Wikipedia talk:Vulgarity

This page was nominated for deletion on 13 May 2010. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Comments

"Repeated offenses of using inappropriate, aggressive and abusive language can result in a block."

O rly? I've said fuck, shit, hell, ass, damn, bitch, and bastard multiple times in my 4+ years of editing, and never been blocked for it. Use of profanity in and of itself is not grounds for blocking, its the exact implementation of it.

If I call someone a bitch, that's a personal attack, but if I say someone is bitching, it isn't. If I call someone an ass, that's an attack (albeit a weak one), but telling someone to kiss my ass is merely rude. Telling someone that they write shit articles could be considered an attack, but calling an article shitty is not. "Fuck you" is an attack-ish statement, but asking "what the fuck are you talking about?" is no.

Profanity isn't black and white. The quoted sentence is needlessly simple. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can improve that if you like. You missed the keyword "abusive". Its the way something is said. No one said the usage of the word "fuck" should be banned. Are you sure its ok for me to talk to you like that? "what the fuck are you talking about?" Is it OK for you to talk to your boss or even co-worker like that? We're all co-workers here as well. Tell me why that kind of language or tone, or this specific sentence is not tolerated in the work place. I'm OBVIOUSLY not talking about a co-worker telling me our building will explode in 5 seconds and me saying "what the fuck are you talking about", but for example we're working on a project together and he insists his method is right and I say that in return in a 'serious' chain of communication, not something absurd. Anyone can tell what I'm talking about.

"telling someone to kiss my ass is merely rude" Are you saying that me telling that to an admin who asks me why I'm making certain changes to an article is not a blockable offense and so on? Suppose an RFC was opened on me and I go there and I tell everyone to "kiss my fucking ass". You're saying there wont be any consequences of that?

Granted "fuck you" is less strong than "what the fuck are you talking about" but the latter is still not behavior that should be allowed to go on or be tolerated. I'm really tempted to test this rule now because I can swear and shout at anyone I like.

Coming back to my question, is this behavior tolerated in the general workplace when people are working on projects together?

calling someone a bitch
"kiss my ass"
"what the fuck are you talking about"

When these kinds of things are not tolerated and commonly practiced in the workplace, why should they be tolerated here? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, my workplace is totally better than your workplace apparently, since I can say all of those things with total impunity. I've told my boss to fuck off on more than one occasion (intent is more important than words, and a malicious intent wasn't there, hence no problem). EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about if this is merged with WP:NPA because being rude, aggressive and abusive towards another user is I'd say, a form of personal attack because anger and abuse is directed at a person. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt brings up an excellent point. Would you talk that way to your boss or co-workers? We are all co-workers here. We ought to expect to work in a relatively professional environment. We are writing an encyclopedia, afterall. If it's not appropriate for office talk then it shouldn't be appropriate here. Basket of Puppies 20:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From the response at ANI, it is pretty clear that there will not be any consensus to merge this content as it stands into anything even approaching a Guideline level let alone a Policy. Active Banana (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly why I tagged it as an essay. Basket of Puppies 20:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This essay reads (this version), to me, like sanctimonious Victorian drivel. What on earth is a "co-worker"? it sounds like something in a communist labour camp. Most people talk to their colleagues and employers in very modern and often colourful language. We are writing here an encyclopedia not a new version of the Bible in an enclosed convent. It does not want merging it needs deleting as rubbish. Giano 20:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Scott Adams about cow-orkers: Dilbert#Language. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, your colorful description is kinda funny. Basket of Puppies 20:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "office talk". Obviously some people have lived sheltered work lives. I have worked at several fucking places where every fucking other fucking word that was fucking uttered was "Fucking". Active Banana (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually feeling rather pleased I've never worked in such an office. If I had to censor myself that much, I'd be out a mother fucking job. AniMate 20:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked in "offices" all my life and all my "co-workers" enjoy a "colourful verbal relationship" with one another. Being overtly offensive to those you aren't necessarily familiar with is too much, playful use of our rich language isn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we keep the discussion out of the gutter, please? Basket of Puppies 20:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the same gutter from which Oscar Wilde viewed the stars? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, fuck this essay, it certainly does a piss poor job of representing consensus. You might want to move this over into your goddamn user space so that it doesn't get all fucked up from what you intended it to be. It's always difficult to see people shitting all over your hard work, but I'm afraid you are going to have a hard time getting the community to accept the idea that we have to talk like a bunch of motherfucking nuns if we want to edit this shitstorm of an encyclopedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None other than Giano II himself, you have been blocked about something like 54 times and 27 times of those were for incivility so ofcourse you would not agree with what I said. "colleagues and employers" = co-worker, alright. And dont call what I wrote as rubbish, because what YOU say here is also rubbish, alright Giano II? You cant play with me, alright. I know what this is and I can see through all of it.

