Wikipedia talk:Profanity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also Slang, m:Should Wikipedia Use Profanity

Contents

[edit] Summary of previous comments

Q. What ought our policy to be on foul language?

  1. We must absolutely avoid it at all times.
  2. We ought to discourage it in most articles, on the grounds of quality control and encyclopedia style, but in some articles it can be necessary and useful for completeness. Tact is important.
  3. We should allow it when it is warranted. We should not fuss over it.
  4. We shouldn't worry about it at all -- any article can contain foul language.

NB: the previous list of names represents a wildly inaccurate summary of previous comments made by me in the hope of cutting this page down to size. Actual comments can be obtained from Older Versions. Martin 16:49 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)

Archive of previous comments can also be found here: *http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Should_Wikipedia_Use_Profanity

[edit] First letter and a series of asterisks

Some long-time contributors to Wikipedia feel that converting profanity within quotes to the first letter and a series of asterisks is censorship, and not in keeping with the philosophy of Wikipedia. Others feel uncomfortable with foul language, although recognizing that it is appropriate in some contexts. Still others may feel comfortable with such language, but find it inappropriate in a reference work that may be used by young children.

I don't see the point of having the above on the policy page. The last point is a non-starter -- paper dictionaries include swearwords. -- Tarquin 21:07 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC)

I agree

Paper dictionaries include definitions of swear words, but don't typically use swear words when defining other words, or giving sample sentences when the swear word is not the main subject. I'm not sure offhand how printed encyclopedias deal with them. Perhaps this policy should be adapted by wikipedia? Wesley

I agree. Something like:
  1. Profanity is discouraged and should be used only where necessary.
  2. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, therefore there is no need for definitions of profane expressions. Very good reasons should be provided on the talk page for including profanity in article titles.
  3. Wikipedia is written in an encyclopaedic style, therefore profanity should, as a rule, not be used in articles, unless necessary for reasons of correctness or factuality. Where not obvious, reasons for including profanity should be given on the talk page.
  4. Where used, profane expressions should not be censored (with asterisks or ellipsis or such).

Please be bold in updating :) Zocky 17:19 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Ground up description

Well, it has always been my belive that this encyclopedia should be written so that aliens would be able to pick it up and read it, that is; it should be a ground up description of the life, universe and everything ;=). Curse/swear words are a part of the human culture, and while i dont agree on writing stuff like: mount everest is a fucking big mountain it SHOULD be used in places where is makes sence.
Not doing so because of some cultural repressiveness is just wrong and counter-productive to the goal of wikipedia, we should not allow ourselves to not cover some subjects just because they are taboo.

[edit] User name offensive

I'm a pretty open-minded person, but I find the user name cumguzzler to be pretty offensive. I'm writing this here because Wikipedia won't allow me to edit the appropriate page on user names. Cumguzzler is obviously meant to be in-your-face offensive, and in such a context, intent is almost everything. It's also asinine to intentionally create an atmosphere of antagonism that interferes with the functionality of the process.

--user:jaknouse

See wikipedia:no offensive usernames, if you haven't already. I'm under the impression that this will be fixed soon. Martin

Foul language has no place in Wikipedia articles. This so called "freedom" or "non-censorhip" is a load of crap being promoted by a select few who, quite frankly, put forth this as valid expressionism to cover their personal inadequacies. Foul language or articles titled "Monster Throbbing Cock" are designed to gain attention to those who desire but cannot achieve acclaim for their efforts. They all are one more reason for Wikipedia to be dismissed as a place without value.....DW

I agree that gratuitous profanity undermines the credibility of the project. But I cannot agree with a flat out statement, "Foul language has no place in Wikipedia articles." As others have pointed out, an encyclopedia should be, well, encyclopedic. So-called foul language is an important part of language and culture. Moreover, the very labeling of a pasrt of speech as "foul" risks violating our own NPOV policy. An article that considers NWA's song, Fuck the Police, for example, should do so dispassionately. Along the same lines, a good article on the history of English, or sociolinguistics, ought to consider why some words are considered foul (and by whom) and to what ends.
Is a username like TMC "one more reason for Wikipedia to be dismissed..." Maybe. But frankly, I am dismissive of anyone who would dismiss an encyclopedia for foul language. There may be other reasons why people would dismiss Wikipedia that have to do with the quality of articles -- these are "reasons" worth attending to.
That said, I've seen talk pages marred by cuss words wielded with the clear intent to demean and offend others, and although I hesitate to advocate censorship as such, I think such acts should be censured. But even here, the point is not that people use "foul language," it is how they use foul language and for what purposes; it isn't the fould language per se I dislike, it is the fact that some participants resort to ad hominem attacks on other participants. Even if such a person carefully avoided using foul language, I still think what they are doing is shitty. Slrubenstein

[edit] Profanity in article titles

This bit was added to the page today:

There is rarely any need to use profanity in article titles. Since Wikipedia is not a dictionary, there is no need for definitions of profane expressions or euphemisms for them.

This statement adds no information and will not change anything. In the article profanity we find two lists of "profane words". One is the FCC's "big 7", made famous by George Carlin, the other is a slightly different list of nine words. Only two of these words have actual articles associated with them. Five show up as redirects to articles on the general subject they cover, including dog. The others have no article at all and are not likely ever to have articles. If they do show up, most of them can easily be turned into redirects, or, possibly, into articles. None of the words is in common use in the Wikipedia.

So, is the author of this paragraph advocating the removal of fuck and motherfucker? Neither of them is a dictionary entry. Both of them go far beyond a dictionary entry in discussing the cultural significance of the terms. Both warn that the terms are considered profane and vulgar. Thus, this paragraph has no function other than to muddy the water and add hypocrisy to the page. Can anyone make a case for keeping the paragraph? Ortolan88

Well, I can. Of course an entry for fuck is needed - it's THE four-letter word. I think the wording may have been to strong... It should probably say "generally no need".



I'm refering to individual articles on every euphemism for penis (that seems to be the organ that people find profane), and definitions for expressions like (making this up) "Dumb ass motherfucker" that sometimes appear. Zocky 00:57 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)
OK, this probably really needs rewording. Anybody care to help?
There is rarely any need to use profanity in article titles. Since Wikipedia is not a dictionary, there is no need for definitions of profane expressions or euphemisms for them.
Zocky 01:00 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the paragraph here for discussion. I think the policy as is covers what you want to say. The only synonyms for penis that I could find were dick and dong. Dong is a genuine disambiguation page and dick is in as a nickname for Richard, a slightly doubtful entry, but not put in by a giggling teenaged prankster either. If such articles as you fear do appear, they can be deleted or redirected under the policy as stated (or the "not a dictionary" policy, without a need for the additional paragraph. Ortolan88

A few weeks ago there was an afternoon when all penis euphemisms got their own articles. I mean somebody really put some work into them. They've been deleted since.
And I thought that the "don't use profanity unless needed" could use a nice waklthrough "username-title-article" with policy on each. Zocky 01:29 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

So, they're being deleted already. The "walkthrough" would be a hoot, an article supposedly against profanity consisting largely of profane words and saying don't use these words in articles. Contradictory and self defeating, if you ask me. Ortolan88

You misunderstand. What I thought by "walkthrough" was something like:
  • user name - don't use profanity, it's bad because...
  • title - don't use profanity unless you're writing an article about a profane expression that is more than a dictionary entry
  • article text - don't use profanity where not needed. where needed, use without censoring.
Zocky 01:42 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

Oops. Pretty funny mistake! But the policies are already in place. Your rewording as in point two might be added, I guess, but I don't think it's necessaryOrtolan88

Isn't it POV to say "don't use profanity"? -- Zoe

Policy pages may be non-neutral. Talk pages may be non-neutral. Only encyclopedia articles need to be neutral. Martin

[edit] violation of parents' trust?

