Wikipedia talk:Profanity/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

The same has happened to me by somebody who was treated with respect. Trampikey It would seem completely out of place and pointless. WP administrators should have a modicum of self control and a modicum of respect for fellow wikipedians. Aussiebrisguy 20:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Some producer should get a nice colonic.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

If it is a quote, then it should say what was in the source.—RJH (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Profanity on article talk pages

Is there any guideline as to whether profanity is acceptable on talk pages? And if it is not, is it considered appropriate to delete it. I ask because neither this guideline nor the one about talk pages mentions the issue. Theredhouse7 07:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Fucken' oath mate. Did you miss the section just a couple above this? Fuck... Anyway, talk pages are covered by the civility guidelines. That means that I can't call you (for example) a "fucking stupid idiot", but I can (as I understand them) say that your ideas or opinions are "fucking stupid". And of course, liberal use of swearing, so long as it doesn't go against the civility guidelines is encouraged to make people aware of how fucking stupid it is to get upset by words that aren't discriminatory. Or at least that is my fucking opinion. I'm sure that not everyone fucking well agrees however. - Anonymous Coward 15:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with you :)--BMF81 13:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Disclaimers

I came to this page looking for guidelines on whether/when to use disclaimers on pages containing profanity, and found nothing. It took me some further searching to find Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles, which addressed the question fully. I propose adding a note to the same effect to this article, as I think that may be helpful to others looking for the same guidance:

Disclaimers should not be used in articles that contain profanity. All articles are covered by the five official disclaimer pages.

Also an addition link in the "see also" section:

*Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles

Should "Do not use disclaimers" also be added to the "article in a nutshell" at the top? Opinions welcomed. Mooncow 14:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

As no one expressed a view either way so far, I have added the note, the link, and the addendum to the "article in a nutshell". Mooncow 19:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Archived

I've created archives for this discussion page, from 2003 to Oct 2006. If anyone wishes to continue any of the archived discussions, please create a new topic on the main Talk page rather than editing the archives themselves. -- Kesh 05:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored.

Enough said. Why are we even having this debate, it is even worse when you are concerning yourself with a user's page. Just like it is completely fine if they go ahead and misspell every other word on the userpage. Sure, I'd much rather if they didn't and had it all looking spick and span instead. But in the end it is not worth making a fuss over. Mathmo ^Talk 11:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

What debate are you referring to? -- Kesh 16:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This Village Pump discussion, which now says it's closed and people should come here if they have anything else to say. --Thespian 20:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah. A reference like that would've helped in the first place. I'm still confused why Mathmo came here to start a discussion with "why are we even having a discussion?" though... -- Kesh 04:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

errrr.... I'm wondering the same too, I'm sure it must have all made sense at the time to me?! Mathmo ^Talk 00:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Mac OS X Leopard

Mac OS X Leopard will have a "Wikipedia Content Filter" which will "limit access to profanity in Wikipedia." (as part of parental controls) http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/300.html —Nricardo 23:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Incivility

I see that "Wikipedia is not censored" is sometimes used to defend incivility. Is the policy only for articles? --Kaypoh (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The policy applies to talk pages as well but in reference to the article. It is fine to discuss a penis or dick on the penis talk page, but quite another thing to call another editor a dick. So this policy should not be used to defend incivility - the WP:CIVIL policy applies to that IMO. Morphh ^(talk) 14:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Content ratings

I've posted a policy question regarding "Wikipedia is not censored" and content ratings to the Village pump. Morphh ^(talk) 15:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking for profanity titles?

Where Special:PrefixIndex allows you to search article names that begin with a certain text string, Wikimedia.de grep is a recently improved tool that allows you to search text strings anywhere they appear in the article name. For example, if the article John Smith is delete and recreate as John J. Smith, entering ^John.*Smith$ at Wikimedia.de grep allows you to keep tabs on all John Smith articles, whether John, Johnny, Johnson is used, or any text string is placed between John Smith. search example Even if the beginning of the article name is changed, grep lets you search the middle and end of the article name for common text patterns. Wikimedia.de grep allows you to find such postings in project space and any other name space.