Ok guys, is this the way we talk to other people in our workplace? [1]. So if "what the fuck are you on about this" is ok, then "what kind of mother fucking bullshit is going here?" should also be ACCEPTABLE, how's that? Is that acceptable here on this site? If yes, is that acceptable in a meeting at your office with supervisors? Really? Perhaps thats a donut factory you work in? Even they wont tolerate it. Goodness grief. Thank you BOP, these people dont get the point. they think its a joke. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is I, Giano II - how can you insult me this way? I, your co-worker, have feelings too, that block log follows me a symbol of persecution, it will enivitably force me to throw myslef into the river and surely drown - then you'll be sorry! In the meantime, I don't think you will find me saying obscenities to my "co-workers" in fact, most offices would be happy to have my "office talk", whatever, joke or not this page is load of bunkum! Giano 21:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a joke, whether it was intended as one or not. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People please answer this question. 1. "what kind of mother fucking bullshit is going here?" . Is that ok to say on Wikipedia? If no, why is 2. "what are you fucking on about" OK? Why is (1) not accepted in the workplace? As a side note I cant do any reverts on this essay as I'm close to 3RR. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not bothered by either. Sure, there are nicer ways to get a point across, but I wouldn't block anyone just for saying fuck or bullshit. AniMate 21:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hans, please stop. Your being completely disingenuous with this and making a mockery out of it. Please stop. Basket of Puppies 21:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the questions I asked was: is this -> "what kind of mother fucking bullshit is going here" acceptable in a meeting room? If not, why is it acceptable here? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They have clearly been stated in more than one boardroom and are repeated frequently and on a daily basis in many many other work locations. Not everyone works in a church. And there are even many church board meetings where those words SHOULD have been uttered. Active Banana (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a board room anyway, it's not a valid comparison. It may also be worth noting that WP:BULLSHIT has been a blulink for several years and survived an RFD, so there's some previous consensus for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Banana, wherever you work, do you guys call each other assholes (or trolls) too? If not, why not? Lets get rid of the WP:NPA page then. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you completely missed the point of my post on your page and I apologize if you thought I was calling you a troll. The WP:DNFTT reference was meant in the manner of Streisand effect - in that your strong public push on this position was being amazingly counterproductive to your aparent desire for the reduction of the use of profanities. Active Banana (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh think we all fight our battles in different way, some men and women just blow up and have a good swear, others when losing a battle take an altogether far more underhand and snide way [2]. Giano 21:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Banana, what do we do then stay quite and say nothing and while people are robbing our houses, for example? Giano II, it was not "underhand" or "snide". In that same comment I mentioned I knew people will be watching and they're welcome to reproduce the diff anywhere else they like. If I wanted it to be underhand, I would emailed him. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you set the house on fire to stop the robber. I would suggest that you stop pouring the gasoline and try something else as the gasoline method is not working. Active Banana (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In its present form this essay is a WP:POINT violation

In its present form this essay encourages editors to think that if they have tweaked another editor enough to have caused an explosion involving vulgarity, then they are entitled to have the other editor blocked. That's a severe violation of WP:POINT:

It encourages baiting behaviour.
It encourages making ANI reports that have no chance of being acted upon, and it encourages arguing on ANI beyond all reason.

