Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Vulgarity

Vulgarity
 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

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)

Completely out of touch with consensus. Has a lot of article-like content that doesn't belong in Wikipedia space as well. It seems some observers have taken Jimbo's recent actions as a sign that Wikipedia is now some kind of kindergarten classroom. Some relevant reading is at WP:NOESSAY Gigs (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A few comments and keep. First, the essay (created by me) was never intended to have taken the direction in which it has. I prefer this version which is concisely written and a suggestion to avoid inter-editor vulgarity. The current version is one that I think belongs in the article space, not as an essay supplementing WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Second, proposed policies tend to be kept even if rejected. It can be marked as rejected, but since it's an essay it's not able to be rejected as it is only the opinion of some editors. Basket of Puppies  02:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The other version is even worse, with its strict imperatives that vulgarity "must be avoided", and its claims to being a policy supplement that has some kind of wider consensus. We do delete (or userfy) essays that are completely out of touch with consensus or that conflict with policy and present themselves in absolute terms rather than qualifying that they are disagreeing with accepted policy.  If you meant it as a proposal, you should have used a proposal tag and an RfC...  Gigs (talk) 02:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said it was perfect and you're right about the "must", but it doesn't claim to be a policy supplement, but an essay that might or can possibly supplement policy. I think that the essay tag is more appropriate, however, until actual consensus is obtained, an RfC for which has just been opened. Basket of Puppies  02:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Make sure to advertise the RfC widely enough. A link from here would be a good idea. Gigs (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see the big deal. It's an essay. It's a very stupid essay, but essays don't really need broad agreement. That's why they're essays, not policies or guidelines or whatever else. This is all pretty clearly laid out in the essay tag at the top of the page. Perhaps there's a better argument to be made for why this page so urgently needs to be deleted, but I don't see one currently. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm with MzMcBride. It's just an essay, and essays say they can reflect a minority of the community's views. Clearly this one doesn't have broad support, and if it is spammed onto policy pages it could be a problem. Still, keep, though if edit warring occurs and it proves to be too divisive, we can always come revisit this MfD. AniMate  02:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer this to be userfied. There clearly isn't a consensus for not using curse words. AniMate  16:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Essays are neither policy nor guidelines. They reflect the opinions of certain editors, not necessarily a consensus view. Those in disagreement with any given version of this one are free to write their own. The pseudo-article nature of the version (currently) extant is rather bizarre, however. Lady  of  Shalott  03:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I fucking hate essays like these.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) ✄ ✄ ✄	 06:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "I don't like it" is a fucking weak argument. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 06:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I happen to think its a wonderful argument for such a fucking useless essay. ;-)  JBsupreme  ( talk ) ✄ ✄ ✄	 06:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but if you wish your opinion to be given any weight in the final consideration, a rationale would help. Tarc (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If we're going to jam tons of pages into the Wikipedia: space we better at least represent a small sampling of the community. This essay sure as fucking hell doesn't and I think that's a goddamn fine rationale for deletion in my humble opinion. IDGAF if this is moved into user space, do whatever the hell you want there.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) ✄ ✄ ✄	 15:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Essays don't have to reflect consensus; they're just opinions, and opinions can easily run counter to consensus. I highly disagree with the basic idea of the essay (I, personally, think a lot of people offended by profanity need to just grow a thicker skin), but I don't think this MfD has any real legs to stand on. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 06:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Addendum I'm not too keen on the article as it stands now, and would be fine with it being userfied. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 18:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am responsible for the article-like content, and I don't care much what happens to the essay – so long as it doesn't return to the fundamentalist "I can wikilawyer for a week at the article that you are trying to get to conform to NPOV, and then tell you to leave Wikipedia, and if your response contains the word 'fuck' as a modifier I am entitled to you being blocked" version. I felt that this fundamentalist form of the essay was a symptom of people having trouble to understand that the cultural norms with which they were raised are not universal. Another problem is that the line between 'normal' swear words such as (for most people, I guess) shit, fuck and instablock ones such as (again for most people, I guess) cunt, nigger is probably different for different people, which can also lead to serious problems if we don't understand it. This should also be explained.