There are many encyclopedias in print. I challenge anyone to cite more than one that makes use of foul language (as opposed to using euphemisms). Does using foul language mark an improvement over existing encyclopedias, or is it perhaps a violation of parents' trust in a site claiming to be an encyclopedia? David 15:40 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)

The new edition of the New Grove Dictionary of Music, if I remember correctly, has an entry on the Sex Pistols, and therein reference is made to Never Mind The Bollocks Here's The Sex Pistols (not Nevermind the B******* or anything). I would expect any encyclopaedia to do the same thing. Many books of quotations include the WC Fields quote on why he didn't drink water ("Fish fuck in it"). Any dictionary or encyclopaedia of art which discusses Bruce Nauman's 100 Live and Die will have to mention the word "fuck", as it is central to the piece (the The Thames & Hudson Dictionary of Art and Artists does just this; see [1]). Likewise, there is Andres Serrano's Piss Christ and Helen Chadwick's Piss Flowers - no serious encyclopaeidia is going to censor those names. Encyclopaedias, dictionaries, and other reference works, will not shy from using "foul language" where it is necessary to do so. Books specifically for children, of course, will. We are not a publication specifically for children. We should use "foul language" if it is necessary, as the policy page says. --Camembert

I find your examples thoughtful and persuasive. My only remaining reservation concerns children. Most parents want to prevent their children from being exposed to violence, sex, and other harmful influences. As adults we have become sophisticated, which is another word for hardened, so that exposure to negativity has much less effect on us than on children. This is also, I believe, the logic behind age limits for drinking and smoking.

So the important question for me is whether Wikipedia will be used by children (I agree with you that it is not designed specifically for children). My belief is that as Wikipedia grows, and as its information starts to rival and perhaps surpass that of professionally-written encyclopedias in print, it will become a favored resource with teachers, home educators, librarians, and others who are in a position to make it available to children.

At that point I feel that it will be vital for Wikipedia to use foul language only where absolutely necessary (such as in the examples you give). For me the criterion is that children should not see foul language in normal use; if they specifically look for it, I am in favor of their being able to find it. My standard is the dictionary, where in normal use one never sees foul words, but if one wants to look up the 'f' word, for example, it will be found. David 22:04 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not or should not endorse any particular style of parenting. The effects you presume are far from uncontroversial. If language that is considered "foul" by some people has a legitimate place in an article about a particular subject, it should be used, regardless of whether or not children can or will read about this subject. --Eloquence 22:09 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)
I echo these sentiments. Pursuant to Jimbo Wales' Statement of Principles, Wikipedia should remain entirely free of polemic moral precepts; those who feel the need to sanitize Wikipedia's content should create their own derivative works. -- NetEsq 02:16 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)
use foul language only where absolutely necessary
Can you give any examples of places that use foul language where not absolutely necessary? Martin
Personally, I think children *should* be exposed to both vulgar and sexual talk as is appropriate, i.e. they should see examples of fuck and shit used in normal conversation as it actually is used by adults, the same thing goes for sexual discussion. I think we do our children a disservice but not readying them for the full range of adult experience and creates tons of hangups and provide reason for silly censorship of things like the superbowl. In short I think that it would be good to include foul language even where not absolutely necessery (as in examples of common expressions or the like).
Still, I think the only reasonable way to run a major project like this is to make a neutral comprimise. As I see it a policy either encouraging pornography or discouraging it where it adds something to the entry would be equivalent to advocating either my or your notions of how parenting should occur. I think the only reasonable solution is to take the (relatively) neutral position of adopting encyclopedia style (as we do). This means that swear words are never used gratitously just in the text describing something but neither are we too avoid them when they are relevant and helpfull for an entry (arguably this is slightly biased towards your interpratation).
Originally I came to this page to figure out how wikipedia deals with content questionable in it's very nature, i.e., if describing the crimes of a famously viscious sexual predator what sort of detail is included. What about reproductive, or sexual topics. I am running my own wiki ([www.wikirpg.com]) and want to find out what wikipedia thought their legal requirements were if they were to include frank talk of sexual matters. Anyone know where this page might be?Logicnazi 22:12, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Rude article titles

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump

I'm going to suggest that the article Fuck (and ALL others like it) be moved to a catagory under a heading that is not offensive to a great many people. I just searched Google for Norman Mailer and up came WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE FUCK. User:Black Widow.

Let's be serious, your ten year old son will have heard the word ten thousand times before he read the article in Wikipedia.
Ericd 20:44 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)
I also suggest everybody to try :
http://www.google.com/search?q=norman+mailer&hl=fr&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&start=80&sa=N
and
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?search=Norman+Mailer
just to verify that it's not obvious to get some fuck while searching Norman Mailer ;)
Ericd 20:51 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)
I'm not sure just what those searches are supposed to prove, but a more reasonable comparison would be that a search for "norman mailer" (no quotes in the actual search) returns 129,000 results, but "norman mailer fuck" gives 2,010. And the first one is probably hitting lots of pages that are just genealogy and such and happen to have a "Norman" somewhere, and a "Mailer" somewhere else. Just for further points of reference. -- John Owens 21:04 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

I think that if we have a choice of two images that convey the same information, but one image is less offensive than the other, then we should consider choosing the less offensive one. Eg: in beach volleyball, if we have photos of the different signals players make by placing their hands in certain configurations behind their backs/bums, then it would be preferable to choose photos where the players aren't nudists... but only if we have such photos available. Martin

Hard to argue with that. However, please let's use reasonable definitions. For example, an image should not need to be replaced because it places "too much focus" on the player's (clothed) butt. Also, the "only if we have such photos available" part is very important -- removing a photo just because you find it offensive without providing a reasonable alternative is usually not OK. --Eloquence

Martin, is this something you have discussed? I think it's a really bad idea: an open invitation to vandals. Tannin