With this fuck search, I found false blocking notice, Blocking or other action needed: 1, 2, 3, 4; Offcolor article names in user space: 1, 2, 3; Offcolor userboxes 1, 2, 3; Offcolor commentary: 1; Offcolor essays: 1, 2. GregManninLB (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Actual censoring. (A.K.A don't take advantage of uncensoring stuff)

You are not supposed to censor articles that actually say a swear word. HOWEVER, you are not supposed to uncensor an article that censored the statement (in this case: "TAKE YOUR F**KING PANTS OFF"). If this happened (it did), it should remain censored until an uncensored version comes out. Wikipedia attempts to make articles as accurate as possible. Remember, if this happens, you are totally allowed to WP:IAR and censor it, but only if it was orignaly censored in its broadcast. Ellomate (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

reverting old edit made without discussion

The first paragraph of this page was changed some time ago with (see diff) with no discussion or even comment on the talk page. Given that this change significantly alters the emphasis of this guideline, I have reverted it. (The edit in question seems to have been followed by some vandalism to the article, which probably explains why no-one picked up on the change). In case this causes any problems, feel free to leave me a note here or on my talk page --carelesshx _talk 01:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

potentially offensive words

Has there been discussion as to whether the WP:profanity guideline should be applied to words that are potentially offensive in an alternative, dominant usage, or because of their similarity to an offensive word? For instance, should we avoid use of the word niggardly unless its exclusion has a substantive impact on the article? --Thesoxlost (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Please CENSOR WIKIPEDIA

nuff said. Fun With Ahmed TALK 2 AHMED

Wikipedia edit filters

Wikipedia is not censored, but the edit filter would appear to give new users the opposite impression. I see one or two postings in Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives about the ban on the word "poop" every week. Is there any text that somebody could add to the guideline to clarify how the edit filter either conforms to this guideline or is an acceptable break from this guideline? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 02:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

spill.com

Hey, I just made the page for Spill.com and the only thing wrong with it is that it has been flagged for possibly violating profanity guidelines. in the review section, I have included a quotation which explains the basis of a profane rating that the site gives to some films. Because it is a rating that the site gives, I feel a discussion of its creation by its creator is intrical to the section. I have included asterisks to make them not profane however. Smithers45 (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"Censorship preserved"?

As written, this guideline says that when quoting a source that bowdlerizes a profanity (for instance, The Man Without a Country, which has the semi-famous quotation "D—n the United States! I wish I may never hear of the United States again!") we may "indicate that the blanking was in the original quote by saying so in some way outside of the quote, for example by using '[censorship preserved]' or '[sic].'" I propose that the option of "[censorship preserved]," should be struck out. In light of the highly-charged negative meaning of the word, calling the author's writing choice an act of "censorship" may easily be taken to imply a significant POV of disapproval and criticism. I've never seen a parenthetical like that used in academic writing, and the entirely neutral "sic" should suit the necessary purpose just fine.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 07:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I second that. —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk | ☮✌☮ 01:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Quote

Should not "quote" be "quotation"? —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk | ☮✌☮ 16:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed replacement for this style guide

A proposed replacement for this style guide can be found here Gnevin (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit of lede and "core" concept

As part of the ongoing effort to rationalize the MoS sprawl, Gnevin nine days ago proposed a system to improve consistency across multiple MoS pages. The system is based on the concept of the "core": a summary of the main principles expressed in a page, of the sort that often constitutes a page's lead paragraph. In the proposed system, a distinct paragraph-long page is created for such a core and transcluded via template into those full-length MoS pages that currently, all too often inconsistently, reference the core's master page. This innovative system may sound complex, but I find it very elegant and I believe it is worthy of serious consideration.

We have been trialing this system with Profanity; the core Gnevin created from Profanity's lede graf (Wikipedia:Profanity/core), which I edited; and Wikipedia:Words to watch (itself a proposed replacement for WP:Words to avoid), where that core is now transcluded.

It occurred to me that as our goal here is maximum consistency, that the transcluded core itself would ideally constitute the lead paragraph of the master page. I have made that edit.

As noted above, I edited the language of the core after Gnevin created it. As that edit now affects the lede of this article in a way that is not transparent from the diff, I want to make it transparent here. Here's the lede as it was:

Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not.

And here's my edit, which is now the text of the core and (as the transcluded core) the lede of this master page:

Words and images that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; the indeliberate use of offensive language and imagery is not.

A few points:

• I believe the former use of "offensive" in the first sentence was too sweeping in tone, and thus inappropriate. Any Wikipedia reader, or the reader of any worthwhile encyclopedia, is likely to come across things that "offend" them on a regular basis. That's life. We can't worry about it.
• The "if and only if" link was distracting and superfluous.
• Again, it is very often necessary and proper for an encyclopedia to include material that offends—in other words, to "be offensive". That phrase was inapropos; recasting it for improved focus and precision also led to the disappearance of the unnecessary emphasis-echo with about.