So long as this article was tagged with the humour tag it was borderline acceptable. (Borderline because there was a chance that unsuspecting editors might miss it.) I am now reverting to the last version that does not have this problem and approximately describes the consensus at WP:ANI#User:Bali ultimate. If this doesn't stick I will send this article to AfD as an egregious case of policy POV pushing and a POINT violation. It is not acceptable to create a trap for unsuspecting users by misrepresenting Wikipedia's practices in article space. Essays of this type may be acceptable in user space, though. Hans Adler 20:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abusing other editors is wrong, this essay is not wrong, sorry. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When this gets to AFD, let me know. Active Banana (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not essay is not a POINT violation in any way, shape or form. It ought to be a violation to use vulgarity on a professional project. Basket of Puppies 21:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's your personal opinion based on your personal background. Since this is not your personal project you don't get to decide this unilaterally. You will have to demonstrate that a majority of the project agrees with you. At the moment it seems to be a tiny minority. Hans Adler 21:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume, Hans, that you have the results of a request for comment to validate your assertion? Basket of Puppies 21:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just guessing, but I'm presupposing that Hans has read all the comments so far and come to the rather obvious conclusion that, thusfar, this essay is your own opinion and is not a credo held in general by the rest of Wikipedia. Obviously there's been no RFC. Are you trying to make another point? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this essay keep getting reverted to the version that is completely detached from reality while I am trying to add nuanced information? I have already reverted twice, can someone else revert this time, please, so that I can continue my work? Hans Adler 21:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's how Anthony Comstock would've handled it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are writing things that condone vulgarity and are making a mockery of this. Why do you think you're being reverted? Basket of Puppies 21:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because the version that is "completely detached from reality" is far more fun, Giano 21:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should think it would be clear by now that if you want this to say what you originally wrote, you need to pop it into your userspace as it does not represent consensus of this project. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, the person who has been blocked about 60 times. Why are we all being so polite? The community apparently has decided that its ok to swear at other editors. Lets start practicing what we preach people. Do it, dont be shy or afraid. Coming back to the point, Hans, you were changing that essay to say that vulgarity is acceptable. Its not. And the link you found said that people in Britain were fired for obscenity. Thats the point. Rude language is not tolerated in the work place. No one said its wrong to say "god I'm fking tired today". Abuse is a separate issue. If you want you can put it in another section at the bottom. Dont mix it with the main content near the top. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have I been blocked for swearing at another editor? I don't think so - do you know better? Giano 21:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What were you blocked for then? The point is you've been blocked about 60 times, so your opinion here is "rubbish" (to quote yourself). Since you said this essay on which I worked on in part is rubbish, I can say that what you say generally is also rubbish. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not for swearing at other editors. You need to do your homework before making unfounded allegations. Some may consider slanderous allegations worse than swearing. You need to wise up a little. An editor who fails to check his facts is an editor not worth having. pretty language is all very well, but Wikipdia deals in fact. Giano 21:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link also said that in some workplaces it is normal. The situation that the ANI thread was about was not a case of abuse at all. It was a spiral of escalation between equals in which one editor made a personal attack without using vulgarity, and the other responded with vulgarity without a personal attack, followed by a personal attack without vulgarity later on in the paragraph. Hans Adler 21:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hans, I guess Jimbo will have the last word on whether or not abusive swearing is OK. Giano II, I can recognize trolls. An editor who abuses is also not worth having. Ideally they are worth being blocked and banned indef if they dont clean up their act. Slanderous allegations are not worse than talking to a person abusively. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I know Jimbo he may well try to have the last word on this issue, and in fact support you initially, but give up after a while when he realises that he doesn't have a chance. Hans Adler 21:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say in all fairness that this does not violate WP:POINT. I don't see any intent on BOP's part to disrupt Wikipedia. Somewhere along the line everyone seems to have forgotten about WP:SOAP, which is more applicable here. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- are you sure? I thought I saw somewhere in the discussions a statement by one of the initiators that the real issue that sparked the creation of this page was not the vulgarity but the (as of now, as no formal findings have taken place) percieved (pattern of) abuse and thus the creation of an essay to "formalize" that vulgarity is "abusive" and blockworthy would seem to be POINTY. Active Banana (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is writing an essay and soliciting comment on it a deliberate attempt to disrupt the project? If he was going around actively censoring other users comments, you might have something. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was "losing" a discussion at ANI, so he wrote an essay that supported his position. Doing this in user space would have been OK, but in project space it's deeply misleading. I admit that this is not directly covered by the examples at WP:POINT, but I think the following might be acceptable as an additional example:

If you find that in a discussion on ANI the majority does not support your opinion...
- do make your case as convincingly as possible and try one or two alternative venues such as RfCs or the village pump.
- do not write an essay in project space that makes it appear that your position has more support than it does, and create shortcuts for it.

