Wikipedia talk:Profanity/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 →

Contents

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)

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)

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)

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)


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)

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)

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)

Poll: Proposal 1

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

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)

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)

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)

Poll: Proposal 2

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

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)

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)

Discussion

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)

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)


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)