Wikipedia talk:Offensive material

Old comments

I have no problem with profanity in articles where it makes sense to preserve original quotes, nor any problem with uncensored discussion on the talk pages. However, I do have a concern about putting profanity on the front page, as was recently done in a story about a best-selling book entitled Go the Fuck to Sleep, a book whose own publisher declined to print the uncensored title on the cover. The Wikipedia front page will be seen by lots of children, and will be seen before any warnings can be given about offensive content. There's no point in having offensive content warnings or discussions anywhere else on the site if profanity is permitted on the front page, where it is viewed before sensitive readers even have the opportunity to be warned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.236.176 (talk • contribs)

Does Florida have any decency laws that may apply? If so, WP:DISC would be relevant.—RJH (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

So stop being a sensitive reader. Kids don't care if you don'.14:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.46.33 (talk)

I have a similar concern to the OP's, which I aired when the day's featured article was Gropecunt Lane. The main page editors of that time seemed unable to grasp why this might be questionable main page content, and appeared to be indignant at being challenged; some of them hinted that they quite enjoyed picking articles that could offend (comments along the line of "just wait 'til you see tomorrow's FA")

The fundamental points about the main page, I think, are:

• It is not an article. So the criteria for what should go into it are not the same as those governing what should go into an article.
• It is a shop window for Wikipedia. So what should go into it is whatever most effectively promotes the whole site.

With countless high quality articles on the site, there is no need to put offensive content on the main page; and since there is no such need, the principle of civility should apply to the choice of main page content. 82.3.243.45 (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia's mission in the context of social health responsibility

“Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not.”

If the inclusion of offensive information is part of Wikipedia’s mission then being offensive is a given.

Here is my issue with the mission of this site: Wikipedia is putting an ideology concerning the importance of availability of information over any concern of social responsibility.

Information in and of itself can be harmful. A brain developing naturally can be harmed (i.e. affected in a manner that could be perceived as unhealthy) by exposure to dislocated images and content. The mission of Wikipedia is an amoral one if it is less concerned with the real world results of its influence than its lack of censorship. If this statement reflects a truth than Wikipedia cannot be perceived as a social benefit without ignoring certain human realities; where is the empirical evidence that information has no harmful influence?

To attempt to separate ethical principals and moral behavior is essential to intellectual understanding but can be harmful when utilized in the context of mass exposure to ideas generated by such a position. The issue itself is not a moral issue but one of public health. If there is evidence that exposure to certain content can be harmful to the mental health of certain individuals, and/or disruptive to the developmental processes of children, then what is the justification of producing and allowing such a system as Wikipedia to exist without any restrictions in society? Any justification must put public health below public knowledge in terms of societal importance.

If a mission has aspects that can result in unhealthy social reaction than said mission may actually be inherently antisocial. Is absolute free expression worth a possible risk of decrease in public health? Are the personal ideologies behind Wikipedia part of a philosophy of individualistic expression which challenges all ideas of social benefit, worth and health? If so, how could the mission of Wikipedia not be a socially destructive goal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motherengine (talk • contribs) 14:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this reductio ad absurdum? Regards, RJH (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This approach unfortunately overlooks the critical fact that what is harmful to one person might be healthful to the next. For example, consider this fact: If a woman has unprotected vaginal intercourse with an HIV man one time, her chance of catching HIV from him is about one in 500 to one in 1,000.

This fact might relieve crippling anxiety in the victim of rape by a stranger, but might make another woman decide that barrier protection is unnecessary because the risk is "so low" and she could do it "999 times" before catching HIV on the magic thousandth time (which isn't how it works).

Wikipedia isn't trying to help or hurt either of these hypothetical women. We are just trying to provide the facts. As with any information source, what you choose to do with these facts is entirely up to you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Name change?

I think it might help us craft a more neutral guideline if we moved this page to wp:controversial material, mostly because it's a less emotive term. up for consideration, anyway… --Ludwigs2 19:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it would be helpful. I believe that it began life as WP:Profanity, and as you would expect from such a page title, the focus is on material that is controversial because it offends readers. It does not include anything about non-offensive controversial material, which is a substantial list: links to Wikileaks, what name to use for certain cities, whether someone is called a "terrorist" or a "freedom fighter", what tone to use when describing various conspiracy theories, the efficacy of alternative medicine, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Animal mating footage debate

FYI

 – This is a pointer to a relevant discussion on another talk page.

The alleged issue of whether is can be encyclopedic to include a video (or even a still image) of animal mating behavior has been raised at Talk:Cat#Mating behavior video vs. still photo. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 18:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Not a useful page?