Hans Adler 23:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Hans and Giano II, for assuming good faith about my intentions. /sarcasm Basket of Puppies 23:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see two options: (1) You realised that there was no support for your position at ANI. (2) You thought it didn't really signify anything because it was a case of arbitrariness and favouritism. In the case of (1) you should have known that it was unwise to write an essay that could make others run into the same trap at ANI. Case (2) would be an example of assuming bad faith about the situation at ANI. Have I overlooked an option? Hans Adler 07:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

In order to truly judge the community's consensus on vulgarity, I have opened an RfC on a subpage of mine, located here. This will hopefully truly gauge the community's view on the use of vulgarity. I invite all editors to join in the discussion. Basket of Puppies 21:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yawn.......... Giano 21:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BOP, I'm waiting for Jimbo to say something on this because its clear a large portion of the editor community thinks its OK to swear and all that. If this is not enforced by Jimbo in some way, sadly there's nothing that can be done about this. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This entire thing should be MfD'ed as a pointy pile of...wait for it...shit. Tarc (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it should be added to Category:Humor. AniMate 21:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At one time, it was. Active Banana (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you two talking about the current version? :( Hans Adler 22:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of you are proceeding from the mistaken impression that since he removed porn images from Commons that Jimbo is some sort of prude who is going to bring all Wikimedia projects down to the level of having nothing more offensive than a primary school book report. I think you are going to find that you are sorely mistaken and that he will not support muzzling users just because they use a few adult words now and then. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the sort of language and humor I would expect from a locker room filled with a bunch of football players, not from people trying to build an encyclopedia. Basket of Puppies 23:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess you have no problems insulting football players. Shame on you. AniMate 23:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page I was looking for is WP:CIVIL and we could say that vulgarity is covered in CIVIL (and then the arguments of people who have been hounding us with "can I just say fuck and be banned?" fall apart). The problem is that these policies exist but they're not being enforced. I know that keeping a log of actions by the offenders will keep them from repeating things. I know this from experience from sock puppets and they either disappeared after we told people what to watch out for when detecting new socks, or they changed the (disruptive/blockable) behavior that caused them to be blocked in the first place. These logs wont be easy though because these people havent been banned and therefore they'll keep fighting to keep them off the logs. Again it will be hard to come to an agreement on anything. Its really up to Jimbo on what he says. I can make a log table right now of some offensive comments for starters. The problem is the rules need to be defined more and followed more closely. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a record like this exists on say, the WP:CIVIL page or a subpage called /Log (or where ever), I know the people who have been committing these offenses of aggression and rudeness will most likely stop because it creates a record for them to be aware of and also for others to see and learn from. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What constitutes vulgarity?

For the purpose of this essay, what words constitute vulgarity? Is it the seven dirty words and their derivatives? What about proper names of words some might consider vulgar? Instead of asshole, should we use the word anus? Bullshit is now bull-feces? If we're discussing NWA's album Fuck the Police should we change it to Screw the Police or is "screw" considered vulgar as well? What about words like schmuck? It means dick, in Yiddish and could be considered vulgar. AniMate 21:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it should ever get so far that some of the standard swearwords are completely off-limits here and cause instablocks, then even though I don't normally use them I am going to host a page with substitute words. Everybody will know they serve the same purpose, but I will choose them so they also have a harmless meaning and come with plausible deniability.