Hence marking tentative :)
You're referring to the bit (now moved below)on not deleting images without due process? I think that overwriting the picture with one that reads "image pending deletion" will be a sufficient deterrent to vandals. It has the benefit that it can be done by any logged in user, not just sysops, and it is revertable and reviewable. Having an orphaned image hanging around for a few days does no damage. Martin
I disagree. If somebody uploads, say, the goatse.cx image, it should absolutely be deleted without warning - it has no encyclopaedic value, and is the visual equivalent of those articles that people make reading "I am Chaz and I am kooolll!!!!!!" (with an added queasiness factor). If you leave such an image lying around on the server for a week, you're making it easier for people to vandalise - if the link to the image is removed from the article, or the image is overwritten with something else, such a change is quite easily reversable by the vandal. If the image is deleted, well, they can upload it again, but the process is a good deal more strenuous, and I don't think I've seen any vandal bother to do it yet. Perhaps there are other ways to deal with such vandalism, but deleting the image outright without listing it on Votes for deletion seems a reasonable way to me.
Now, of course, in general, sysops shouldn't delete images they feel are no good (for copyright reasons for example) without listing them on votes for deletion - but this is as true of non-offensive images as offensive ones, and also true of articles - I don't see why it needs special mention. --Camembert
I tried to self-revert the paras myself, but you beat me too it, Camembert :)
While I accept that it is easier to revert an image than re-upload it, I don't feel that the difference is sufficient to outweigh the loss of transparency/accountability. Every time we delete some vandal text from, say, George W. Bush it can be easily reversed - I don't see that we need to have unreversable changes to images where reversable changes work for text.
The case that made me think of this was image:penis.jpg, where I feel that deletion was over-eager (considering that image:clitoris.jpg is still around and it hasn't caused any major problems merely by existing), but I'm unable to properly peer review it. That makes me feel uneasy.
I'd be happy to make an exception for pure vandalism, were it not for the tendency of people to expand the definition of "vandalism" to mean "stuff I disagree with"... Martin
That's certainly an annoying tendency, I agree, and not being able to review image deletions is indeed troublesome. I think my "strong disagreement" to what you wrote below has turned to "disagreement" and is softening further. On the other hand, it's easier to delete true vandalism than write another image over the top of it and if it's right to delete an image then it's right to delete an image, regardless of whether some people might abuse their ability to do so.
The thing is, I've had experience of somebody rapidly adding the goatse.cx image to a large number of pages and me not being able to do anything about it apart from remove the links while they continued adding it to other articles - this was before I was a sysop (in fact it was one of the main reasons I became a sysop), and they were linking to the image directly on an external website back in the days when that was allowed (in fact, I think this was one of the main reasons this stopped being allowed). The effect was that I was in the same position that you're asking sysops to put themselves in with this policy - I couldn't do anything but delete the picture in the article and watch as the image spread across the Wikipedia regardless. I couldn't upload something else over the image because I didn't have any graphics software at all.
Somewhere in this rambling, I've stumbled to some conclusions: I don't think we should say simply "never delete an image without listing it on votes for deletion", but we should encourage extreme caution in doing this - only do so in instances which are clear-cut (like goatse.cx), and always give a (tactful) description of the image in your summary when you do so.
Also, I think you're idea about writing over objectionable images with something less objectionable (a message saying "Image pending deletion" or whatever) is a good one, but some people won't be able to provide such an image themselves, so lets provide a boilerplate image which people can use. Then, anybody can just download it from wherever we put it, and re-upload with a changed name as appropriate. I think that whatever else we do with offensive images, this is probably a good idea.
And thirdly, this probably isn't the right place for this discussion, since it isn't necessarily related to profanity or offensiveness (inappropriate images might be so for some other reason). That said, I can't think off the top of my head where we might thrash this out instead - feel free to move it if you can. --Camembert
Well I can solve the one problem by creating such a boilerplate image. That might be worth doing anyway, just so that non-sysops have a solution, even if we decide to allow sysops to delete quite freely. And I think I actually agree with you that never is too strong - one could always think of exceptional circumstances. The ideal solution would be if the wikipedia software allowed review of image deletion... but developer time is limited... Martin

I do not find profanity to be particularly offensive, but I do try to limit my use of it in conversation. (Though I often fail at that, finding few alternative interjections that wouldn't make me sound silly, prissy, etc.)

That said, I think that profanity policy should have as little as possible to do with our personal views on the issue, and as much as possible to do with the reaction of our readers. As others have already said, respectable literature, and encyclopedias in particular, refrains from using profanity. We need to realize that even if profanity scares away fewer users than it attracts, the users it scares away are much more valuable than those it attracts.

I find the censorship argument to be a total fallacy. Encyclopedic writing is not a form of personal expression; it is a cataloguing of facts. There is not one factual statement that requires the use of profanity, save for those that concern profanity itself.
Smack, the newbie

That sounds like a good description of our current policy, Smack :) Martin 08:20 16 May 2003 (UTC)
Very well then. IIRC, I just wandered into this talk: page without actually seeing the page it's attached to. --Smack

[edit] sex pages (from da pump)

Erotism in film (which I originated) and Nudity film list shall be merged, and the photo in the penis page removed, because children access these pages..what do you think? Antonio Mr. Nightclub Martin

Disagree with removing the pic, but might be masked in the article; see clitoris for an example of this approach. As for the merging, it's up to you. Meelar 02:51, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No comment about the merging. Question for Antonio - what's wrong with a child seeing a picture of a penis ? theresa knott 05:08, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Keep the picture. This is not a children's encyclopedia. RickK 05:11, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Exploding Boy 05:15, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

Information: in UK schools, children first see full frontal male nudity in health and hygene lessons. These lessons occur in primary schools when the children are aged about 9 to 10 years old. At secondary school, they get the basics of sex in biology lessons, when they are around 12 years old. They see pictures of men and women naked, as well as cut away diagrams, and videos of people "doing it". By the time they get to 14 they will learn about STD's, prevention of pregnancy, emotional issues, in fact everything they are likely to want to know.They are exposed to pictures, films, diagrams and models. (Two models I like, are the model penis that's splits straight down the middle, If you peal the two halfs apart in fron of the male teachers they always cringe, and the condom model that has a syring attached that you fill up with wallpaper paste- what will they think of next!) Kids are fascinated by all this stuff. theresa knott 07:19, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

They also already know all about it (with perhaps one or two odd ideas) about two years before any of this. At least that was true when I was that age, more than 30 years ago - I'm sure it's even more true now. Graham 07:27, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I was thinking about this a while ago. Would it be a good idea for all of these articles to have a seperate wikipedia article for graphic images? For example, penis could have diagrams (of the internal goings on and the external appearance) which should be suitably clear to be informative, but not particularly taboo. Then there could be a seperate article for photographs or other more taboo images of the penis. This way if you end up at Photographs of the human penis you can't complain that you didn't know what the page was going to contain, and people who don't wish to see them can still access the article penis. This might also work for images not related to sex, for example photographs which might be distressing or make people squemish (like open heart surgery, etc). Just to make myself clear, I see this as a way of including more images than we have at present, not as a way of censoring our content, and as more useful than just linking to an image file (like on clitoris) which divorces the image from the encyclopedic commentary. fabiform | talk 08:01, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This would make sense, and would allow users of an external rating system to specify the actual URL containing the possibly offensive picture, thus allowing those of a nervous disposition to block it. It might also allow for later expansions of the Mediawiki software which might allow restriction of access to certain articles according to User Preferences, etc. In other words, you could specify that you wanted a warning if you inadvertently accessed an article of a certain type, or even have the system refuse to produce it. --Phil | Talk 09:35, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