Finally, in reference to the immediately preceding thread, I think—I hope—Gnevin, that you are no longer thinking of Words to watch as a replacement for this page. There is valuable content under the "How to treat profanity in articles" header on this master page that is clearly outside the purview of Words to watch.—DCGeist (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree overall.

But I'm not sure about changing "being offensive is not" to "the indeliberate use of offensive language and imagery is not." Someone might use such language in articles very deliberately, but not in an encyclopedic way.

Maybe instead, redo the paragraph as:

Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission. But words and images that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available.

Maurreen (talk) 08:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I've made the exact adjustment you've proposed to WP:Profanity/core.—DCGeist (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Maurreen (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Page name

"Profanity, vulgarity" and "obscenity" are not exactly the same. How about calling the page "Offensive language"? Maurreen (talk) 08:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

This master page covers both language and imagery, so that title is not appropriate. "Offensive matter"?—DCGeist (talk) 08:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

That's progress. How about "Offensive material"?

Sorry, but "offensive matter" makes me think that particles must be misbehaving. :) Maurreen (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Title change

In precise terms, profanity refers to the abusive, irreverent or contemptuous treatment of that which is considered sacred. Considering that this page covers a broader range of verbal and visual expression, it is proposed that the title be changed from Profanity to Offensive material. Please give your opinion of the proposal.—DCGeist (talk) 09:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Where is this proposal and RfC? Thryduulf (talk) 10:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC

It is proposed that the title of this style guideline be changed from Profanity to Offensive material. Please give your views. DCGeist (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The change would be more accurate. Maurreen (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about this. A lot of issues can fall under the concept of "offensive material": photographs containing nudity or depictions of sex, the Mohammed cartoons, photographs of lynchings, a frank discussion of Islamic terrorism or the Armenian Genocide, certain flags, an image of an aborted fetus (I don't want to look for one to link), and on and on. So changing the title from "Profanity" to "Offensive material" implies a massive shift and expansion in the focus of the guideline. Is that what we want? What form will it take? I can't support such a shift unless it is outlined in the proposal, and I don't support changing the title and nothing else.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 03:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: That is indeed the proposal—simply to change the title to one that more accurately reflects the existing contents. As noted in the preceding thread, profanity properly refers to the abusive, irreverent or contemptuous treatment of that which is considered sacred. This page, right now, addresses a much broader range of verbal and visual expression. No "massive shift and expansion in the focus of the guideline" is contemplated. (And remember, no change of any sort to this guideline could supersede the relevant policy, Wikipedia is not censored.) The current title is simply a misnomer.—DCGeist (talk) 03:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Glenfarclas, by my reading of the guideline (having just read it for the first time), it's the other way round: the guideline is not about profanity but offensive material. So changing the title is helpful by aligning it with the current focus, with no shift or expansion. If you disagree with my interpretation, please elaborate as I'd like to understand better. PL290 (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree--clearly clearer. PL290 (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. That's what the guideline is about and it leaves the title "Profanity" open in case anyone ever wants to write a real profanity guideline. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, profanity is very awkward for a guideline that addresses images. DocKino (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the style guideline title be changed from Profanity to Offensive Material. Offensive material is improved term for an area which is wide ranging. Matt Ballard (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Clearer Gnevin (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Closing Unambiguous consensus for move. Making it.—DCGeist (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Guideline type

A minor, though fundamental, observation: This should be bannered and categorized as a content guideline, rather than a style guideline. While there is obviously overlap between content and style in this area, as in many others, the questions addressed here clearly fall more under the rubric of content (to include or not to include?) than of style (how to present and express what's included?).

I have examined the history of the page and can find no record of any discussion leading to a considered decision to mark it as a style guideline. After discussion in December 2005, it was demoted from policy to guideline, with a template specifying neither content nor style. In October 2006, Radiant! changed the lead banner template to identify the page with the Manual of Style. There was no discussion of this change (see the archives both here and at MoS Talk, as well as the editor's contribution history). The rebannering was clearly part of a good faith, individual effort. Does anyone object to my improving on it three-and-a-half years down the road?—DCGeist (talk) 06:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I notice its demotion from policy status, arising from what was an extremely brief conversation between two editors in December 2005, was on a technicality and not based on whether it really should be policy. Perhaps it should. Otherwise, yes, content guideline not style guideline. PL290 (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, content not style. PL, I see what you mean about the threadbare nature of the demotion "discussion". But what in this do you think it would be useful to bring into policy that's not covered by "Not censored"? DocKino (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps nothing. On first glance the guideline seems to go beyond a guideline with "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if ...", but actually the same is implicit in the existing policy. PL290 (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to make this first, minor, move. Will wait a couple more days for opinions on the name change.—DCGeist (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Core trial

