Wikipedia talk:Offensive material

message: 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)
replies: text: So stop being a sensitive reader. Kids don't care if you don'.14:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old comments 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Name change? 

message: 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(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 18:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animal mating footage debate 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Concerning "'Not censored' is not an excuse for gratuitous offensiveness" 

message: *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:
#List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
#Add userbox  to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
#Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using .
#Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
#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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Freedom of speech = New WikiProject 

message: 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)
replies: text: We should continue this discussion at Mediawiki talk:Bad image list. Jarble (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed my mind. The image is appropriate; it is informative.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 01:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brutally graphic 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Yes, it's censored 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  A question on WP:BOWDLERIZE 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  On the inclusion of images 

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

message: GFDL Kimanh2015 (talk) 11:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  CC BY-SA 3.0 

message: 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)
thread_title: Suspension

message: 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, 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)
replies: text: @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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Standard for sexual pages? 

message: What's Wiki's stand on including the word "Nigga/Nigger" in relation to song lyrics? BenBrownBoy (Aye?) 11:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: From this very page:  Some1 (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Racial profanity in song lyrics 

message: 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)
replies: text: @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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  hide profanity words?