Wow, this is a good idea. There was a thread on this problem some months ago at one of the mailing lists and I gather no definitive agreement was reached. The problem is worth a deep thought. Not only for sex matters, but also for "violent" (whatever the word be) images. Compare: here in Spain we were bombarded by the press with (awful and distressing) photos of the (sorry for the example but...) burned corpses of American Citicens in Iraq some weeks ago, while I gather there were none in the USA. Would the WP have those photos? Where? In the main namespace? The software thing and "evaluation", "user preferences" looks almost-ideal for my taste. Pfortuny 09:46, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I object to that idea on the grounds that, first, it's unnecessary duplication, and second, it presumes that certain things (images of penises, for example) are inherently objectionable or obscene. Exploding Boy 10:13, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's not duplication since the photos will serve a different purpose (and the entire text of the article wont be duplicated). And perhaps using penis as an example isn't that helpful? Consider our article vulva - this currently has no images, and I gather from the talk page that it used to have a photograph, but it was removed. Now I'm not saying that I think vulvas (or penises) are shameful and shouldn't be shown in our encyclopedia, I'm saying that they absolutely should be shown, but that not everyone wants to see them. If I added photographs of vulvas to our article, I'm sure they'd be removed. So, what I'm suggesting is a pragmatic compromise so that they are just one click away from the article. Hopefully the pictures would be of a higher quality than are currently included within an article as well (for example the pictures on penis are black and white and small, I imagine that even thumbnailed large format colour photographs would be seen as less tasteful and some people would object). fabiform | talk 10:29, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
No, it is not inherently objectionable content, it is "categorized content", so that if I do not want to see maps in the articles (to put another example), I may in my preferences filter all pics to maps (for example, because I am using the wikipedia as a teacher and I want my students to place an article in a map I give to them).
Of course this is far from easy and you could say that the Wikimedia software does not need to do it. But if users want it, in the future it could well be done. It is not about "inherence" but "preference". Not "objective" but "subjective". One could filter "all images with the word blast in the description", or "corpse", or "attack", or "body", ... (some regexp thing). I think it could even be put in the javascript part of the software, if the "alt" label sends, for exmample, the description text of the image (and thus the server is not cluttered with perl sripts looking for filtering words). Pfortuny 10:56, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Sorry (I just realized). In this case there is no need to have the separated pages thing... Only images ought to be clearly described. Pfortuny 11:05, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nobody is putting sexually explicit images all over Wikipedia. They are added to the pages where they are on topic. The penis image is on topic on the penis article. If you don't want to see a penis, don't read an encyclopedia article about penises. Simple, no? If we start moving away images that are "objectionable" to some, then I'll move away the image on erotic spanking immediately. Because surely it is more objectionable for a 6-year-old to be indoctrinated with the kinky "sex" practices of their parents than to see a photo of genitals that 50% of them already have.--Eloquence* 11:59, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

I'm tired of the argument that children use Wikipedia. For one thing, how do we know that's true? For another, as has been pointed out repeatedly, even if that's true Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia designed for children. For another, it's up to every parent to monitor what their child is doing online; it's not up to Wikipedia to censor itself because children might access its articles. I simply can't imagine why anyone accessing an article entitled "Penis" would be offended by a non-erotic photographic representation of that organ. I realize that the penis image is not the only one we're talking about here, but doesn't Wikipedia policy say that if information is relevant to an article it's better to have it in that article, and that the fewer times a user has to "click" to find the information they're seeking the better? This whole thing mirrors the questions about censoring certain words. I'm against both. I would support an option for signed-in users to have a text-only version that displayed no images at all, but I'm against any sort of rating system. Exploding Boy 12:17, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Eloquence and EB. If parents don't want their children to see something, it's up to them to supervise. As a parent, I have no problem whatsoever with my children looking at an encyclopedia article on penises that contain photos, and I suspect that most parents have a similar attitude. There are things I don't want them to do on the net such as talking to strangers in chat rooms. I consider it my job to make sure my children don’t do it. theresa knott 12:29, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'm not talking about children. Nor am I talking about censoring. I'm talking about adding content in a way people will accept. We have a problem when articles like vulva cannot be correctly illustrated. What about female circumcision, or genital mutilation - Eloquence do you really believe that people would click on those links expecting to find photographs clearly illustrating the results of those practices? Your argument that people shouldn't click on a link unless they're willing to see a photograph of the subject at hand is nonsense, many people would expect diagrams and no photographs on articles about anatomy, and there to be no illustration at all for many articles on sexual practices, birth, death, torture, and the like. I'm not suggesting that all photographs of anything remotely sensitive be ghettoised, but that in cases where most people find certain encyclopedic illustrations inappropriate to put directly into a article, they can still be presented. fabiform | talk 14:02, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Just to clarify my position, I never said "censoring" or "rating" (describing something is not rating afaik and rating the semantics of a photo is quite complicated). And I had in mind something different from the "penis" article when writing about this (although that was the starter of this thread). Theresa Knott is on the other hand absolutely right concerning children and parents (it is not the job of WP to look after them -the children, I mean :)).
Maybe the clitoris article option is a good compromise, although not necessarily. Pfortuny 13:53, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think that the solution on that page is less than adequate because it assumes that any photo of human genitalia is potentially offensive. The photo in question has a warning ("warning: This photograph may be considered offensive by some viewers"), and apparently it kept getting deleted from its original location ("It used to reside at Image:Clitoris.jpg, but it kept getting deleted from there... "). Exploding Boy 14:07, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

To play devils advocate - any picture of human genitalia is potentially offensive to at least some people. I don't know if we will ever find a solution to this problem. theresa knott 14:21, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Setting what is "offensive" to whom aside for a moment, perhaps we can agree that photos carry a different, more emotional content than facts, and that it can be difficult to get to the factual detail of the text with a strong photo (in any sense) sharing visual space. To put it another way: the argument that children might be using Wikipedia and must therefore be "protected" is perhaps spurious, but I think we should be trying for a result that can be used, say, in a public library. Mixing up content that is acceptable in such a context (factual text information, diagrams) with content that clearly isn't or is likely to cause problems for both the Wikipedia and the user (explicit photos) means that the former won't be used to its best advantage because of the latter. I favor the link-to-seperate-page-for-image solution; note that this approach is in no way censorship, but simply an editorial decision of the type made by everyone here all the time. Jgm 15:50, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)