About this: What exactly do you mean that Help:Options to not see an image is "not a useful page"? AFAICT, it's the only page in the project that provides practical advice to a person who is so offended by a given image that he doesn't want to see it ever again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not a useful page because there is not a good way to not see offensive images. Pretending that there is is not useful or helpful, because it isn't true. And since it's not true, we shouldn't imply that it is.

The page is actually both risible and insulting in places, in that it first mentions "creating a fork" (gee, I'll do that right after lunch) or "simply staying away" as your first options, then moving on to suggest that one "enter discussions within Wikipedia policy to have the image changed, removed or deleted by building consensus" (to its credit, it does not suggest "remove your eyeballs with an oyster fork" which would be more efficacious and certainly more pleasant).

Moving on, further helpful tips include configuring one's browser to "display no images at all" (again, though, at least it doesn't say "perhaps people like you shouldn't be using the internet at all", so that's something) or writing Javascript code including the file names of all the images you don't want to see (you do know the file names of all the images you don't want to see, don't you? Er, you can write Javascript, right? No? Then why are we even talking to you?)

If the page were to be rewritten, then then perhaps we could discuss this. If, for starters, the page was honest and began with something to the effect "There isn't really a good way to prevent seeing offensive images. There are various things you can do, though. Some will degrade your overall viewing experience, some are difficult to implement, some will only partially work, and none are completely satisfactory. This page discusses these things." But the page doesn't say that now, so it's not a good link. Herostratus (talk) 04:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I had thought you had gone a little rouge by removing a helpful link, but on reading the above I am a convert. I haven't looked at the help page for a while, but I remember seeing all that verbage and having a somewhat similar reaction. The "there is not" in the first para is missing an "is". Johnuniq (talk) 06:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC) got it, thanks Herostratus (talk) 06:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've gone purple and straight to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Help:Options to not see an image it goes. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that the MFD will be successful.

Herostratus, I agree that it's not a well-written page, but it's the best that we have. Why don't you boldly improve it? I'd be happy to see it begin with text similar to what you propose above ("There isn't really a good way...") WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't wanna. If I was saying "somebody fix this!" then I'd be whining, but I'm not saying that, I'm saying "let's not link to it here", and anyway any fixes aren't going to change my opinion about that, probably, since they can't really change the underlying dynamic that you can't (satisfactorally) prevent (just) offensive images from appearing, so it'll probably never be a good link. Herostratus (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

This page was very helpful to me. Please see this post on VPT. I thought I'd seen this page before but couldn't find it, and it being hard to find is the only reason it is not useful. It is extremely useful to me to have information about blocking images with CSS. I don't care about a JavaScript block, since there is still the possibility of seeing the image anyway. The Specific pages, Specific images, and Adblock sections are very useful and we should have them. JavaScript image blocks are pretty much a hack and might be better placed at WikiProject User scripts. I wouldn't object at all to the page being trimmed down, even significantly, or rewritten, but the CSS and Adblock info should stay (perhaps just rewritten). —danhash (talk) 14:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The page does indeed need improving but there are good ways to hide an image. Privoxy or AdBlock (or some other net-nanny software or proxy or ad blocker or Opera built-in, etc.) and add to your filter a list of words that would likely be the names of offensive pics ie. Muhammad, Mohammad, dick, etc. If you think the page needs improvement then do so. The page is about to get more usage from other articles. --Alatari (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The question of improving the page is secondary. The main problem, which is just highlighted by the above comments, is this: 1) you have to pretty darn computer savvy to use any of the suggestions (assuming you're not willing to, say, block all images from appearing in your browser) and 2) even then it doesn't work too well. The page is fine for what it is. It should exist. It's possibly useful for people who can obtain, install, and program the various tools suggested. Even then, look at the example above where the editor talked about putting "dick" on there bad list. This will block images of Dick Nixon I suppose. Similarly a person might not want to block the medical images in the Penis article but might not want to see File:Estim penis.jpg. And what about File:Humbler.JPG? How is a person supposed to know to put the term "humbler" on their bad list? And there are many other problems of this type. The page is not worthless, but the procedures described just plain do not work very well even for the subset of people who are savyy enough to even use them. To link to the page in any context that implies "Well, if readers don't want to see offensive images, they can use THIS" is just wrong. And since it's wrong, we shouldn't do it. I'm not sure what is meant by "The page is about to get more usage from other articles", but if it's an avowal of some action, that's probably not a very collegial way to approach these objections. Herostratus (talk) 03:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Wait, you are saying that Net Nanny software, Adblock and other filtering software is too much for the typical Indonesian 20-something to understand how to use? And this: but if it's an avowal of some action, that's probably not a very collegial way to approach these objections. I'm not sure where you are even coming from with this statement. I'm about to link another Page Edit warning to this page and was surprised to see an attempt to delete it. Where is the non-collegial intent? Well, it's a mute point since the MfD has a snowball's chance in hell to pass. --Alatari (talk) 05:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Our readership includes a wide range of people. NetNanny is one thing, editing one's .css file another. And NetNanny, if I understand aright, can be used to either block the entire Wikipedia site or not. "Blocking the entire site" is not a way of interacting with the Wikipedia that is useful to readers. The MfD was to make some kind of point -- nobody thinks that page should be deleted, including me and the person making the MfD. (Sandra Dee shouldn't be linked to from Parliamentary Elections Act 1770, but that doesn't mean that Sandra Dee shouldn't exist; the editor initiating the MfD seems to not grasp this distinction, or be pretending not to.) Linking to Help:Options to not see an image from even more pages would not something I would generally support (depending on the page) so I don't want you to do that. Herostratus (talk) 13:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Think of it like this. If a person is unemployed, one piece of advice is "get yourself a masters degree in software engineering, they're hiring those". That's useful advice for some individuals. It's not something that should be taken off the table or never mentioned. The problem is, it doesn't really address the general problem for most people, and pointing people to the application site for Stanford University School of Engineering and pretending you've addressed the problem of unemployment is not helpful. To some people for whom this is not a viable option it would be actually kind of insulting. Herostratus (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