I see what you've done here with the noinclude coding--great--and we can still run the trial via WP:Images, but the content in WP:Words to watch really does need to be more focused on the issues specifically pertaining to literary style. I've restored the inline text there.—DCGeist (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

If the system is going to work its all other nothing . I've changed it so it still works across the board but I don't know what But, with the discussion of words and images as words and images the very limited exception, there should never be the need for Wikipedia's own voice to include vulgarities or obscenities. means Gnevin (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

There was no substantive "disagreement" as you suggested in edit summary, simply different focus. The problem, I realized, is that this is essentially a content guideline, not a style guideline (please see thread above). It's thus appropriate to transclude the core into another content guideline, such as WP:Images, but not a style guideline, which has a substantially different focus. It's lovely that you've edited the core so that the appropriate language appears in WP:Words to watch, but now it no longer appropriately represents this page and produces an incoherent result on WP:Images where it could do the most good. I'm going to ask you to restore the text of the lede here and the different inline text on WP:Words to watch, where the core, I'm afraid, does not belong. We still have this page, WP:Images, and maybe another content guideline we can identify for this trial.

Remember, I instituted the trial in the first place. I'm not trying to kill your baby, merely make sure it goes to the right school. "All or nothing" isn't a viable approach. And we can certainly move forward with trialing it on WP:N.

As for the comprehension problem, where are you encountering it in "But, with the discussion of words as words the very limited exception, there should never be the need for Wikipedia's own voice to include vulgarities or obscenities"? Is "Wikipedia's own voice" the issue? It simply means our own words, rather than quoted words.—DCGeist (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah "Wikipedia's own voice" means nothing to me if you can edit it that would be great. The problem is once one guideline move away from using the core its drifts away from the MOS its meant to be referencing . If you could try work on wording that works here and W2W and images , I would appreciate it Gnevin (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to edit that line (you'll see the edit below), but you seem to be missing the crucial points I'm making:

(1) This guideline should not be part of the Manual of Style. It is thus not an ideal test to translcude its core into pages that are part of the Manual of Style. It is appropriate to transclude the core into other content guidelines.

(2) As a consequence of the fact that this is not essentially a style guideline, there is no generic text for the core that would satisfy the needs of both WP:Words to watch and WP:Images. It is important to say in Words to watch, "But, with the discussion of words as words the very limited exception, there should never be the need for our own expressions to include vulgarities or obscenities". There is simply no equivalent to that in the realm of images. Replacing "words" with "images" does not work, because the entire point is inapplicable to images. It's a point that specifically pertains to literary style, and there's no sensible way to "genericize" it so it can also apply to images.—DCGeist (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see what was wrong with Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission. But words and images that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available + In regards to primary sources, Wikipedia is not censored. Gnevin (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Aren't quotation just a form of primary source? Gnevin (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

In answer to your question, no. Sources are the texts (or films, or other media with verbal content) from which quotations are extracted. We are in a position to censor quotations (which we do not); we are not in a position to censor the sources from which they come.

So in practice what's the difference , we can't censor sources and we can but don't censor quotations so just say In regards to primary sources, Wikipedia is not censored

What's wrong with your proposal (at least insofar as you want to apply it to WP:Words to watch) is that, in the treatment of verbal expressions, are standards are very different when it comes to quotations and to our own words. There is no equivalent to that distinction in the treatment of images.—DCGeist (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the distinction applies for images as well as words . For a picture of David_(name) we don't censor, but if its a image we take our self of say a beech which has topless women for example we may consider using a more tasteful image of the beech empty Gnevin (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I've edited the lede here—along the lines of what we had before this afternoon—and added a line to the section in WP:Words to watch so at least the content we're presenting is rational.—DCGeist (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I like your new lead. I've edit W2W as I feel the new lead says only be vulgar if it would improve the article and the sentence you added says the same thing Gnevin (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I know how you feel. But this doesn't get to be precisely the way you feel it should be.