I don't like that solution either, it seems more "ooh look a naughty picture" than a link to a wikipedia page simply called something like "photographs of the clitoris". Plus there's no commentary - where's the description of the image, the discussion of what's visible externally v. its real size, etc? There's not caption whatsoever to describe exactly what the picture shows. It feels divorced from the article to me, and not that useful unless you already know all about female anatomy. fabiform | talk 14:27, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Just a quick note, in case I don't get another chance to add to this debate, to say that I agree with the idea of making seperate images of... pages - I especially agree with Jgm's point about the text thereby becoming more useful. Now, as for when we use this approach, I suggest we don't go overboard, but just create a seperate page if we have a reasonable amount of images and related information that would otherwise greatly reduce the audience of the article in question (for any of the reasons people have already suggested). - IMSoP 16:47, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not to sound like an asshole, but maybe the people who find a simple photograph of a penis so terribly offensive are better off staying away from Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but if someone is really going to be irrevocably damaged by looking at a pictorial representation of male genitalia, they have a WHOLE LOT of baggage and other issues that Wikipedia can (and should) do NOTHING about. So maybe we should just leave the photo there with the full knowledge that it may well drive some people away through their terrible offense and say good riddance. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:58, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
Just to reiterate what many people have said already: We're not just talking about penises any more. (It's not often you get to say that!) Some of the things discussed are far more sensitive (Oh dear, bad choice of words :-/ Never mind, you know what I mean.) - IMSoP 18:16, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Here's the problem, just because we're not JUST talking about penises anymore doesn't mean that we're not still including them in the overall discussion. My point is that maybe the people who are "offended" by these images really ought to take their ball and go home. I'm sorry that some people take offense to these images, but there's nothing that can be done about that (except possibly those people taking their heads out of their asses). I'm fine with people being disturbed or upset by certain images. I'm even fine with them being embarrassed or ashamed of the fact that they find certain images tittilating. But you know what? I have zero patience for people who are OFFENDED by them. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:25, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
I'd be surprised if people found the pictures on penis titilating. :) I'm not sure how helpful it is to throw your hands in the air and say you have no patience with other users in a given situation though. I don't find the pictures on penis to be offensive, and I don't suppose most users do, although the erect penis shot is one which couldn't be broadcast on television where I live (i.e. there is a taboo = some people would be offended by it). Frankly, I don't believe that there are no images we might wish to illustrate an article with which could never offend you. So perhaps you could better appreciate what I'm talking about if you think of pictures of death or torture or whatever your particular limit is, and imagine how we could include such images in wikipedia sensibly. fabiform | talk 18:40, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'd be surprised if there weren't at least a few people who find some of the pictures on Wikipedia titilating (for example, the picture on Bikini), even if not the penis images. I'm not throwing my hands up in the air, I'm taking a stand. I'm saying "no" to catering to the whims of nutzoids. As far as finding images which we might use to illustrate articles... I doubt you would find any which would OFFEND me. I might be disturbed by some of them. Some of them might make me uncomfortable and I might wish to avoid viewing them... but I'm not going to be offended by them. Here's the problem. I understand that some people don't want to see certain things. That's great, there are certain things that I don't want to see either. But I'm not about to say that my preferences should dictate how others are allowed to access information. If I don't want to see something, I won't look at it. If I accidently stumble across it, oh well, I'll survive. I am NOT going to blame Wikipedia if an article on torture has a picture of torture. That would be moronic... as in the action of a moron. What pisses me off to no end, and I think that this is reasonable, is people who get all in a huff and all pissy about these sorts of things. "Oh dear me! Oh, how could you have that image! Oh lordy lord, saints preserve us!" Forgive the hyperbole, but people who go around being OFFENDED by things need to lighten up. I'd be perfectly happy shipping most of the to Antartica or a moon colony, but hey, no one asks my opinion on these things when they're making policy. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:13, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

Look, we've been through this a million times before. What we can all agree on, I think, is to put images which would be considered offensive by most Wikipedia readers on separate pages. That, to me, does not include a tasteful picture of a corpse (such as Gunther von Hagens' Body Worlds exhibits), but it would include the kind of stuff you find on rotten.com. It certainly wouldn't include pictures of a penis or a vagina.

Furthermore, we are bound by United States law not to include in an unrestricted area certain images which would be considered pornographic/obscene under state jurisdictions, particularly the state of Florida where the Wikimedia Foundation resides.--Eloquence* 19:21, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

Well, what we can all agree is that the above paragraph is not definitive, I hope. Discussing matters is a right in an open society, isn't it? And trying to find a solution which best fits everyone without assuming that past solutions are eternal.Pfortuny 20:03, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It should be eternal unless there is a reason to change it. Allowing all but the most offensive pictures in articles is the only compromise we have been able to agree on in the past, and having this discussion again is unlikely to lead to any better results. In fact, the only possible outcome that you can realistically hope for is that the anti-censorship side will get tired of arguing with you and your side will be able to push their way through. I doubt that this is what you want. You will not be able to change the minds of people on something that touches their deepest feelings and convictions.
So unless you have a suggestion for a new way to deal with this problem (such as the rating system idea, which was quickly rejected), or have some fantastic new argument for dealing with it in a method which has already been discussed, we are wasting our time. As much fun as it may be to talk about naughty pictures, especially for people who would normally find this difficult to justify, we are here to build an encyclopedia, and wasting our time on this issue every 3 months is not going to help us do that.--Eloquence* 20:25, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
Oh, come on, man! Nobody asked you to waste your time. I never tried to change anyone's mind, and I never tried to prevent anyone from building an encyclopedia, etc... Like you, I do not like wasting my timePfortuny 12:16, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Why was the idea of a content rating system rejected, when and by whom? How would such a system differ from inter-language links? Isn't a partial block better than a total block of the site? Mr. Jones 17:15, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Is there any consensus as to whether a content warning page is legally required before talk that frankly mentions sex, or rape? I am running a wiki ([www.wikirpg.com]) and inevitably someone will create 'dark' fictional works and I'm wondering if there is any place the wikipedia people discussed the legal requirements in more depth.Logicnazi 22:16, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Merge to No personal attacks

Seeing no discussion to do so, and since they are completely different concepts, I'm removing the 'merge to' no personal attacks. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 03:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Policy or guideline?

According to Neutrality, this article is an official policy. According to the article itself, and its listing on various other pages, it is a guideline. Which is it? Kaldari 16:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality (talk • contribs) changed this from {{guideline}} to {{policy}} on 11 Nov without any discussion. For something to be a policy, there needs to be consensus for it. I think this talk page shows that this isn't the case. So why is this a policy? - ulayiti (talk) 00:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I would support changing it back to a guideline. Kaldari 03:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is this restricted?

Is using profanity in discussions restricted? Like, was Yeltensic's controversial "make Microsoft Sam say '(bleep, bleep, bleep) mother (bleep, bleep, bleep)'" post against the rules? The page does say to only use profanity if it's absolutely neccessary. (Just to say, I strongly support the idea of that being restricted.) Darth Katana X 06:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it sounds like it applies only to articles, and it is just a guideline rather than a policy. Yeltensic42 don't panic 17:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hmm

At the top of this page: "We must absolutely avoid it at all times." I don't really remember saying that, but I'm not sure [I was probably like 11 at the time] so I won't change it :\ /me supports current policy as is — Ilyanep (Talk) 00:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Gaussian Bell

Pretty Gaussian Bell with a good solid centre in the poll at the top of this page :)

I wanted to vote, but I can not seem to decide between 2 and 3. The difference could conceivably be made clearer.DanielDemaret 18:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quoting from censored sources

What is the correct way to quote an original article that "bowdlerizes" profanity? To borrow from a real-world example, take the following quote from a newspaper article:

Kennett's celebrated car phone conversation with Peacock late one night in March 1987 made his contemptuous attitude crystal clear to everyone after the recorded text became public ("I said to him, 'Howard, you're a c---. You haven't got my support, you never will have, and I feel a lot better having told you you're a c---." Peacock: "Oh, shit!" Kennett: "And the poor little fella didn't know whether he was Arthur or Martha." Peacock: "Oh, shit!")