 * I felt that the best approach to the miscommunication is to educate and to promote tolerance on both sides. Any editor who measures themselves by precisely the same standards as their fellow editors and tries to enforce them is a serious problem. A heterogeneous community consisting of such people would always be on the edge of total chaos because these standards are never exactly the same for any two of us. It is imperative that we measure others to lower standards than ourselves. In particular, for the ideal editor there will be a category of words which they would (almost) never say, but which they will tolerate from others without running to ANI – words that lie somewhere around the demarcation line of the editor's comfort zone.
 * Given the zeal with which some editors seemed to be defending their right to get others blocked for using "fucking" as a modifier, I felt to convince them they were not in a majority and should not necessarily be in a majority, external references were called for. Hans Adler 07:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep this is exactly the kind of thing that should be in a WP: space like it is. If you are unhappy with the content, it can be edited, but the essay topic is a worthwhile one to have. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete or move into Category:User essays - The last thing we need around here is a Wiki version of the No Cussing Club. This is a rather stuffy soapbox that sprung from an AN/I discussion about whether non-directed profanity (e.g. "What the fuck are you on?" vs. "Go fuck yourself") delivered in response to another user's baiting/goading is acceptable or not.  This isn't about personal attacks, this is about regulating speech on the project itself.  And while the 1st amendment certainly does not apply here...no one has the right to speak on an online encyclopedia...users should be afforded a latitude of expression that, yes, can include a naughty word on occasion.  The "discouraging vulgarity" sect is apparently such a tiny group that it runs afoul of bullet #3 of WP:NOESSAY. Delete or userfy this, as it has no place in project space. Tarc (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, perfectly reasonable essay. In the context of talking to strangers whom we want to have a cordial and respectful relationship, refraining from the use of profanity is a common practice. I would challenge anyone, for instance, to find a call center that allows its employees to pepper their language with profanity while communicating with callers. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We aren't employees. This isn't a workplace.  Your analogy is as ridiculous as the references used in the essay itself. Tarc (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We aren't employees, but we are doing a lot of the same tasks and it stands to reason probably have a lot to learn from how the pros do it. And it is a workplace; there is a specific mission and our activities here should work toward that mission. People should be prepared to defend their edits and language in terms of how they serve to advance Wikipedia's goals. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's an essay. Let the guy have his say. Herostratus (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy Let BoP keep their preferred version in their userspace. Since that version grossly misrepresents policy and is an extreme viewpoint not supported by the vast majority of Wikipedians, it belongs in user space. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and userify. Let him have his say by all means, but move it into userspace to make it clear that this is a rant representing an extreme viewpoint and based on selective misquotation of sources, and has no relationship to any Wikipedia policy. – iride  scent  15:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Do not userfy without explicit evidence of rejection by the wider community, not just the people who like to say fuck a lot. The essay in its creator's preferred version, while simply a pipe dream in terms of policy for now, I am sure would be able to get wide enough support in a poll of all editors to not to not fall under WP:NOESSAY. I want to see positive evidence that it would not, before having it userfied as a 'fringe viewpoint', and a few people screwing with it for giggles, or childishly insulting the creator, is not that evidence, not by a long shot. Infact, they are the likely reason it even exists in the first place, the metaphorical 'toxic personalities'. MickMacNee (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your last block, an indef, was for "attitude not compatible with this project", which I took as casting you as a toxic personality. *That* is really what incivility is all about, not a few mere words. Jack Merridew 22:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My last block was for telling someone to "get fucked" on my own talk page. Make of that what you will, in terms of whether vulgarity is just mere words or not, but it's hard to see how you can get an indef civility block using the non-vulgar version of what my intended message was. I stand by my vote, and I never once said I wasn't being a hypocrite by saying it. That's the difference really. MickMacNee (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * which version are we talking about? the version that appears to be coalescing with a handful of editors simply making fine tune adjustments  or the radically different creator's preferred version ? The creators preferred version is so far from what I have seen as the wording and standard application of Wikipedia policies and guidelines and ArbCom rulings that it would need to show MASSIVE positive user desire before it should be allowed in main space.delete or user space As far as the version that seems to have current consensus, I am not sure that it really helps editors more clearly understand the policies and how to apply them.  weak delete EDIT to add based on [[User:Wnt|Wnt]'s : - that it is unhelpful now when it is new does not mean it is doomed to stay unhelpful forever; with time and input from a broader range of editors it may become useful.  [[User:Active Banana|Active Banana]] (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Userify - The RfC on the subject shows that there is significant rejection by the wider community. (I include myself among the rejecting ones, and I assure you that this sentence is the first one in which I wrote "fuck" in Wikipedia) --Duplode (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S.: The latter additions (such as the "Swearing in the workplace (UK)" section) make it even more inadequate as an WP: essay. --Duplode (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Userify While i am not really that impressed by some of the votes in oppose of the related RFC, i would point out that WP:WES states that User essays have a purpose similar to essays placed in the project namespace; however, they are often authored by only one person, and may represent a strictly personal viewpoint about Wikipedia. So far the related RFC only lists one person in the support section, which would indicate that it is mostly a personal vision. In my eyes assays in the WP namespace should at least have some form of common support. If there are a few more genuine voters in support my "userfy" can be switched to a "Keep". Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 19:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I generally oppose the content of this essay in both forms, but or the same reason that I do I don't believe deletion is a good answer.  The WP:NOESSAY guideline offers limited reasons to delete an essay; it calls for deletion of essays that are designed to undermine core policies but not those that merely disagree with them, and this one is more interpretation than disagreement.  The form of the essay is quite crude, but that is because it is new; because it takes to some degree an unworkable position; and above all because the quality of the article Vulgarity is so remarkably poor.  Deleting it means someone will start over from scratch with something just as bad — preserving it means that eventually some better form may be adopted. Wnt (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. It doesn't violate the three provisions of WP:NOESSAY. It is a reasonable explication of a detail of the civility policy. The details of its contents can be negotiated.   Will Beback    talk    21:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy, although I don't like it and the battleground mentality behind it. The creator's local RfC made it to CENT and is being properly rained on, so it's better parked in his user space. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 22:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd just like to mention that before yesterday, you would be hard pressed to find very many diffs from me that use "vulgar" language or four letter words, and the ones you could find were mostly me trying to demonstrate to someone else who communicated in such a manner that adding such words does not actually strengthen your case, and can make you seem like you are having a hissy fit. But this essay and the ideas it represents, i.e. that now that there's less porn on Commons it's time to move forward in forcing censorship onto Wikipedia, just make me want to use it more and more. That and in the absence of User:Tanthalas39 somebody has to come out and say that things are bullshit when they are bullshit. If they happen to say "bullshit" instead of "gross misrepresentation of Wikipedia policies and community consensus" so what? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or Userify There's already a home on the intertubes for this brand of prissiness. Skinwalker (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note WP:NOESSAY is itself an essay.  The irony here is a little thick that some people who are arguing "keep" are at the same time confusing an authoritative sounding essay with a guideline.  It was not my intention to mislead people into thinking NOESSAY was pointing to a guideline, which is why I qualified it as "relevant reading". I do think it more or less properly documents some of the cases in which we delete or userfy essays. Gigs (talk) 01:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm suddenly reminded of why I made this proposal: VPR. Rd232 talk 07:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or userfy. Greg L (talk) 04:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fuckin' userfy. We don't need more essays cluttering up the Wikipedia namespace, especially ones that misrepresent policy. --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 05:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wanting to ban the use of 'vulgarities' in the absence of breach of WP:CIVIL would appear to be a breach of WP:CENSOR, and therefore is against the spirit of this project. Ironically, it could be argued that deletion itself constitutes censorship. ;-) Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 06:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or userfy. Has no place in WP: space, as it really goes against important aspects of policy and practice. Rd232 talk 07:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy - as this beautiful discussion shows, we can say "fuck" without being particularly offensive on Wikipedia. Claritas (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge with Vulgarity. The mainspace article for this subject is a stub, and Vulgarity has some research content which could benefit it.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  17:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea. The existing research should not go to waste and as I see it the ideas presented in the essay do not reflect the microcosm of this collaborative wiki. So Merge with Vulgarity. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It should probably go in Profanity, if the article-like material is to be merged. Gigs (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. That would be fine by me. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case it might be worth considering merging WP:Vulgarity, Vulgarity, and Profanity.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  18:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not. I think it is a great idea. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 19:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It has come to my attention that there is also a Vulgarism article, which should also be merged. This is going to take some careful editing to form a decent article, I think.
