Wikipedia talk:Offensive

Censorship
This proposal is the Censorship proposal with the word censorship removed. WAS 4.250 15:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC) with delightful details about just what we are seeing here, of which, really, come on. Just because Wikipedia is not censored for minors doesn't mean we have to have stuff like this coming at people hitting the Random article button. Most offensive images like this are pretty much trolling or put up by a few porn fans who like to go into TMI territory about porn.Herostratus 20:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm against this proposal for all the same reasons I'm against the other proposal. I applaud removal of the loaded (and inaccurate) word "censorship", but this is still a needless restriction on editorial freedom. Johntex\talk 18:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Enh. I'm not too keen on this proposal. My experience is with the article Cum fart which survived AfD once but not a second time, and which contained this image
 * Agree with Herostratus. Also, this proposal rejects some sensible solutions to dealing with nudity and violence. Moving an image of a sex oragan or sex act lower on the page seems to be a logical solution and a good way to end a content dispute. FloNight   talk  02:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I support this proposal since Wikipedia is meant to be informative on every encylopedic topic. As such it is inevitable that much of its content will be found to be offensive to someone.  Allowing censorship based on people's POV on what is offensive will likely be very disruptive to Wikipedia in the long run.  Sure, it might start with censorship of graphic depictions of sexual subjects that are taboo in mainstream Western society which the majority of Wikipedians probably don't care about, like goatse.cx, but scientific, historical, political, and religious subjects will soon follow (such as the articles on Nazis, Christians, the KKK, evolution, etc...).  Basically, any controversial subject will likely be heavily censored with the excuse that it "offends" someone unless we make it clear that Wikipedia does not support censorship.  --  noosphere 05:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I support this proposal. Firstly I wish to state that an offensive article or picture is highly relative. What may be deemed as offensive to some may be viewed as perfectly acceptable to others. We should make it clear that Wikipedia does not support censorship. That makes this project highly desirable to work on for me personally. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  09:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Emphatic Support: I think a decision on this issue is made implicitly by allowing swear words. We shouldn't draw an arbitrary line as to what is more or less offensive than the word, "fuck." More importantly, it isn't a necessity. -DanDanRevolution 23:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Wikipedia is not censored. Nor should it be. If you want an encyclopedia that has no content that may offend, I suggest you look somewhere else because Wikipedia should be as factual as possible, and some information may offend some people, but it is INFORMATION, in other words leave it where it is because all information is valuable. Beno1000 15:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose The proposal is too broad. It doesn't allow for choosing the less offensive of two equally accurate/informative terms.  For example, using "Chinese" instead of "Ch*nk" or "French" instead of "Frog"/"Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey".  The policy should say that when equally accurate/informative terms are available, the less offensive is generally, but not always, preferred.Readin (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongly Support The criterion of "offensiveness" (i.e. "Wikipedia does not mind it some people find contents of it offensive") is supposed to apply only on cited texts. If some person states something or other that people may find offensive, the statement can be included in a relevant article. It should be self-evident that the rest of the text, and specifically the text written by Wikipedia editors, should be written without the editor taking sides. Using controversial or judgmental terms is clearly taking sides. -The Gnome (talk) 10:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Grammar
"Offensive is not a valid editorial criteria for a Wikipedia article." I do not want to offend anyone but the word should be CRITERION. 77.97.161.230 (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)mikeL

Needlessly offensive
Suggest we add: "If the same information can be conveyed multiple ways while following NPOV, the less offensive is generally preferred but the offensiveness must be balanced against other editorial concerns." Readin (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The criterion of offensiveness (i.e. "Wikipedia does not mind it some people find contents of it offensive") is supposed to apply only on cited texts. If some person states something or other that people may find offensive, the statement can be included in a relevant article. It should be self-evident that the rest of the text, and specifically the text written by Wikipedia editors, should be written without the editor taking sides. Using controversial or judgmental terms is clearly taking sides. -The Gnome (talk) 10:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

it is a choice
It is a choice to be offended or not by things you see or hear. Some people are offended by factual statements and information which then get removed from Wikipedia, for example, calling president Obama an African American when he is in fact mixed race, his mom was white, and fully American as he was born in the usa. An African American would truly be one who was born in Africa and came to the usa. But state these logically irrefutable facts on Obama's wiki, and they get removed. They're offended by facts and I'm offended by their ignorance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.127.61 (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)