If I were to include that in a Wikipedia article, and it were the only source (i.e. there are no more explicit sources available), should I quote it verbatim, or should I infer the meaning of "c---" and uncensor the bowdlerized parts? 59.167.20.55 20:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • When quoting from a source, you should use the quote as they gave it. The fact that that they "bowdlerized" it is factual. It would be misleading to change it and still make it look like a direct quote. If you want to add "(blanking in original quote)" after you place the quote, that woould be fine. Johntex\talk 02:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Or you may want to write "(sic)" after the bowdlerized parts.Kaldari 03:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the responses. However, if one followed the second paragraph of the profanity guideline page to the letter ("profanity should either appear in its full form or not at all; obscene words should never be bowdlerized"), it would require uncensoring the quote or not using it at all. I raise this because while I tend to agree with you, someone with the opposite view might just appeal to that part of the guideline, which I suspect was intended to deal with the practice of censoring without envisioning the uncensoring I'm referring to. Would be interested in hearing whether anyone disagrees. Otherwise, I think that part of the guideline should be clarified. 59.167.43.202 22:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Rendering a quote as it was originally spoken/written trumps our style guidelines. For example we render the title of films/books with the original capitalisation (e.g. The Englishman Who Went Up a Hill But Came Down a Mountain), rather than in sentence case (The Englishman who went up a hill but came down a mountain) that we normally use. Writing "(sic)" as per Kaldari is a good idea and should prevent others from mistakenly 'correcting' it. Thryduulf 22:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for the input. There remains the problem of the second paragraph in the guideline contradicting the responses here, and I'd like to propose replacing it with the following:

In original Wikipedia content, a profanity should either appear in its full form or not at all; obscene words should never be bowdlerized by replacing letters in the word with dashes, asterisks, or other symbols. However, when quoting relevant material from external sources, profanities should appear as they do in the source.

It's based on the existing text and so not too radical a change. Perhaps someone can come up with a better, original way to make the same point. 59.167.34.53 23:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if you've done this yet, but it looks good to me. PeteVerdon 19:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I will implement the edit tomorrow if there are no additional comments that raise objections. Thanks for the feedback. 59.167.36.5 22:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure everyone agree that "Rendering a quote as it was originally spoken/written trumps our style guidelines." and I think it should be stated similar to that. After all "c---" and "d***" and "%^$&**" are not "profanities" in the first place. The whole purpose of their existence is that they are not. WAS 4.250 23:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Currently it says:A profanity should either appear in its full form or not at all; obscene words should never be bowdlerized by replacing letters in the word with dashes, asterisks, or other symbols. This guideline is especially important when quoting relevant material. WAS 4.250 23:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

How about:In original Wikipedia content, a profanity should either appear in its full form or not at all; obscene words should never be bowdlerized by replacing letters in the word with dashes, asterisks, or other symbols. However, when quoting relevant material from external sources, rendering a quote as it was originally spoken/written trumps our style guidelines. (sic) may be added as needed. this uses 59.167.34.53s beginning, the current content's middle, Thryduulf lucid distiction ending the thought and Johntex suggestion about adding something to indicate that's how it was in the original topping it off. WAS 4.250 23:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Johntex\talk 23:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I should have raised this in my earlier response to Kalderi, but I'm uneasy about the use of "(sic)" after the bowdlerized parts as was suggested, as it may appear to be part of the original quote. Outside the quote seems less problematic, and Johntex's suggestion of (blanking in original quote) seems to be more effective if the purpose is to prevent people mistakenly "correcting" it, but as long as the guideline is clear enough, I'm not sure the problem would be significant enough to justify such ugliness anyway. 59.167.36.5 00:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Combining all this suggests:In original Wikipedia content, a profanity should either appear in its full form or not at all; obscene words should never be bowdlerized by replacing letters in the word with dashes, asterisks, or other symbols. However, when quoting relevant material from external sources, rendering a quote as it was originally spoken/written trumps our style guidelines. If you want to indicate that the blanking was in original quote by saying so in some way outside of the quote that would be fine. Is there a better way of saying this? WAS 4.250 02:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Time to get this in the article I think. Will use the above, with the last sentence tweaked a little: If necessary, you may indicate that the blanking was in the original quote by saying so in some way outside of the quote. 59.167.36.5 10:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I think filling in the gaps (unbowlderizing, as it were) would be a big mistake, and could easily be taken as misquoating (since it is). For that matter, can you even be sure you know what the word was? Right off the top of my head, I can think of two four letter words starting with a 'c' that would make perfect sense in that context and would be censored in a newspaper. I'm not just busting balls, either, I honestly can't figure out which of the two really belongs there.
I really like the quideline as it is now; don't bowlderize or otherwise censor it when it's the editor's work, but never change a quote, regardless of whether it includes bowlderization or not. And I think any reasonable comment to indicate that the quote contained the blanking is fine.
B.Mearns*, KSC 14:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural double standards

This guideline currently blatantly expresses a disregard for non-west european cultures and establishes double standards. We must be even-handed. Either we comply with all cultures or we comply with none. So I open two proposals for voting. Loom91 10:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

How so? Disregard in what manner? What double standards? Hyacinth 10:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poll: Proposal 1

The prohibition on close-up sexual depiction of minors be lifted.

[edit] Support

  1. Thryduulf 13:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC) unless NPOV, culturally independent definitions of "minor", "closeup", "sexual" and "sexualised" can be arrived at by consensus this is a recipie for disaster. Decisions on whether any image is apropriate can only be taken in the context of the individual article. Thryduulf 13:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Instruction creep. Besides, "sexual" is way too open to interpretation. Kaldari 19:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. I am against censorship in all forms. If used for educational purposes, it should be allowed.--Sefringle 23:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. Johntex\talk 11:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC) - Wikipedia should maintain higher encyclopedic standards than that.
  2. Seams to be an accurate representation of what happens, like it or not. Should be moved to Wikipedia:Censorship though. Gerard Foley 17:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Allowing sexual depiction of minors will get Wikipedia prosecuted in the US and put on the banned list of a lot of organisations. This looks like a troll and should not be fed. DJ Clayworth 17:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

So we should basically ban what offends some people while allowing what offends other people? Is this really the right thing to do? Loom91 09:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

What Loom91 said. There's absolutely no need to even mention it here. If it's illegal in Florida, it can be removed on those grounds. It has nothing to do with whether you, I or anyone else considers it "profane". Grace Note 03:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poll: Proposal 2

A prohibition on images such as the muhammad cartoons be placed.

[edit] Support

  1. This has already been voted on and the majority wants to keep images that are flatly offensive to many of our readers. I think they should be linked out of regard for the sensitivities of our readers. It doesn't detract from a page not to carry a photo upfront that we are well aware is offensive to a great number of people. Now I will find myself argued with by someone suggesting that that means we should not show women's faces because they are offensive to some. You know, you'd think you could figure it out. Dildo-brandishing preteen=very offensive to some. Topless statue=a little bit offensive to a few. Link first, not second. Muhammad cartoons=very offensive to some. Women's unveiled face=a little bit offensive to a few. Link first, not second. Kaldari, I have to say that "use your common sense" is not "instruction creep" and it's in most cases a great deal superior to "make it up as you go along". Grace Note 03:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. Johntex\talk 11:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC) I oppose a blanket removal, but I'd support linkimaging the cartoons.
  2. Decisions on whether any image is apropriate can only be taken in the context of the individual article. Thryduulf 13:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    Without wishing to cause you any offence, that's bullshit. It's just about meaningless. You could decide that images that an editor considers will cause great offence to many people should be linked or removed and then apply that to individual pictures in individual articles, but the "context of the individual article" is unimportant unless you trivially mean that a picture is less offensive because it correctly illustrates something: what I mean is, a picture of an erect penis is equally offensive to those offended by it whether it illustrates penis or Scooby Doo, but is more widely offensive in the latter case. Grace Note 03:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Instruction creep. Kaldari 19:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Absolutely not. Wikipedia is not sensored. If used appropiately where it makes sense, they should be used.--Sefringle 23:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Absolutely not. The Muhammad Cartoons obviously don't belong in Muhammad, but they definitely do belong in article discussing criticisms against Islam. Frotz661 00:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Articles should be accompanied by relevant encyclopedic images.Proabivouac 01:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Such a proposal lacks a neutral point of view. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Kaldari's change