This page is succinct addresses the point that the user should go create their own Wikipedia account and gives the link on how to filter specific words so that a Muslim reader can freely use Wikipedia and not be offended. Some of this text from FAQ Q3 can be added into the template under MfD. --Alatari (talk) 06:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I for one have found Help:Options to not see an image useful in the past, and have actually used its proposals to disable certain images. The page is helpful, and should be linked here. Yes, its advice is mainly of use to people with user accounts, but that it's only of limited use does not mean it's of no use at all. This is information that people want to know; there's no sense in hiding it from our readers. Robofish (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

There seems no value in hiding this information from our users. While the CSS hack is pretty advanced, and not a good general use option it is useful to be able to point people at if/when people are making large numbers of comments about a set of images - its better than nothing at all. That all said we should provide better options and I do see Herostratus' point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see Herostratus' point, which appears to be "the options are so complicated that we shouldn't let even the people who can use it find the page easily".

It is not "kind of insulting" to those of us who are less technically adept, and for whom these limited options are therefore not especially viable, to be told that Wikipedia is currently offering only limited and complicated hacks instead of a proper solution.

I don't see linking to it as "pretending we've addressed the problem": I actually see it as something closer to admitting that we have a real problem with our user interface on this point. Perhaps if more people were aware of how limited our "solution" is—say, because they actually found and read and groaned over this page—then more people would be aware that we have room for improvement in this area.

I think we should link to this page, and I don't think that we should give Herostratus "veto rights" over where and whether this page can be linked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

His point is that even for technically aware users its not a particularly good solution. The current solution is only acceptable for 1% of the audience anyway - really we need to do something better. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Herostratus is now removing links to the Board's resolution about offensive material and various pages about efforts being undertaken by the Foundation pursuant to that. It wouldn't have occurred to me to add those, but I think it wholly inappropriate for him to be removing them, especially on the flimsy grounds that a discussion is going on. We are not required to exclude things that are being discussed, and I'm not seeing him make any significant effort to discuss the four new pages that he's removed anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

He removed them once before, not just now. And it's the friggin bottom-of-the-page "see also" section where even user essays are usually okay to link. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

There's only one person that wants to remove the link and that doesn't make a consensus. --Alatari (talk) 16:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll also support keeping the link. Hopefully Herostratus is not going to be disruptive about this. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo has spoken

I've done my best to incorporate the WMF resolution on controversial material after Jimbo has declared it part of Wikipedia policy. [1] This page seemed the most appropriate place for that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I may have missed something in that discussion, but I don't think he _did_ declare it policy. I'm intending to remove it, subject to our normal guidelines about forming policy WP:POLICY#Life cycle, unless someone can explain how this is part of our governance rules. A) I'm not sure the WMF board can set policy at this level and B) I'm pretty sure what they did pass isn't what this is. And C) I don't think jimbo told us we had to. In addition, I think it only applied to the commons. Hobit (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The WMF Board doesn't "set policy at this level". With rare exceptions, they set policy at the level above each project's community. Projects are required (as in "absolutely mandatory, without exception, no matter what you or I think about it, because WP:You don't own Wikipedia—and the Board technically does own Wikipedia") to comply with relevant Board policies. So if by policy you mean "any accurate description of what we actually do and/or should be doing" (and Jimbo usually does), rather than "words on a page that have undergone some sort of formal documentation-of-consensus process, especially one overseen by the Right™ kind of editors" (a more bureaucratic concept), then the concepts in the Board resolution became True™ policy for all projects (including, but not limited to the English Wikipedia) on the day the Board passed the resolution.