You have an extremely poor idea of what it means to collaborate. I initiated the trial of your concept. I've given you more support than anyone. But your behavior has destroyed my interest in working with you. I will make sure WP:Words to watch has the content it needs.—DCGeist (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought we where WP:BRDing here? Surely we've made progress. Sorry if I've stood on your toes. I though as an experienced editors we didn't need too hold each others hand? If you want I can discuss more but I find BRD gets so much more done and quicker. At the end of the day if W2W doesn't have the content it needs then this trail has failed, however we are 1 sentence away from a solution. Gnevin (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've simmered down. But look: BRD is a worthwhile essay, but 3RR is policy and there's good reasons for the difference in status.

When I fashioned a compromise that preserved your number one priority—transcluding the core to Words to watch; edited the core text in such a way as to reduce variation to a minimum—another of your ideals, I would imagine; and added a line specifically focused on the needs of the Words to watch page, content which I had discussed at great length above...you should not have assumed I would be happy to be reverted for the fourth time in a little more than five hours. Policy aside, that has to do with common sense and respecting your collaborators. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 01:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:3RR doesn't apply here for some many reason. As I said if you have an issue I can discuss every proposed changed before editing but that will mean this process takes 3 times as long and to be honest I can't see why you would be upset it or unhappy it wasn't like you where reverting the same edit again and again Gnevin (talk) 07:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

"use–mention"

This is confusing: "With regard to the use–mention distinction ..." Maurreen (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Confusing in what way? Gnevin (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The expression is unfamiliar to me, and I work as a copy editor. There should be a better way to get the same idea across. I adjusted the intro; see what you think. Maurreen (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree ,I'd never heard of it before. I think your edit makes the same point with out using an obscure term. I've made a few changes ,RV if need. Can you be mindful that this page is currently transcended by 2 pages and needs the {{{1|}}} Gnevin (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I hadn't affected the {{{1|}}}. The intro looks good to me now. Maurreen (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Typical Wikipedia readers

Per the above discussions, the word "typical" in this context is meant to indicate a majority of Wikipedia readers. Fair enough. Now how will it be established what a 'typical' reader finds offensive? Will unbiased random polling be used? (Incurring 'common sense' wording here is a form of bias.) With the median be established among English readers or all readers? Is there going to be a Profanity for discussion forum? Thank you.—RJH (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively you can adopt the profanity standards of some movie rating scheme, then poll to see if this is acceptable to a majority of wikipedians. (E.g. language/images equivalent to an 'R' rating in the U.S. movie release could then be considered profanity.)—RJH (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Since there was no response, I attempted to insert a neutrally-worded clarification as a footnote.—RJH (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Purpose of this page

Would someone please give a quick overview of the intended purpose of this page, and how it relates to WP:Words to watch. I gather that the transclusion idea has been dropped?

The lead currently says "Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission." Huh? That will be taken as an invitation to create an article on every dumb topic imaginable. I can't think quite how to word it, but I hope the intention is to say that Wikipedia has a certain encyclopedic mission, and information compliant with that mission is not omitted due to concerns about its offensiveness.

Articles already get created on every dumb topic imaginable, so I don't think it is harmful to clarify the policy.—RJH (talk)

I don't think the "considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers" in the lead is going to work because there is no such thing as a typical reader, and even if there were, we have no way to work out what they think (we can't ask them).

I had the same concern, so I added a footnote. My thinking is, if vulgarity becomes a problem on a particular page, then hopefully it can be resolved by the corresponding editors. In most cases, hopefully common sense will serve.—RJH (talk)

In the "How to treat offensive material in articles" section, paragraph 4 seems to violate WP:BEANS in that it provides instruction to a new user how they can add offensive material to Wikipedia without being reverted by a bot. If they were a genuine editor, they would find quite quickly that they can add offensive stuff in due course. Why would we want to tell poop editors how to fly under the radar? Johnuniq (talk) 08:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the last. That paragraph isn't really needed for this policy.—RJH (talk)

I removed para 4 because I think this page is used mainly to tell people that offensive material has to have an encyclopedic purpose (and the person being told would be one who wants to add offensive material), and per WP:BEANS it does not help to explain how "poop" can be added by new users. It had an anchor which was used only at the redirect WP:POOP. Apparently the intention of para 4 was to explain to new editors who want to write some legitimate phrase using "poop" that they were blocked by the edit filter, and they should do something else for a few days before adding the material. However, when I checked "what links here", I saw that in fact no one has used the redirect for that purpose. In fact its only use has been to tell people what is in the nutshell of this guideline: offensive material can be added, but only if there is a good reason. Johnuniq (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I considered doing the same yesterday, having in mind WP:BEANS and also document scope. Does anyone defend the retention of this incidental procedural advice in a content guideline? PL290 (talk) 08:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

MoS naming style

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)