 * To clarify: merge with Vulgarism and Vulgarity. Since profanity isn't quite the same as vulgarity, I don't think this should be also merged.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  22:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Update BoP has indicated with this edit that they do not wish to pursue this matter any further. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Move the article content to the appropriate place in articlespace, revert to the original version and keep as a valid essay. "I disagree" is not a reason to delete an essay.  Sandstein   07:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Most delete/userfy opinions have been based in policy and noting that this is pretty much a personal opinion and not something with any significant community support. Your assumption of bad faith of others is well-noted now, though. Tarc (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete (or put into user space) The version so admired by Sandstein (above) is puerile. If it remains it will always be contentious and subject to what its "owners" will consider vandalism and others as humour. It will ultimately increase the already existing divisions in the project. Such naive thought and restrictions are degrading to Wikipedia and serve no one well. Wikipedia is a project for adults not (what could possibly be seen as) control freaks seeking to impose their narrow views on others. Yes, we should all speak nicely to each other, no one disagrees with that, but sadly the world and Wikipedia are not perfect, and a project of this magnitude cannot be written by saints alone and this essay is embarrassing in the way it portrays the ideal Wikipedian's behaviour.  Giacomo   19:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I must say I like the longer rather than the shorter version. I have a big problem with the use of the value-laden term vulgarity as it is alot more subjective than profanity - if we had some essay on profanity somewhere then merging the two essays would be prudent. I know essays are merely thus, but I do start to wonder - how is the shortened version offering anything to the reader which is not already on the Civility, item 1 (a) direct rudeness? The other problem is that although an essay, the shorter version is written as if it (the essay) were a Rule or Guideline, which is misleading. The longer version places it in context better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree regarding the shorter version, but as pointed out earlier, the longer version has content which is more suitable for an article, which is why I am suggesting merging the relevant information with Vulgarism and Vulgarity and then deleting WP:Vulgarity.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  20:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. There is nothing to stop anyone pasting encyclopedic material into mainspace regardless of the outcome of this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep or Userfy – A well written essay. At least userfy. — MC10 ( T • C • GB •L)  21:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or Userfy - Will it help Wikipedia? I don't know. Will it hurt? IMHO it won't. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy or Delete. -- &oelig; &trade; 03:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Divide Revert to Sandstein's version, or userify on his page or mine. The general background added to that should go the mainspace article if needed there--it's reasonably encyclopedic. I agree with what is said there. Our discussions should be so conducted as to enable the maximum number of people to participate. It's our content that should be uncensored. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Good essay.  Good use of userspace.  Project space essays are an excellent way to communicate.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, or failing that, userfy.If you remove the article-like content about research into swearing, and what you're left with is two sentences about the fact that some people don't like swearing. Totally pointless, aside from being completely outside consensus. -- Lord Pistachio  talk 00:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.