Intentionally depriving editors with anger problems of an efficient anger management technique must be just about the most stupid thing one could do to this community, and cannot be allowed. Hans Adler 21:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, no one is saying that certain words or swear words are off the limit. Its general abusive behavior that is off the limit and when swear words are mixed into an abusive demeanor, obviously that's the thing that has to stop and that's what should not be tolerated. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are saying we should be civil and not personally attack one another? Yes, we should, and we already have policies to that effect that don't over-reach into trying to be the being thought police. It's possible to be extremely rude without using any "bad words." Beeblebrox (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the abusive, belittling attitude that some editors have towards others (diffs are all on Jimbo's talk page where I wrote but I'll ignore any replies there except from Jimbo). There are no policies that take care of that. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that pressing for some sort of proclamation from Jimbo on this is exactly the wrong move to be making right now? Half of Wikipedia is calling for him to be desysopped, and he is trying to back away from this whole "obscenity" issue now that the most pressing problem has been dealt with. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)How does "abusive, belittling attitude" translate to "no bad words". Frankly, I'd say ignoring your fellow editors is pretty belittling. AniMate 22:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question at the top of this section, if I say "you are a fucking genius" that is a compliment. If I say "After speaking with you I have come to the conclusion that you are of below average intelligence and probably have Asperger's syndrome and spend all day in your mother's basement playing World of Warcraft" that is an insult and a personal attack, despite the absence of any "bad" words. If I say "I really don't give a shit which version of the page gets protected" that is a neutral statement that attacks no one, despite the presence of a word that most adults are comfortable with but they probably don't use around their elderly grandmother. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Animate, I intentionally described this essay to inter-editor discussions only. I have absolutely no idea how you extend it to renaming articles with vulgarity in their name. Care you enlighten me? Basket of Puppies 23:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never said rename the article, I was talking about the discussion page. If using "vulgarity" is blockable, would we have to call it "F*** The Police" when discussing it on user or article talk pages? AniMate 00:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Animate, no. Inter-editor discussions only, not on article talk pages where the topic is a vulgar word. I don't know how much more clear I can make it. Basket of Puppies 00:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right. So I can use it on article talk pages where the subject is a "vulgar" word, and presumably I can use it on user talk pages if I'm discussing the article which is a "vulgar" word. What about words like "schmuck"? AniMate 00:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not vulgar words by themselves. Its WP:CIVIL. BOP, maybe we should focus on Civil because thats where the problem is. Using vulgarity is a subset of the Civil page. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this essay be at WP:Profanity. I can say some unbelievably vulgar things without ever using a curse word or being uncivil. It's the words you two seem to be objecting to, not something unquantifiable like vulgarity. AniMate 01:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Factual claims should be sourced and placed in the article Vulgarity

There are some factual claims advanced here, which I believe to be wrong. Specifically, I think that when the KJV Bible used "piss", that it was the ordinary term used by everyone and anyone for urine. I also think that the Biblical injunction against "swearing" prohibits swearing as in swearing an oath in a court on the Bible (Yes, that is ironic, isn't it)

I went to the article about vulgarity to get ammunition. And what happened then was so utterly peculiar, I still cannot believe it:

From 2004 to 2010 the article vulgarity received four edits.[3] True, this was in part because it was a redirect to "vulgarism" (!) until last March, but that article is not much to look at either, with under 300 edits. At least the new text had two sources, unlike the redirect target which is still entirely unsourced.

Vulgarity has never been vandalized. In seven years. It is like a shame unto every teenager in America.

I mean, if I look up two or three more Web pages and add a few more paragraphs, I can submit a hook for Vulgarity as a DYK! I may just...

Meanwhile, I think we should hold off on any policy about vulgarity until (at least) we have done our research!!! Wnt (talk) 01:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea. The Bible passage came from one of the sources, by the way. I didn't invent it myself, but of course it wouldn't be the first mistake in a reliable source. Hans Adler 19:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Profanity is in a much better state. This is one of those few times when I feel not being a native speaker of English is a real disadvantage. I am not sure about the difference, and whether it makes sense to have parallel articles. Hans Adler 19:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Profanity is very widely but incorrectly used interchangeably with vulgarity, but from its origin it is a very different concept. Profanity refers to religious words (at least as used now), most notably "damn" and "hell", which are used in a profane context (such as irate speech). An acid test for profanity is that a preacher can use the same words without any hint of impropriety. Vulgar words by contrast were (at least originally) common speech, and typically are seen as more inappropriate when used by those from wealth and gentle breeding.