Fortunately for us, their project-related resolutions are not only few and far between, but also very broadly worded, which gives each community substantial flexibility in how to implement them. So we should (by way of not having secret rules that only "special" editors know about) find ways to describe the concepts in the Board resolution, since compliance is mandatory (and IMO not any different from what the English Wikipedia has already been doing in all of its best articles for a couple of years now). Working the terms "principle of least astonishment" and "educational value" into a couple of image-related or offensiveness-related advice pages is IMO a reasonable way to describe these Board-imposed requirements to less experienced editors, and IMO far preferable to creating a new, separate Official Policy Page on the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

First of all, linking to an essay on the topic isn't ideal. I believe the WMF could step in and insist on a policy change. I don't believe they have done so. I believe the policy changes only directly applied to the commons. Further, I believe they need to be really careful (and in fact have been) to avoid doing things that hurt Wikipedia. So they speak in broad terms. If we get told that we must add a policy/guideline to this effect, we will. I don't think either the board or Jimbo have made that claim at this time. Nor, AFAIK, is there anything in our own policies/guidelines that tell us how to handle such a directive. So before this guideline gets modified we should A) get clarification from the board on what they mean and then B) we should figure out exactly what we as a community think is the best way to document/describe that. At the moment it's not even clear if the board intended this to apply to anything other than the commons. Hobit (talk) 06:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The board resolution applies to all projects. [2]. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

There was a footnote linking to that email in the section that Hobit removed, by the way. So, that much should have been clear. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 06:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Some parts of the resolution address Commons specifically, but the bit about paying particular attention to real educational use and least astonishment when curating controversial content (religious, sexual, violent) applies to all projects. Jimbo and Ting Chen are unequivocal about that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I did miss the footnote. I do still question if "urge" is the same as "must". I really don't think it is. If the board wants to force policy, let them do so clearly. If not, let the community form the policy in the way it normally does, taking this urging into account. I think we'll end up in a similar place, but hopefully with a more clear and thought-out policy then if we treat this as policy-by-fiat. Hobit (talk) 06:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a WP:Policy it's a WP:Content guideline. Youreallycan (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that is true. I would note however that WP:POLICY#Life cycle applies to both. Hobit (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: the statement on "curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, including determining whether it has a realistic educational use and applying the principle of least astonishment in categorization and placement" in the Resolution is not limited to images. Their definition of controversial content is not limited to images either. So the curation urge also applies to controversial text about sex, violence, religion, and just about anything else that might offend some reader. Which is why this guideline seemed the best place to add the info on the resolution. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 06:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Without commenting on the specifics, I believe that this guideline needs to discuss the POLA. Okay, one specific: we should be clear that this is guidance, and is very open to interpretation.

Alternatively, now may not be the time--perhaps we want to wait for the current Arbcom on the Muhammad images to finish up, and see if they impute any sort of force to the POLA principle. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd favor waiting a bit. And unless ARBCOM forces something here, I'd prefer to use standard processes to work out wording and the like even then. Hobit (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, someone copied the material to a separate page and started a RfC on it: Wikipedia talk:Follow the principle of least astonishment. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hobit (and others), I'm guessing that you haven't been following the development of the new Terms of Use. The absolutely mandatory nature of the relationship, requiring all users to comply with all (relevant) Board resolutions, e.g., POLA, is about to be formally enshrined into a binding legal agreement. The Board really is "forcing policy" when they say that all content on all projects should comply with the principle of least astonishment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Then they are actually going to have to police content themselves, which will be interesting on number of levels from a legal perspective, including their ability to disclaim responsibility for contents in copyright violations, libel and so forth. I hope their lawyers know what they're doing... Or at least WMF officials are going to have to ban all those that have explicitly rejected their poorly worded resolution in the discussion I linked above, perhaps for ToU violation: m:Terms of use#11. Resolutions and Project Policies. Oh, the 400 or so German wikipedians who opposed the image filter. It's a brave new world. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

They have that option, but the fact is that we're (generally; there's always some vandal or POV pusher about) already complying with this, so I doubt that anybody here is going to get in trouble for violating it.

IMO what we need at the English Wikipedia is an explanation of (for example) why naming or describing sexual positions in the List of sexual positions has educational value and is not a violation of the POLA principle—because IMO that page is perfectly consistent with the Board resolution. I don't see anything in the Board resolution that requires a change to our existing best practices. It's already the case that we don't choose snapshots from nudist resorts to illustrate completely unrelated concepts like Automobile or Tree (which would violate it). We already scoff when people claim to be "shocked, shocked, to discover" that there are pictures of male genitals at Penis (which does not violate it). We need to define this concept locally to reduce the risk of abuse and censorship and confusion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Concerning "'Not censored' is not an excuse for gratuitous offensiveness"

I think that the issue in a previous RfC was the conflating of two separate issues: first, whether or not "not censored" ought to apply to "trivial" or "gratuitous" material, and second, whether or not "not censored" exempts offensive material from relevant inclusion guidelines. The answers, if I am interpreting policy correctly, are: yes to the first, no to the second.

