Wikibooks talk:Profanity

Initial text adapted from en:Wikipedia:Profanity --mav 07:47, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Move to Enforce
I am proposing that the text of No offensive usernames be merged into this policy. I am also proposing that this page be moved to enforced. It is my opinion that the concepts of these policies are already being implemented, and we should make our policy match the current state of business here on wikibooks. If there are no dissenting opinions, I would like to merge the policies by the beginning of the week, and I would like to move the policy to enforced by the weekend. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Last minute rewordings
Sorry for doing this so in the nick of time before this sucker's time as Proposal of the Week runs out. I've done a large rewording; hardly substantial, mostly minor tweaks. I'd like some comments on a couple of concerns that I have. --Swift 05:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete obscene module names?
Do we really need to speedy delete these? OK, it may be nice to have the option, but if the content is meaningful it should be moved. If the content isn't, it already qualifies for speedy deletion. --Swift 05:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we don't need to speedy delete them, but I would argue that few modules that have obscene page names will have any worthwhile content. If somebody creates a page "Microsoft is fucking stupid!" (as an example), can you imagine that the page will have much meaningful content? Also, I don't see any value in keeping such pages around as redirects. If a page has an obscene name, content can be moved to a better location, but the obscene page should still be deleted, preferrably quickly. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects)


 * Good point. Thanks. For that scenario it would, indeed, be useful to have the speedy delete clause. --Swift 21:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Not use profanity?
Yes, this is a semantic nit-pick, but I find offensive and obscene to be more precise words than profane and fit better with the purpose of this proposal. Does anyone object to moving this to Don't be offensive or Obscenity and replacing instances of "profane" in the text? I personally prefer "offensive".--Swift 05:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "offensive" is an arbitrary term, and people can claim offense to all sorts of subjects. Creationists can claim that texts about evolution are "offensive", for instance, and if we say that "offensive materials can be deleted", then entire texts on evolution could become speedy delete targets. Of course, that's just one example, but it proves the point that "offensive" is arbitrary. Also, I would like to say that "profanity" and "obscenity" are pretty well-defined, and are not nearly so arbitrary. I could agree to change this to Obscenity, but I dont think that is nearly as good as Profanity. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * After looking at the definitions again, I think "Obscenity" might be better then "Profanity". I still don't like "offensive", however. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the reason I like offensive is that it captures the essence of obscenity/profanity without including the other specific meanings (sexual/religious). True, offensive is an arbitrary term, but so are the others as there exists no moral authority (well, except the infallable Pople, that is) to define them. I'd say the main drawback of "offensive" was that it may have a greater scope.
 * While you have switched your preferences over to "obscene", I'm actually warming up to "profane" (there is no causal relationship there though, I assure you). I'd venture to say, that even though the "profane" definition may be a little further from the intended use than "obscene", those fringe meanings are rarely used.
 * Hmmm ... I don't think we are in any hurry on this. The proposal is set as Proposal of the Week till Sunday. I'd like a little more time to think about this. Meanwhile, could you reconsider "offensive". I'm not absolutely sure it is better for our purpose, but it looks appealing to me and I'd be willing to argue its case for the sake of this argument. --Swift 21:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I certainly understand what you are saying, but I can't seem to jump over this semantic fence that i'm stuck behind. I'm just worried that an active voting minority could be setting standards as to what qualifies as "offensive" for the entire community. Now, if we move this page to Offensive content, or something similar, we would have to painstakingly define "offensive" to exclude things that suit a particular minority at the expense of the majority. For instance, we would need to show that talking about controversial subjects (evolution/creationism, as a classic example) is not offensive, but talking about some subjects (god, religious POV) could be offensive/inappropriate. This raises another option: Inappropriate content. Too many options. I need to think about it too. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Enforced
I have moved this policy to enforced. There were no outstanding objections besides comments from User:Swift on the semantics of the word "profanity". Given that the aforementioned discussion has stagnated, and no suitable alternatives to the word "profanity" were found, I have made this into an official policy. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible copy-edit?
'If you wish to eliminate the word, you should paraphrase rather than quoting.' A bare infinitive followed immediately by a gerund? Perhaps it should be changed? Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 06:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, to "quote it". --Panic (talk) 10:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)