To give an example of this, there is a famous final line "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" in Gone With the Wind. The movie depicts the very wealthy slave-owning class of the South, and at the time when the movie came out it was regarded as a strong profanity. However, it is not vulgar. If we heard Butler say "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a fuck", that would greatly from his image as the gentleman. Even something regarded as rather mild ("... a crap", "... a darn") would make him sound like a much more common person who is afraid to use a proper expletive. I think this is probably why the makers of the movie faced down the censorship board at the time to get the line in, because it may be the only real way to convey his anger without lowering his perceived social class. Wnt (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though this cannot always be counted on in real courtrooms, one consequence is that profanity can never be restricted without directly assaulting freedom of religion, because you would punish some people and exempt others depending on your decision about whether they are using them appropriately according to your interpretation of their religion. Wnt (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this essay written by morons?

"As it is also an important anger management technique, discussions that focus on the mere use of swear words rather than more substantial complaints such as personal attacks are usually unproductive and should also be generally avoided."

What kind of fucking idiot would write such a stupid thing? Is it some kind of a joke?

Uncle uncle uncle 01:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows. It is fucking retarded, that's for sure! JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 07:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vulgarity notwithstanding, personal attacks are not ever acceptable. Active Banana (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find vague handwaving unacceptable as well. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 05:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is great

I fucking love this idea. Gigs (talk) 01:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General note/comment (after reading thru Jimbo's page)

Use of vulgarity addressed and applied to an editor should be avoided as it is in most cases a personal attack, yet using swear words not directed at editors [see essay DGAF ] but used in a comment with a general meaning when it is not directed to an editor but rather expressing the posting editor's feelings at the time should not be "punished" since WP is not censored (or at least isn't yet). If we start censoring such usually rare expressions of momentarily feelings of editors we might as well go all the way and apply a "peep" anytime one uses a "black listed" word.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- It appears that Jimbo feels we should generally avoid vulgarity, unless using it against ourselves for the silly things we might do. I think it's an excellent position. Is it the position of WP:CIVIL? Basket of Puppies 18:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly though BoP, poor old Jimbo's edits is based on the false asumption that "Giano disagrees" [4] - Giano does not disagree so that rather negates your justification for wrtiing this essay in the wincingly awful terms that you have. Giano 19:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo is welcome to have an opinion, but it honestly doesn't mean shit. I don't mean that as a slight against him, merely that it's just his opinion and doesn't have any bearing on anything. The continued harping about WP:CIVIL is ludicrous; it's perfectly possible to be uncivil without using profanity. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

W/o the intend to offend Jimbo, I absolutely agree with EVula's "Jimbo is welcome to have an opinion, but it honestly doesn't mean shit." Although he has (if he wishes so) the final word as he is sitting at the "red button", he is just another editor and admin here who's input is highly valued but at the end not more or less valued than any other editor's input if he's honestly dedicated about the way he set up WP (and I think he is).The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)This is the problem that WP:JIMBO was IMO intended to address. People go running to him all the times with matters great and small, and when he deigns a response in favor of the petitioner, that person runs back to the locus of dispute bearing said favorable response like a standard. It's great that he agrees with you, 3 cheers and all, but in the end it is only one additional voice. Tarc (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for correcting my typos. I'm often type to fast without checking what the hell I did, doh... The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sad thing is, I don't think anyone is advocating calling another editor "a fucking whatever", but many adults do object to being lectured in prissy and sanctimonious terms. There's never going to be a civility policy that covers all cultures so forget trying to implement one, or the alternative is to just limit Wikipedia to the bible bashers and smiling happy people from wherever. Giano 19:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read all your posts here or at Jimbo's page but I certainly agree with your above post. One can't please every editor from all cultures unless there is a tight censorship implied. I don't think anyone would like that as it would just lead for calls for even more restrictions which would limit the (right now reasonable restrictions) about free speech to zero/none/nada.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As these discussions have actually shown, tight censorship in and of itself will constitute an unpleasing environment for editors from many cultures. Active Banana (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack's version

Does anyone agree with this version? I find it to be completely inappropriate in tone and content. Basket of Puppies 21:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any editors that actually agree with any of the versions? Active Banana (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the question. The issue is if anyone else find Jack's version inappropriate. Basket of Puppies 21:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no versions that anyone actually supports, why would it matter which one is up? Active Banana (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the overall concept of the essay, not any particular version. Tarc (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An amendment for WP:CIVIL?