I have thus altered the wording of this section to reflect this.--New questions? 05:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of speech = New WikiProject

• WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech

Hi there, I'm notifying this essay talk page due to its relevance to Freedom of speech. I've recently gone ahead and created WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I value free speech very highly, and oppose censorship in nearly all circumstances. Thank you. See Wikipedia is not censored. Nonetheless, profanity (except in direct quotes or articles or passages discussing profanity) should be discouraged because it is usually irrelevant and unconstructive and goes against NPOV.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 06:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Brutally graphic

I found one image that is so graphic — in my opinion, the most graphic image I have ever found on Wikipedia — that one could argue that it is offensive and should be replaced by a milder image. Here it is: 1. Any opinions?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 05:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

@Solomonfromfinland: We should continue this discussion at Mediawiki talk:Bad image list. Jarble (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I changed my mind. The image is appropriate; it is informative.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 01:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's censored

If Wikipedia was truly not censored, it wouldn't be disallowing edits with automated filters. 69.142.223.83 (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

If Wikipedia was truly censored, half of the content available to Wikipedia wouldn't even exist. Get real. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hahaha you Ready 2die (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

A question on WP:BOWDLERIZE

For the game Superhot, there is a noted influence to a music video which is called, properly as per band and release on album, "Bad Motherfuckers". However, the sources that name this video bowdlerize it to "Bad Motherf*ckers". (though it's obviously still clear what they mean). We are not quoting the sources directly, as paraphrasing/summarizing is fine for the statement, so is it appropriate to de-bowdlerize the name to the uncensored form if the sources do not do that, or should it be left as the sources give it? --MASEM (t) 17:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Masem, that's an interesting question. I'm not sure what the solution is in that case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Let me add that since I posted, the situation has been resolved (a RS or two giving the uncensored title so we can use it directly) but a similar situation that I know about is in Rock Band there is licensed song named "Beethoven's Cunt" that is bowderized in all sources including the game itself to "Beethoven's C*nt" (but clearly recognizable as the same song). Again, there's no need to quote to discuss this song, just that it is only given in this manner. --MASEM (t) 21:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

On the inclusion of images

I recently followed an RFC that involved an image that a few editors thought might be pointlessly distressing to some readers. The discussion itself is irrelevant except for its typicality: several editors promptly provided knee-jerk responses about Wikipedia being NOTCENSORED and No True™ Editor ever caring about emotions. The whole thing could be held up as the prototype of such discussions, complete with multiple editors claiming that their side 'won' and assertions that the RFC was invalid because it was not neutrally phrased. (Well, it was typical except for the part when three editors actually consulted reliable sources, but I would like to believe that's not atypical for the subject area.)

But a minor tangent in the discussion prompted me to find out what the official policy-based reasons for including images are. It turns out that there is exactly one reason for including any image:

"to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter".

Per policy, if an image doesn't do that, then it shouldn't be included in the article, full stop.

I'm feeling like the editors who are hand-waving at NOTCENSORED aren't considering that point. It's just "you think someone might be offended, but we don't care if you're offended, so the image stays". I'm thinking that there should be a slightly different response: "Wait, does this image increase understanding? If yes, then we don't care if you're offended and the image stays, but if no, then – well, we frankly still don't care if you're offended, but the image should be removed anyway, because it should be removed even if you weren't offended".

I hesitate to touch NOTCENSORED itself, but I wonder what you think about including a brief explanation of this issue on this page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how productive it would be to attempt to dissuade those who wave NOTCENSORED around. For a variety of reasons, Wikipedia attracts people who love free speech, especially speech that causes indignant complaints that boil down to "I am offended". However, the above explanation is perfect, and if something useful can be added, I would support it, although additions to a guideline are not as persuasive as those in a policy. Johnuniq (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Because it's so concise, adjusting the wording of the policy itself may be a delicate thing. A tiny change in something finely balanced can have surprisingly outsized effects (after a couple of years/when editors finally read the policy instead of waving at the shortcut). Also, I haven't yet thought of a way to explain this that is equally concise, and the last thing that NOT needs is another paragraph or two. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, editors not considering the WP:Offensive images guideline is why I added mention of the guideline to the WP:NOTCENSORED policy; it's partly why I stated what I did in an interview. When it comes to sexual images on Wikipedia, Wikipedia has much improved on the matter of needlessly including explicit ones. When it comes to triggering images in medical articles, that is less so, as we recently discussed. I think that this issue is more relevant to the WP:NOTCENSORED policy, especially since so many ignore this guideline unless pointed to it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The 'S***' shortcut.

