Forum:CT Archive/Minor addition to WP:NOT

Since we get someone bringing this up every now and then on talk pages and Forums, I figure we should codify what we already regularly cite when someone mentions the issue of censoring Wookieepedia from swear words and other issues they might have with our content. When someone tries to remove such things from our fair site, we long have replied with "Wookieepedia is not censored," and so I propose we add the following to What Wookieepedia is not under a "Wookieepedia is not censored" heading so we can point people to it officially:
 * "Wookieepedia's content and other pages are not censored, though users must remain mindful of our no personal attacks policy when posting comments."

This is just a common sense CT, codifying what we already have accepted as policy. Please discuss any wording changes or suggestions, etc. before making new voting options.

For

 * 1) Grunny  ( talk ) 04:41, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) As said on the IRC, makes sense to me.  Trak Nar  Ramble on 04:42, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Fark yeah! NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 04:42, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Cylka  -talk- 04:46, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Xicer9 atgar.svg( Combadge) 04:49, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6)  Master Jonathan New Jedi Order.svg ( Jedi Council Chambers ) 04:49, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Nuku said I should've done it. --Tm_T(Talk) 04:59, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) &mdash; 05:20, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Because then we can see more of the "seriously!??1!1?! why?" comments. NAYA   YEN   07:46, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 *  CC7567  (talk) 07:48, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Wookieepedia, like much of the internet, shouldn't be censored to begin with. --  Riffsyphon  1024 07:52, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) I personally like to avoid usage of expletives if possible for civility reasons (it has a tendency to inflate situations), but censorship is definitely not a good idea, especially when it relates to article comprehensiveness. SoresuMakashi ( Everything I tell you is a lie  the truth  ) 07:57, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Cavalier One FarStar Logo.jpg( Squadron channel ) 08:36, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) 1358  (Talk) 12:03, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Graestan ( Talk ) 12:38, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 13:55, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Grunny, goddamnit if you aren't a bitchin, cool-as-shit, badass motherfucker. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:53, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 8)  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 18:03, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Well double dumbass on you. Green Tentacle (Talk) 18:04, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) How the hell did I almost not see this damn thread? Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research.svg (Comlink) 19:35, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) I dedicate this vote to the memory of George Carlin. Dangerdan97 20:53, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) "You vondrook!" "Is that an actual curse word?" "I think so!" --  Darth Culator  (Talk) 00:21, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) While I agree that Wookieepedia should not be censored, the mention of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA does bring up a thought I've been having: political correctness and the unnecessary use of inflammatory language. I'll go into greater detail if I ever decide to bring it to an SH or CT thread, but I do believe that userpages should be subjected to some closer scrutiny in terms of the content they carry. Darth Trayus ( Trayus Academy ) 06:07, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * 14) Per Tope. And most definitely per Dangerdan! Bella&#39;Mia 10:08, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * 15) I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. Just say no to censorship in all forms!  OLIOSTER  (talk) 12:47, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * 16) Sometimes a single curse word expresses the thought more clearly than an entire paragraph of text :P QuiGonJinn  Senate seal.svg(Talk) 17:09, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * 17) Totally agree. Censorship is wrong, censoring to spare someone's delicate sensibilities even more so. <-Omicron 17:54, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * 18) Even as a conservative, I have to agree that censorship doesn't work especially for swearing. Sometimes we have a bad day and we have to let off some steam. Look at the Prohibition, it only created a bigger mess than solving the problem of alcoholism. In the past, I wanted to censor cuss words but experience has thought me censorship is bad medicine. Andykatib 06:09, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * 19) haha, GT. :P  JangFett  (Talk) 03:40, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * 20) —Tommy  9281 04:18, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * 21) Fuck this and fuck that. --  I need a name  ( Complain here ) 12:10, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

Against