I'm cool with Kaldari's compromise. What doesn't work for me is singling out a particular image when others, equally offensive to some, have been included. Let's not make a policy of some people's prejudices if we can help it. Grace Note 03:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility and AGF

The one useful consensus from the poll on Wikipedia:Censorship seemed to be that incivility and name-calling are all-too-common in discussions of offensive material. Since WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF are policy, I decided to boldly add what I believe to be both consensus and common sense. If anyone disagees, revert me and we can discuss here. Robert A.West (Talk) 04:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

There are many controversial topics which attract that sort of behaviour and, IMHO, to have such "please be nice" reminders in them would be offtopic, redundant, a little condescending to those who already abide by the "concensus and common sense" (by definition, the vast majority), and ineffectual against the minority who don't. When I visit a policy or guideline page, I do so in search of clear, concise information that can deal with the specific issue I'm having trouble with, not to read an appeal to my better nature. What do others think? 59.167.36.5 22:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV arguments

What would you think of adding the following to the "objective criteria" sentence, or even replacing it?

"Consider approaching the question as if one were writing an NPOV article about the image o text: how many people, worldwide, are likely to be offended? How severe is the reaction apt to be? What are the advantages of including it? What alternatives exist? Based on such information, editors should be able to reach consensus, or at least a supermajority position."

I think that clarifies the idea. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think replacing it with the above is a good idea because it is so simple and consensus as it is. However adding to with another paragraph dealing with the above might be useful; although I hesitate to endorse what you wrote immediately above without some modifications. Let me think aloud here: Consider approaching the question (approaching which question exactly, I can think of several possible meanings) [...] how many people (do we measure truth with a poll? how many atheists are offended versus how many creationists are offended versus how many muslims are offended?) [...] severe (how do we weigh 3 riots in syria VERSUS $50000 lost in donations?) What are the advantages of including it? What alternatives exist? Based on such information, editors should be able to reach consensus, or at least a supermajority position. (I like this part a lot.) Do you care to rewrite the above taking into account what you think of my thinking aloud? WAS 4.250 20:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bowdlerizing

"Obscene words should never be bowdlerized by replacing letters in the word with dashes, asterisks, or other symbols."

Who says so? Did Jimbo? Where does he say this? - Shultz IV

It looks like the people who came up with this part were Lee Daniel Crocker, Eloquence, and AxelBoldt. Kaldari 11:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
This seems to be a straightforward conclusion from WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not censored. If there is sufficient cause to use an expression, there is sufficient to use it straight. Please also note that this page is a guideline, not a policy; therefore one may argue that a specific case should be an exception. (Unlike WP:V or WP:NOR which are policy and should have no exceptions.) Robert A.West (Talk) 16:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Not to beat a dead horse here, but I'd also like to point out that there are many non-native Engish speakers who read wikipedia. It may be obvious to you and I what an F followed by 3 asterisks means, but not to everyone. Ultimately I agree with Mr. West above - although I usually think profanity isn't ncesarry, if the context warrants it, then the context also warrants using the real words. --Bachrach44 00:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I think bowdlerizing loses both sides of the debate. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Similarity to The Guardian style guide for swearwords

After contributing to Wikipedia for about three years now, I stumbled on the following excerpt from yesterday's entry in the Language Log (formatting is not original):

swearwords
We are more liberal than any other newspaper, using words such as cunt and fuck that most of our competitors would not use.

The editor's guidelines are straightforward:

  1. First, remember the reader, and respect demands that we should not casually use words that are likely to offend.
  2. Second, use such words only when absolutely necessary to the facts of a piece, or to portray a character in an article; there is almost never a case in which we need to use a swearword outside direct quotes.
  3. Third, the stronger the swearword, the harder we ought to think about using it.
  4. Finally, never use asterisks, which are just a copout.

This is an excerpt from The Guardian style guide, available here for download in PDF and MS Word formats.

IMHO Wikipedia would be better served by aligning itself a bit closer to what The Guardian follows. In particular, item 2 from the list is stricter than what I observe in our articles. I would go as far as to quote from the paper's style guide in our own guidelines. 66.167.252.162 19:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Profanity on talk pages?

Is it acceptable to use profanity on talk pages, in contexts where it's not against WP:NPA? The Finnish Wikipedia quite clearly states that this is ok, and profanity is not a reason to edit other people's comments (except in the case of personal attacks). However, I remember being accused of all sorts of things here for once saying 'fuck' on a talk page. There seems to be no policy or guideline on it, though. So which is it? - ulayiti (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have used profanity on talk pages where appropriate, and no one has said word one about it. Sometimes you just cannot say what you need to say without dropping an F-bomb ;). Write an essay on it in your user space, and see what people think, eh? WilyD 23:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
If you're that bad a writer, maybe you should take some more classes. Mdotley 15:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] profanity on articles of interest to minors

i started reading about profanily on wikipedia after stumbling across foul language in an article that i know may be visited by children. how can i tag the article for an admin to review if the profanily is needed? M8gen 19:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Administrators are not "judges" or users of a "higher level". They are simply users that have been trusted with certain functions and responsibilities. You should discuss on the talk page of that article to see if the profanity is needed. -- Ned Scott 03:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
check, the only reply was yours so far. M8gen 07:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure the rest of us would love to help you resolve this issue if you direct us to the proper article. Thanks. Kaldari 17:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History merge

A history merge request was made for this page {{db-histmerge|Wikipedia policy/Foul Language}}

The history of the two pages overlap, however, in which case it is recommended that "An appropriate procedure for such a case is to forego the history merge, and instead handle the situation much like a normal merge; put a note pointing to the other version of the page on the article's talk page" Also, Wikipedia policy/Foul Language is not a cut-and-paste move from this page but just a separate page on the same general topic. Also, the amount of data at Wikipedia policy/Foul Language is small and was made by basically one editor, and its content is more suitable for a talk page then a proper policy page. And the last meaningful edit at Wikipedia policy/Foul Language was in November of 2001. So rather than merge the histories I'll just state that there is a small amount of discussion in the history at Wikipedia policy/Foul Language, which is now a redirect page. Herostratus 17:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Informative" or "Illustrative"?

I am a bit concerned about some consequences of the word informative in the following passage:

"Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate....

As it applies to images of historical figures, images seldom provide new information, but they illustrate concepts that are already available from other historical sources. Let me give two examples:

The first concerns the portrait of Bede (Venbedes.jpg‎) illustrating his article. This romantic late 19th / early 20th c. depiction, was included because it illustrates an event that is described in a contemporary 8th. c. account of the circumstances surrounding Bede's death that is cited in the article.

The second concerns Rafael's portrait of Plato and Aristotle (Sanzio 01 Plato Aristotle.jpg) in the article on Greek Science. This 16th c. painting by Rafael does not pretend to be an accurate depiction of Plato and Aristotle, but was included in the article because it illustrates the contrast between Plato's concern with celestial things and the eternal world of ideas and Aristotle's concern with earthly matters, as discussed in the article.