Hey. I replaced WP:SHIT with WP:S***. SamRathbone (talk) 06:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

CC BY-SA 3.0

GFDL Kimanh2015 (talk) 11:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Suspension

A few years ago, I was given a thirty day suspension for stating that there is a moving handheld camera in the Carrie Prejean masturbation tape, with a link to the video as a source. When I appealed the decision, I was told I should know better than to include a link to pornographic material in a BLP. This makes no sense to me if Wikipedia is uncensored and the specific pornographic material is discussed in the article and notable through coverage in the media. As written at the time, the article said that Prejean was alone in her room when the video was taken. Unless she had her camera on a motorized device, it clearly was not true. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Bowdlerization and social media

The situation that is the basis of this edit can be generalized as: media personality A uses a social media account using uncensored offensive language, which causes a controversy that is deemed appropriate to include. However, the reliable sources that discuss this controversy quote the social media but bowlderize the offensive term. Including of the word or the quote from the social media account as replicated from the RS is deemed appropriate, but the question now because: do we keep the bowlderizaton as given by the RSes, or do we go the route of avoiding the bowlderization. I'm wording on the assumption that the word that was censored in the RSes is clearly obvious what it would be. --Masem (t) 21:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

When reliable sources bowlderize the word, it's safe for us to do the same. We've done that before. Right now, WP:BOWDLERIZE states, "However, when quoting relevant material, rendering a quotation as it appears in the source cited trumps this style guideline." That stated, I don't think it means that we automatically should censor the word like a source does. After all, it's the source choosing to censor a word that wasn't otherwise censored by the person or people in question. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

The source cited does bowdlerize the word in its body text, but subsequently features the tweets themselves (via a cross-linked image), with the word unedited. I would argue - and this was the context under which I made the edit concerned - that the source gives the option of using either within WP guidelines, and furthermore that an uncensored form in appropriate context is always better than a censored one.

Besides, the context in which the word currently appears is not a quotation, as WP:BOWDLERIZE stipulates; it's a direct reference, and so here the sentence "Doja Cat used the word 'faggot'" is strictly more accurate than "Doja Cat used the word 'f------'".Kielbasa1 (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

whether to reproduce bowdlerisation seen in secondary sources

This relates to the immediately preceding section here, although I am giving it a new section title because I don't think that it is limited to quotations which originated on social media. I believe fundamentally that we are interested in preserving any bowdlerisation which exists in the original primary source material, but we are not interested in preserving bowdlerisation in secondary sources which arises merely out of those secondary sources imposing their own censorship. Please see the form of words in this proposed change (now reverted pending discussion here).

Clearly there may at times be an element of judgement in applying this guideline, and it may depend on the individual circumstances surrounding the quotation. However, in many situations it will be pretty obvious.

• Examples where we would disregard bowdlerisation seen in a secondary source:

1. The original was in spoken form rather than in writing.
2. Two reliable sources show the same quotation, but one is bowdlerised and the other one isn't. (The uncensored one is by far the more likely to reflect the original, because secondary sources might impose censorship, but are unlikely to undo any self-censorship present in the original.)

• Examples where we would reproduce bowdlerisation seen in a secondary source:

1. It is in the form of a screenshot of an original.
2. We are talking about the secondary source material itself. (So for our purpose it is effectively a primary source.)

What do you reckon?

Thanks, --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 23:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

As still nobody has responded, I am going to make this change now. Given lack of response, it is a bit WP:BOLD, but it does seem to me that the opinions expressed above (under "Bowdlerization and social media") are pretty much in agreement with the general principle that we are not obliged to censor merely for sake of copying a secondary source -- although I'm aware that I'm also broadening the scope. (The specific example that brought me here was at Cynthia Lennon, where The Telegraph had used "f------" when reporting the spoken word.) If you disagree, feel free to revert and we can discuss further. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I just now saw this proposal and I reverted. I don't see why we should be stating "written primary source" and "When quoting secondary sources, the form which appears in the source should be used if it is reasonably likely to be a faithful reproduction of a written primary source." Also, you should look to get MOS:QUOTE changed in that regard first.

