2009, the winning team argued that “the United States Federal Government should substantially reduce the size of its nuclear weapons arsenal, and/or substantially reduce and restrict the role and/or missions of its nuclear weapons arsenal.”
These kids seem to really know what they’re talking about! And yet, Wikipedia disagrees.
Best Line:
My favorite line comes not from the page itself, but from the discussion page on the entry’s imminent deletion:
There are no sources and no context, nothing to suggest this is a worthwhile topic.
Sounds like something a loser would say.
Why it got deleted:
According to Wikipedia, the editors “fail to see any encyclopedic value to this, just listcruft.”
According to me: Jesus, get it over it.
Why it shouldn’t have been:
The crybaby narc who argued not to legalize weed shouldn’t be allowed to keep the truth from the people.
Game of Thorns
Game of Thorns is a “novel” parodying Game of Thrones. Do you get it? It’s like instead of the words “thrones” they said “thorns.” These guys!
Best Line
WARNING: This book may be considered highly offensive and is not recommended for children. To enjoy this, you must have an expanded sense of humor. If you are expecting a serious book or Game of Thrones, you will be disappointed.
You’ve been warned, ok?
Why it got deleted:
The article is “promotional in tone” and also allegedly suffers from “unambiguous copyright infringement.”
Why it shouldn’t have been:
Just look at these customer reviews that are definitely real and not fake.
Should you be so inclined to read it, something tells me you are in for a whale of a time.