 * 1) As long as it doesn't affect comprehensiveness (ie quotes) then I feel there sould be some regulation on language. I'm guessing this was started due to my Senate Hall forum. :) Master Fredcerique  Begun the Clone Wars has † 12:38, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) *Tope's comment above further strengthens my opposition. Really?!?! Was that necessary? Master Fredcerique  Begun the Clone Wars has † 18:15, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) I was going to hold off on this one. But the more I got to thinking about it, the following occurred to me. Wookieepedia has a Civility statute. Using profanity in public conversation is considered by society to be uncivil. Even if the swearing isn't directed at someone, thereby breaking the NPA rule, there is no instance where it is used in a "civil" manner. Therefore, implementing this is just upholding WP:CIVIL. -  JMAS  Jolly Trooper.png Hey, it's me! 00:42, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Master F brings up a good point on this and I don't think we should be so quick to dismiss this! Think of the children! :) --Gmalek ( The ability to edit does not make you intelligent ) 03:36, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Does this include pornography? :P SoresuMakashi ( Everything I tell you is a lie  the truth  ) 07:57, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the discussion is referring to verbal censorship. Pron is highly discouraged from Wookieepedia,... unless it happens to be Huttese in nature. --  Riffsyphon  1024 08:00, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Awwww&hellip; 1358  (Talk) 12:03, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Pornography is against the Wikia Terms of Use anyway. It wouldn't need to be stated in Wookieepedia policy because all users on all wikis have to follow the Terms of Use. - Brandon Rhea Alliance Starbird.svg (talk) 17:17, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha I was just thinking the same thing. c):D Master Fredcerique  Begun the Clone Wars has † 17:20, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * The ToU is a joke to be honest, specifically the CSS restrictions. :P But Pornography is a canonical subject&hellip; 1358  (Talk) 17:23, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you'll have to worry about LFL releasing any obscene content though. ;) And that's sexually obscene&mdash;the obscenity that is The Clone Wars doesn't count. =P - Brandon Rhea Alliance Starbird.svg (talk) 17:45, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Our job is not censor canon information, but represent it in clear and professional way, and I think our policies, this addition included, expresses this clearly. --Tm_T(Talk) 19:19, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've stated, I do not believe we should censor canonical information (ie quotes, behaviors/immoralities of characters, you know). It would just censor it from userpages and talk pages and the such. Master Fredcerique  Begun the Clone Wars has † 22:04, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think amending WP:CIVIL would be more in order for what you are seeking. However, I'm not entirely clear on when a proposed policy becomes a full-fledged policy (or what the difference is, really).  WP:CIVIL has been sitting out there in proposed-land for as long as I can remember. -  Esjs (Talk) 22:54, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * One has to wonder. If you censor out Han saying "I'll see you in hell", what is next? --  Riffsyphon  1024 04:15, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * On that note, I don't think we should censor the word "fuck" in applicable quotes, such as today's QOTD. It's not as though people are going to farm quotes specifically because the person swears and I think we can be responsible as a wiki when it comes to this per Family Guy Star Wars's "Great, kid; don't get penisy" line not passing QOTD. We don't need kiddie bleeps, especially if this passes. NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 05:01, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * In the case of today's quote, the actual audio it's from actually bleeps out the word. If it was uncensored, then our quote would be too. Xicer9 atgar.svg( Combadge) 05:03, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it possible that we add something to WP:CIVIL that discourages, but does not ban, expletives, especially when directed at individuals? I'm not saying that it should be enforced in terms of bannings and such, but their use does tend to counteract conflict resolution... It would be good for everyone to show some restraint when it comes to these issues. SoresuMakashi ( Everything I tell you is a lie  the truth  ) 05:40, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's already listed on the page. See: Profanity directed at another contributor under examples of Personal attacks. I'm not sure how much clearer it needs to be spelled out. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:46, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * That only applies when referring to individuals. I'm talking in a more general senseas well, such as profanity directed at the work of contributors. CIVIL is acceptable as it is, I'd just like it to be a little clearer on its stance. SoresuMakashi ( Everything I tell you is a lie  the truth  ) 05:58, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you needn't worry about it getting enforced. I guarantee you our administration is competent enough that if someone tells someone else their article sucks donkey balls they're going to get a warning or a timeout. Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:04, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Soresu's only trying to do what Grunny's trying to do with this CT: take a practice that's already in place and make it more concrete. I see no problem with that; it's been a pretty common place reason for CTs as of late. Darth Trayus ( Trayus Academy ) 06:13, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * If compromise is the only way to even have some discouraging of swearing, then i guess I could go for Soresu's option. However, I believe it should not just involve comments on talk pages/forums, but also on userpages. Only allow a certain number of such words on userpages. These words could be decided by the community. Master Fredcerique  Begun the Clone Wars has † 12:35, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not believe in a restriction for swear words. Use common sense, and you should be fine. I pretty much think that the administration is capable of intervening should there be a case where a user page is used just to have swear words something like that. 1358  (Talk) 12:40, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I must disagree. Look at Tope's userpage. I mean really?!?! Master Fredcerique  Begun the Clone Wars has † 16:28, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Toprawa's user page does not advertise "bad" words any more than your user page advertises your Christianity, and there are some people out there who might take such an advertisement of religion offensively (Please note that I take absolutely no offense at Christianity or any other religion; I'm just saying that there are some people in this world who might). The point is, censoring "bad" words when the intent of the words is not a personal attack is a bad idea, because if you follow this precedent and censor everything just to avoid people taking offense, before long you'll find yourself directly counteracting freedom of speech. Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 16:51, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * But cursing is considered uncivil. Stating one's faith is not. That's what I'm getting at. Just so you know, this is a friendly conversation. Don't think I'm upset or anything. Just wanted to put that across. :) Master Fredcerique  <sup style="color:green">Begun the Clone Wars has † 17:06, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, keeping it friendly is good. :) My point is just that while some people find "bad" words offensive, other people will find things like certain religions (or really any other myriad of things that one might happen to express on his/her user page) to be offensive. Censoring some things due to their offensiveness, but not censoring other things&mdash;even when they might be found just as offensive by some people&mdash;is obviously unfair, so you'd have to censor everything or nothing. And censoring everything that could cause people to be offended would inevitably lead to essentially violating freedom of speech. Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 17:20, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. We should not censor for offensiveness' sake. However, for civility's sake, I believe we should. But that's me. Obviously we're not going to convince anyone over this, so.....yeah. Let's just say we'll agree to disagree, and I'll have to deal with seeing the language every once in a while. I mean really, Wookieepedia's Heaven compared to high school. lol Master Fredcerique  <sup style="color:green">Begun the Clone Wars has † 17:32, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no idea if this idea belongs here, but I just told a new member to change his wording on his userpage because he swore on it, altought he bleeped it out with ***. Seeing as anyone could find userpages like that, should we kinda censor userpages? Because there really is no reson to be swearing on a userpage. Also I gree with Master Fred...Unless it totally screws up the meaning of the quote, it should be censored. I always considered the Wook a civil place, and I don't ever remember "civil" and "swearing" in the same sentence unless it was "Swearing is not civil". Lets try and keep the Wook a place for kids where they can read about Star Wars and not have to worry about being banned just because some user couldn't say "buttocks" instead "ass". --Gmalek ( The ability to edit does not make you intelligent ) 03:34, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you G. And really, we shouldn't have to worry about censoring quotes, because Lucas knows how to keep entertainment pretty clean. Maybe using **'s instead of spelling the word out would be better. The meaning is still there, and it's still a direct quote. It's just more pleasant for those lurking parent eyes. Master Fredcerique  <sup style="color:orange">(Whatever) † 03:46, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to say, but that wasn't your call to make. Wookieepedia is not censored and you can't simply tell another user to change the wording of their userpage simply because you don't approve. If you find something you think may be offensive, you should bring it to the attention of an administrator first. <span style="font-variant: small-caps; font-family: times, cursive; font-size: 16px"><font color=#008080>Cylka  <span style="font-family: times, cursive; font-size: 13px"><font color=#00A693>-talk- 03:51, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Take a step back for a second. Forget the Wook and all its policies for a second. Now imagine walking in on your kid looking at a user's userpage and seeing "Fuck this" and "Fuck that" on the userpage. Would you say, "Oh well. People can say what they want. Freedom of speech!" Probably not. You'd probably yank the kid off the computer and ban him/her from visiting the Wook again. We as members of the Wook have absolutely no idea how many times this may have happened. It could have just happened as I was typing this. I realize we have rules and policies, but still... There has to be some sort of middle ground that we can all stand on and be happy with. I'm just saying. --Gmalek ( The ability to edit does not make you intelligent ) 04:03, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd yank my kid away. No I don't have any, but still. I wouldn't want my kid, even teenager reading that. It's uncivil, impolite, and IMO, wrong. We want this to be a friendly site to everybody, right. Don't forget that adults aren't the only ones searching here. Heck I just read a forum the other day where there was an active 11-year-old!! Come on people! Master Fredcerique  <sup style="color:orange">(Whatever) † 04:13, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not the point. The point is that you cannot take upon yourself the mantle of authority and tell users what they can or cannot do based on your personal opinion. <span style="font-variant: small-caps; font-family: times, cursive; font-size: 16px"><font color=#008080>Cylka  <span style="font-family: times, cursive; font-size: 13px"><font color=#00A693>-talk- 05:34, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely with Cylka here, except in certain cases. Specifically, userpage language that attacks or defames a specific group. In otherwords, what I'm saying here and in my vote comment that this lack of censorship should not extend to dialogue that would be considered racist, defamatory, hate-driven, or otherwise discriminatory. I have noticed on some userpages that such things are left untouched without any notice from administrators, and I do not find that to be acceptable. Vulgarities and profanities do not bother me in the slightest, but prejudicial text does&mdash;especially on a site that specifically intends to deliver information to any interested individual, regardless of age, gender, or other characteristics. Darth Trayus ( Trayus Academy ) 05:53, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * If a user page attacks or defames a specific group, we consider that to fall under WP:NPA, and will be dealt with accordingly. I know of at least one user who was banned for a year for putting a message on his user page that attacked a group. So, if anybody does come across such things, please let an administrator know, after all we don't always see everyone's user page :P. Grunny  ( talk ) 05:58, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh I understand that. It's just that people are making pretty broad claims that we should have no censorship whatsoever and not worry about "delicate sensibilities" or political correctness and I feel like it needs to be remembered that there are indeed some restrictions that should (and apparently are) in place. I'll bring my specific concerns to you more privately Grunny, and thanks for the offer. Darth Trayus ( Trayus Academy ) 06:24, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how I'm taking on the "mantle of authority" here. All I did was tell him to change his userpage because I didn't think anyone wanted to see that, especially our readers who may not be as mature as all of us. It's not like I stepped in front of an admin and did his work for him. There was no admin involved. I was telling him user-to-user, because, like I said before, it's too easy for our readers to happen upon a strongly worded page. Cylka I understand where you're coming from, but I don't see the harm in telling a fellow user that there was no need to use profanity in expressing his views. Also, I agree with Trayus on the claim that prejudicial and racial text on userpages. That is NOT cool and I HATE seeing HATE. --Gmalek ( The ability to edit does not make you intelligent ) 09:42, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * This CT is pretty much just trying to codify an unwritten rule on the Wook, in my opinion. At the moment, this is no written rule for or against censorship on the Wook that I know of, and I believe this is what Cylka is trying to say. You insinuated upon this user that there was some rule against curse words on userpages, when it was really just your sensitive sensibilities you were trying to uphold. When a normal user warns another normal user, it's because they have done something that there is a real, written down rule against, like vandalism or making a personal attack.  OLIOSTER  (talk) 12:38, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the edit conflict, Oli. Now I have to type this all over. :P Anyway, I believe it might have been better to state in your warning that there is no policy against it, but that you thought it personally inappopriate. I looked past the wording, but many people don't. Anyway, once again I find myself restating what I said as more people keep bringing up the same statement's without consulting the arguments brought against them. We SHOULD NOT censor canonical information. Just censor everything else. We would not do this for offensiveness' sake, but for civility's. Also, "I'll see you in hell." is not cursing as it's refering to a place (I assume there must be a hell in Star Wars). Master Fredcerique  <sup style="color:orange">(Whatever) † 12:51, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's called Chaos :).  OLIOSTER  (talk) 12:54, October 7, 2010 (UTC)