In neither case do these illustrations have any claim to be historically accurate depictions nor do they provide new information not available from other sources and discussed elsewhere in these articles.

The reason I raise this issue is that in the discussions of posting portraits of the Prophet Muhammed, the issue has been raised that, because of the profanity standard, portraits of the Prophet should only be included if they provide new information -- i.e., information not available from sources other than the portraits under consideration. In the case of all portraits of early historical persons, this criterion is seldom, if ever, met.

I would suggest that the focus of this criterion be shifted from one of "informative" to "illustrative", as was applied in the non-controversial illustrations of Bede, Aristotle, and Plato. Exactly how this could be phrased to retain the current prohibition on the vulgarly obscene, while allowing the use of meaningful illustrations that are considered to be culturally sensitive is a difficult question. --SteveMcCluskey 16:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That is my point too. That the inclusion of fake Picture of Muhammad is not only NOT adding any additional information but it is even decieving the reader to think at first sight if the picture really was painted by someone who saw Muhammad (So thinking that picture to be true, and getting NO addional information at the same time). VirtualEye 14:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
in your opinion.--Sefringle 04:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Community standards?

Legal definitions of obscenity (at least in US jurisdictions) speak of obscenity as offending 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards.' In Wikipedia our editing should conform to Wikipedia community standards. Until recently, this guideline on profanity reflected that, opening with the passage:

"Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers...."

Comparatively recently, a pair of changes were made that transformed the opening to read:

"Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers...."

I am concerned that these changes transformed the guideline so that the criterion shifted from what would offend a typical Wikipedian toward what might offend the most sensitive readers. I propose we return to Wikipedia community standards as they apply to the average person. --SteveMcCluskey 03:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. WP:CREEP also comes to mind as why the "might" and "other" additions might not be such a good idea. -- Ned Scott 07:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, I've seen this same type of needless ambiguation cause problems with other policies, such as WP:U. Mights, maybes, potentiallies, and possiblies should be avoided in favor of clear and unambiguous wording. Kaldari 21:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I have restored the long-standing version. I believe introducing "typical" reader unnecessarily complicates application of this guideline. --BostonMA talk 20:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
"Typical" has been in Profanity since 2003/2004. It was a recent edit that greatly changed the spirit of this section, removing "typical".. and making this ruleset entirely too broad. This guideline can not be applied because one person out of millions is offended, or even if a minority out of the majority of users are offended. If so, then this Profanity ruleset will (and is) being used by special interest groups to dictate to the whole, what article content should be. This is unacceptable, reverting to pre BostonMA's change. Brad Barnett 22:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with SteveMcCluskey, Ned Scott, Kaldari and Brad Barnett.Proabivouac 00:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it makes the guideline too broad. According to the recent language, any phrase or image which is informative to the context of the article is immune from removal on the grounds of offensiveness. This would include, in the appropriate articles, images of genitals, sexual positions and everything else which would be informative to a reader (including child readers). Broadening the leeway for images would not help to improve the informativeness of the encyclopedia, because the standard already permits any informative content, in the appropriate articles. On the other hand, raising the bar for the offensiveness clause will enable a greater number of users to utilize Wikipedia to make a WP:Point. There is no value added in Wikipedia to intentionally offending a minority. --BostonMA talk 00:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is what is offensive to one person may be perfectly OK to antother. It seems to me you are trying to deliberately manipulate the rules to better your goals on the Talk:Muhammad/Mediation. Censorship is also used to prove a point. I wonder if BostonMA's edits are WP:POINT. What is offensive to one person may be informative to another, and that just adds ambiguity to the wikipedia policies. Typical is far better phraising, becuase everything can be offensive to somebody. With typical, it has to be offensive to a majority. With BostonMA's phrasing, if it is offensive to anyone, it counts as offensive. The problem with that is anyone can find anything offensive. Then would wikipedia still be uncensored if anything consitered offensive by somebody else could risk censorship?--Sefringle 01:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Sefringle points to some valid criticisms of the recent wording. However, I think requiring a majority to find something offensive is too stringent a requirement. I would be willing to compromise. Wikipedia is not censored. However, Wikipedia is not about free speech either. It is about providing information. As long as we do not sacrifice our mission of providing information to the sensibilities of others, I think we are doing fine. --BostonMA talk 02:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
In regards to "It is about providing information", well, it's about providing representative information. I think if you think in that way you will avoid lots of problems. Therefore when you go to human anatomy you should not see the images of sexual intercourse that you might expect in sexual intercourse. Just like a Muslim going to Muhammad should not expect to see William's Blake's image of Muhammad with his intestines falling out in Hell whereas he or she might expect to see that in depictions of Muhammad. I think this language should be clearly stated in the guidelines because too often I've seen "Wikipedia is not censored" used in places where it doesn't necessarily apply. gren グレン 23:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Well that creates an unnecessary problem. That creates ambiguity. Vertually anything can be offensive to somebody or some group. I'm sure the Neo-Nazism article would be offensive to Neo-Nazis. That doesn't mean it is bad, uninformative, or should be censored. I'm willing to compromise too. The problem is how to compromise without creating an ambiguous guideline. Offensive is offensive to everybody, the majority or somebody, or offensive is somewhere in between. I think the origional version is good, because it didn't create ambiguity as to what would be consitered offensive. If not the majority, how much is necessary for it to be consitered offensive?--Sefringle 02:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't think it creates as great a problem as you might think. Remember, the test is only signficant for words or images that are uninformative in the context of the article. Neo-Nazis might find various words or images offensive. However, if we are faced with a choice between being informative or being inoffensive, we certainly must choose informativeness. That is our central purpose. The guideline, as I see it, is to provide for the case where there is not a choice to be made between being informative or being inoffensive. Rather, the choice is to be made between being more or less offensive without sacrificing informativeness. I know this doesn't answer the question of ambiguity. I am more or less thinking out loud. I am about to log off, and will return tomorrow. --BostonMA talk 02:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
But again, what is informative to one person may not be to another. Offensive is the same way, and that is where the ambiguity comes in. If a pirture is offensive and uninformative to one person, and unoffensive and informative to another, should it be included?--Sefringle 02:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
BostonMA, supposing that anything might be conceivably offensive to someone for reasons unknown to us, we might rephrase your statement as simply, things which aren't informative should not be included here; no reference to the profanity policy is necessary.Proabivouac 03:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Profanity on article talk-pages?

Sorry if this has been discussed before, but is this a violation of sorts? Even more so when made by a WP administrator? Ekantik talk 05:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Profanity addresses mainspace content; talk page posts are governed by WP:CIVIL.Proabivouac 05:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Maybe we should add it to the policy.--Sefringle 05:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Censoring on pages directed at children

On the French 101 (an episode of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody) article, it mentions that Cody was about to say to Zack "I am going to kick your a**", but was stopped. Should this remain as it is, should it be changed to ass (not exactly a strong swear word), or should it be revereted to what it was before, where it said 'Cody was about to curse'. Cream147 Shout at me for doing wrong 20:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Now it has replaced a** with -- which makes it factually incorrect as well as censorship. It says he was about to say "I am going to kick you --", well actually, he did say that, as the dashes mean absolutely nothing. Please answer on what should happen in this situation. Cream147 Shout at me for doing wrong 00:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/r/o/Wikipedia_talk%7EProfanity_ee07.html"