Wikipedia talk:Profanity/Archive 1

message: There are many encyclopedias in print. I challenge anyone to cite more than one that makes use of foul language (as opposed to using euphemisms). Does using foul language mark an improvement over existing encyclopedias, or is it perhaps a violation of parents' trust in a site claiming to be an encyclopedia? David 15:40 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)
:The new edition of the New Grove Dictionary of Music, if I remember correctly, has an entry on the Sex Pistols, and therein reference is made to Never Mind The Bollocks Here's The Sex Pistols (not Nevermind the B******* or anything). I would expect any encyclopaedia to do the same thing. Many books of quotations include the WC Fields quote on why he didn't drink water ("Fish fuck in it"). Any dictionary or encyclopaedia of art which discusses Bruce Nauman's 100 Live and Die will have to mention the word "fuck", as it is central to the piece (the The Thames & Hudson Dictionary of Art and Artists does just this; see ). Likewise, there is Andres Serrano's Piss Christ and Helen Chadwick's Piss Flowers - no serious encyclopaeidia is going to censor those names. Encyclopaedias,  dictionaries, and other reference works, will not shy from using "foul language" where it is necessary to do so. Books specifically for children, of course, will. We are not a publication specifically for children. We should use "foul language" if it is necessary, as the policy page says. --Camembert
I find your examples thoughtful and persuasive. My only remaining reservation concerns children. Most parents want to prevent their children from being exposed to violence, sex, and other harmful influences. As adults we have become sophisticated, which is another word for hardened, so that exposure to negativity has much less effect on us than on children. This is also, I believe, the logic behind age limits for drinking and smoking.
So the important question for me is whether Wikipedia will be used by children (I agree with you that it is not designed specifically for children). My belief is that as Wikipedia grows, and as its information starts to rival and perhaps surpass that of professionally-written encyclopedias in print, it will become a favored resource with teachers, home educators, librarians, and others who are in a position to make it available to children.
At that point I feel that it will be vital for Wikipedia to use foul language only where absolutely necessary (such as in the examples you give). For me the criterion is that children should not see foul language in normal use; if they specifically look for it, I am in favor of their being able to find it. My standard is the dictionary, where in normal use one never sees foul words, but if one wants to look up the 'f' word, for example, it will be found. David 22:04 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)
:Wikipedia does not or should not endorse any particular style of parenting. The effects you presume are far from uncontroversial. If language that is considered "foul" by some people has a legitimate place in an article about a particular subject, it should be used, regardless of whether or not children can or will read about this subject. --Eloquence 22:09 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)
:I echo these sentiments.  Pursuant to Jimbo Wales' Statement of Principles, Wikipedia should remain entirely free of polemic moral precepts; those who feel the need to sanitize Wikipedia's content should create their own derivative works. -- NetEsq 02:16 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)
::: use foul language only where absolutely necessary
::: Can you give any examples of places that use foul language where not absolutely necessary? Martin
:Personally, I think children *should* be exposed to both vulgar and sexual talk as is appropriate, i.e. they should see examples of fuck and shit used in normal conversation as it actually is used by adults, the same thing goes for sexual discussion.  I think we do our children a disservice but not readying them for the full range of adult experience and creates tons of hangups and provide reason for silly censorship of things like the superbowl.  In short I think that it would be good to include foul language even where not absolutely necessery (as in examples of common expressions or the like).
:Still, I think the only reasonable way to run a major project like this is to make a neutral comprimise.  As I see it a policy either encouraging pornography or discouraging it where it adds something to the entry would be equivalent to advocating either my or your notions of how parenting should occur.  I think the only reasonable solution is to take the (relatively) neutral position of adopting encyclopedia style (as we do).  This means that swear words are never used gratitously just in the text describing something but neither are we too avoid them when they are relevant and helpfull for an entry (arguably this is slightly biased towards your interpratation).
:Originally I came to this page to figure out how wikipedia deals with content questionable in it's very nature, i.e., if describing the crimes of a famously viscious sexual predator what sort of detail is included.  What about reproductive, or sexual topics.  I am running my own wiki ([www.wikirpg.com]) and want to find out what wikipedia thought their legal requirements were if they were to include frank talk of sexual matters.  Anyone know where this page might be?Logicnazi 22:12, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: violation of parents' trust?