Shouldn't this Vulgarity page be added to WP:CIVIL? PS. Leave out the religious stuff, though. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should only be ammended to policy/guideline if it is shown to have a consensus of approval ..... quick scan of the MFD and RFC ..... NOPE! Active Banana (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Streisand effect

It is interesting to note that the sum of discussions here, at Jimbo's page, and at the MfD has elicited a greater number of profane words than if this essay were never created in the first place. Tarc (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hell yes it has. I've been swearing when discussing this topic far more than I ever would under normal circumstances, partly due to my objection at trying to "clean up" otherwise fine language. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned this at the MFD. It reminds of when certain U.S. politicians in the George H.W. Bush era tried to ban flag burning and other forms of flag desecration. All of the sudden, folks who never would have burned the flag were doing it just to show their contempt for any attempt at being the thought police. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flag burning ≠ using respectful language. Basket of Puppies 20:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Way to completely miss the point. People are using the language you decry so much in this conversation because they are outraged at this attempt to censor them, not because they use such language all the time in their interactions here. Most people are not naturally inclined to burn the flag of their own country either, but every time they try to ban it, public flag burnings increase. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the point perfectly well, thank you. You are comparing apples and oranges. Flag burning ≠ using respectful language. Basket of Puppies 20:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People opposed to flag burning attempt to legally stifle it and flag burning increases exponentially in response.

People opposed to bad language attempt to legally stifle it and bad language increases exponentially in response.

Appears to be apples to apples comparison to me. Active Banana (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm in complete agreement that flag burning ≠ using respectful language. I'm kinda confused as to why you felt it necessary to make that statement, though, since I doubt anyone would really disagree with that assessment (and is probably why Beeblebrox thought you'd totally missed the point). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Puppies, people who are opposed to flag-burning consider it an extremely disrespectful form of speech. The analogy is perfect. Tarc (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using foul-language on Wikipedia, is not a right. If J.Wales & the administrators ever decide to crackdown on such language? so be it. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given how many admins have participated in this discussion, I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for that crackdown. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never under-estimate the powers of Jimbo. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The powers of Jimbo are precisely nil when it comes to trying to do something that the Wikipedia community would be opposed to. And no one here as EVER argued for a RIGHT to swear, that is an extremely ridiculous thing to claim. Having a tool or implement handy does not mean that you have to use it, but it is nice to have within reach in case you'd like to. Tarc (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I give up

I give up. It is very clear from the RfC that the majority of people wish there to be no filters of garbage language. I will end responding to these topics and go back to what I do best- writing articles. I already have 2 GAs. Going to try to get a third. Basket of Puppies 20:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your efforts are nonetheless appreciated. Thank you. Good luck with the GA drive :) Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it'll make ya feel any better, I'd have no probs if Wikipedia banned foul language. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with you third GA. Giacomo 19:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MfD closure, and closure in general

The result of the discussion was no [expletive deleted] consensus. In my view, the best way forward would be for the authors of the encyclopedic part of this to use the ideas to expand the articles Vulgarity or Profanity, which are both pretty thin. If that were done and the material removed from here, what would remain would be the first author's original essay; the RfC and talk page comments have made it clear that there is little support for it, and the original author's last edit on the talk page is headed "I give up"; an MfD on the reduced essay might achieve consensus to userfy or to delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Based on this, I have boldly merged the encyclopedic parts to Vulgarity and redirected the very small essay that remained to WP:Civility. As for the final home of the content, I could see a pretty good argument to merge Cursing or Profanity and Vulgarity, but I'll leave that one to the linguists. Gigs (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]