Pinging Johnuniq, who watches this page. Also pinging Masem and Kielbasa1, who recently commented on this talk page. Kielbasa1 hasn't been on Wikipedia since July 23rd, though. I will also alert Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style to this discussion since editors of the MOS crafted MOS:QUOTE. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd stick to following what is in the secondary sources, and if they bowdlerize the term, we should too. If at least one secondary source doesn't (and its a generally reliable source) then we don't have to. They way I would see it is that secondary sources are making the decision if known the offensive word is critical to the quote, or if its just unnecessary explanation that doesn't need to be spelled but some placeholder left. --Masem (t) 20:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• My take: when QUOTING a source, always cite the original... and try to make our text as accurate to that original as possible. This is one area where PRIMARY material is better than secondary material. Blueboar (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
• To repeat what I stated in the #Bowdlerization and social media section above, "When reliable sources bowlderize the word, it's safe for us to do the same. We've done that before. Right now, WP:BOWDLERIZE states, "However, when quoting relevant material, rendering a quotation as it appears in the source cited trumps this style guideline." That stated, I don't think it means that we automatically should censor the word like a source does. After all, it's the source choosing to censor a word that wasn't otherwise censored by the person or people in question." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
• The proposal does not seem helpful. It inserted these underlined words: "when quoting relevant written primary source material" and added "When quoting secondary sources, the form which appears in the source should be used if it is reasonably likely to be a faithful reproduction of a written primary source." The extra words do not clarify the issue but raise questions (what is the significance of "written"; why would a secondary source be used if there were any doubt about it having a faithful reproduction?). Guidelines cannot capture every situation and each issue will need to be argued on its merits. Johnuniq (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

We should never QUOTE secondary material... always use the original source for quotes. Blueboar (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

"Midget" wrestling/wrestlers

I am looking for advice regarding the use of the word "midget" in articles on professional wrestling. Because the term is considered offensive to many people, it has virtually gone out of use in many contexts. Professional wrestling is somewhat of a holdout. The term was used widely for years, but some promotions now avoid using it. I am wondering what to do with existing articles, such as biographies (which might state something to the effect that "X is a midget professional wrestler" or event articles (which might refer to a storyline in which "X recruited a midget to assist in this feud"). I think, overall, the term "midget wrestling" is prevalent enough that there isn't an argument to rename the article about the activity itself, and some historical uses (the ring name "Macho Midget" and awards or titles that specifically used the word) would remain in their present form. I am wondering if increasing societal awareness of the offensiveness of the word would justify some editing to replace "midget professional wrestler" with "little person professional wrestler" or something to that effect. There has been a discussion at the professional wrestling Wikiproject, which I am linking here for context: [3]. Any input would be appreciated. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@GaryColemanFan: It still stands that we don't change it because someone who isn't a fan or whatever is offended. Don't let a small number of people dictate what a the larger number should do. That's not how this works at all. If people don't understand, they should do research and learn the history of the term in professional wrestling. It's like in Canada, people started making noise about getting rid of labels for hockey in Canada specifically midget. Midget hockey is a minor hockey label in Canada and the United States. It has been around for decades without a problem. But because of the era we are in, people automatically think everything is bad and or offensive. That needs to stop. People are oversensitive. The term midget is not offensive in certain realms such as pro wrestling. This should not even be up for debate. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 03:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

You claim to know one person who isn't offended. That's original research. A large number of people find the term offensive in any context. That's well documented with reliable sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

It's complicated. The English Wikipedia tends to lag behind sources somewhat, and right now, it appears that various sports organizations are considering a name change, but haven't actually formalized it yet.[4] Theoretically, we would continue to use it until they (and therefore the news articles reporting on their sports activities) stop using it.

As an interim measure, you could try to minimize the number of uses within an article – not total exclusion, but simply not using that outdated term any more than strictly necessary. Replacing it with explanations ("hockey league for teenagers age 16 to 18" or whatever) will also have the convenient side effect of minimizing the cleanup work that will eventually be necessary when the term is retired. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Standard for sexual pages?

Evening. I'm under the impression that Wikipedia imagery is halfway tame, using drawings and such, for its sexual pages. But then why are those images there at pearl necklace (sexual act) and bareback (sexual act)? Actually, to disagree a little with the complaints at the pearl necklace page,[5] I think the pearl necklace picture might be okay because it doesn't show any explicit activity, just the aftereffect. But doesn't the bareback picture run afoul the section on this page that says " 'Not censored' does not give special favor to offensive content"? It appears that this image is just there to show off. 172.58.4.224 (talk) 07:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi - my 5 year old daughter was reading about LOL dolls with me and she clicked on the "bondage" link within the text before I could stop her. Unfortunately now she has been exposed to multiple photos of women hogtied and is very upset. I don't see how those images improve the "bondage" article at all. I often sponsor Wikipedia but am now having second thoughts about supporting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seeing all girl (talk • contribs) 23:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Seeing all girl can you explain or link to where in the doll article this link was? This sort of linking is likely to be inappropriate. — HTGS (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

It was in the then-current version of MGA Entertainment#Controversies, and the link has since been removed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Racial profanity in song lyrics

What's Wiki's stand on including the word "Nigga/Nigger" in relation to song lyrics? BenBrownBoy (Aye?) 11:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

From this very page: In original Wikipedia content, a vulgarity or obscenity should either appear in its full form or not at all; words should never be bowdlerized by replacing letters with dashes, asterisks, or other symbols. However, when quoting relevant material, rendering a quotation as it appears in the source cited trumps this style guideline. Some1 (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

There needs to be a WP:DUE reason to include any text in an article. That applies double when anyone, including trolls, can edit an article. Johnuniq (talk) 00:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

hide profanity words?

Is it possible to hide profanity words? I'm just wondering, I have no problem. I know certain images can be hidden. Cwater1 (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@Cwater1, there is no way to do this on wiki. There are probably browser extensions that could detect and blank/cover any string of words (e.g., for computers in schools). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I was just wondering. I am not offended. I know images can be hidden for those who finds it find it graphic or just don't want to see it. Cwater1 (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Dispute over censoring an image

At Talk:Anna Krauss we have a dispute over inclusion of this image of the biography’s subject. Per MOS:OMIMG, WP:NOTCENSORED and, of course, this page, I believe that the encyclopedic value of the image, which has no suitable substitutes, outweighs its potential for shock and offense. I would appreciate input from editors there, as it is just my opinion against that of Scope creep at this point. I have left a similar note at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images. — HTGS (talk) 02:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe don't make it as it a lead image if it is added. Cwater1 (talk) 01:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@HTGS, Cwater1, and Scope creep: The image was removed again here, but I don't see any consensus in favor of removing photographs like this. Jarble (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Common decency means the image must be removed. It shows an image of women who has been subject to enhanced tortured and then photographed just before her execution. The image is not there to prove about a fact about torture, so the image isn't needed. If I'd know it was posted back up, I would have removed it. I don't understand the nonsensical statement "this page, I believe that the encyclopedic value of the image, which has no suitable substitutes, outweighs its potential for shock and offense". What is the encylopeadic value or indeed any value to anybody, since it not a torture article, of a women who has been beaten up over several days. Who does that benefit, exactly? It not even a decent image. It is a Gestapo image, taken by taken by Gestapo for the Gestapo. Tell me what the exactly the benefit is? scope_creep^Talk 22:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The root is the fact that it is a PD image, it must go in. The womens whole life isn't the torture event. She lived here whole life and then then there were imprisonement for several weeks and then several days of torture then she was guillotined. The context is wrong. Representing her or more accurately the article as a person who was tortured (as show by the image), when her whole life wasn't, is wrong. scope_creep^Talk 22:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that as a lede image it is bad, but seems 100% fair to include alongside the part of the body discussing her death, noting (as scope_creep has said) this was right before her execution, which puts the deathly look that image has into context. This is something you just can't get in a lede. I don't see anything immediately offensive for complete removal though. --Masem (t) 00:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I have some sympathy for the "common decency" concern, but I'm not sure that the "common" part is fulfilled. Different people have different ideas about what's truly decent here.

It reminds me of the uninformed comments abut Taking the knee: "Kneeling is always disrespectful." (Really? Even in church?) "Religion is different. Kneeling for political reasons is always disrespectful." (Really? Wonder what Queen Elizabeth and nearly every person knighted in Europe since Charlemagne thought of that.) "Europe is different. Royalty is different. Kneeling before the US flag is always disrespectful." (Really? Then someone needs to tell the military, because those soldiers kneel when presenting the US flag to the surviving family members.) It seems that what many of them meant was "I don't like it when people remind me that racism still exists when I'm trying to have fun."

Showing what someone looked like after being beaten is not inherently disrespectful to that person. What matters is the kind of meaning or context we put around the image. Reducing a whole human down to being beaten is a problem. On the other hand, hiding the circumstances of her death is also a problem. I think therefore that we don't say an accurate image is indecent and offensive; instead, we need to work on how we present it so that the WP:PERTINENCE is clear to the reader. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I was just pinged to the original discussion. I don't see that there's any new information here, so I'll just paste what I wrote there: Is there no other photo of her in existence? Typically the freely licensed one simply takes priority, but this is a possible case for deciding to use a non-free image instead (justification along the lines of "no available photograph that properly depicts the subject" or something. If this is the only known photo of her, that's a hard situation. We do typically use only-known-photos even if they're bad or problematic in some way. We even have lots of articles depicting forms of torture/abuse: torture for starters, but also e.g. stress position (I just removed an image of an identifiable child from that one -- sigh), waterboarding, slavery in the United States, Emmett Till depicts the subject at his now famous funeral, Peter (enslaved man), etc. The difference, of course, is that those are necessary to understanding the subjects themselves. Is that true here? I don't know. I suppose it would hinge on a combination of "does it accurately depict the subject" (there's a case for "no") and something like IAR ethical grounds for not displaying it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)