Forum:CT:Minor addition to WP:NOT

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Minor addition to WP:NOT

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Adopt addition to WP:NOT. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:41, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

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 Wookieepedia: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 04:42, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
  4. Cylka-talk- 04:46, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Xicer9Atgar(Combadge) 04:49, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
  6. Master Jonathan New Jedi Order (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. —Jedi Kasra (comlink) 05:20, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
  9. Because then we can see more of the "seriously!??1!1?! why?" comments. NAYAYEN 07:46, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
  10. CC7567 (talk) 07:48, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
  11. Wookieepedia, like much of the internet, shouldn't be censored to begin with. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:52, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
  12. 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 the truth) 07:57, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
  13. Cavalier OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 08:36, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
  14. 1358 (Talk) 12:03, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
  15. Graestan(Talk) 12:38, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
  16. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 13:55, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
  17. [Redacted by administration] Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:53, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
  18. Clone Commander Lee Talk 18:03, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
  19. Well double dumbass on you. Green Tentacle (Talk) 18:04, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
  20. How the hell did I almost not see this damn thread? Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 19:35, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
  21. I dedicate this vote to the memory of George Carlin. Dangerdan97 20:53, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
  22. "You vondrook!" "Is that an actual curse word?" "I think so!" -- Darth Culator (Talk) 00:21, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
  23. 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)
  24. Per Tope. And most definitely per Dangerdan! Bella'Mia 10:08, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
  25. I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. Just say no to censorship in all forms! OLIOSTER (talk) 12:47, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
  26. Sometimes a single curse word expresses the thought more clearly than an entire paragraph of text :P QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 17:09, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
  27. Totally agree. Censorship is wrong, censoring to spare someone's delicate sensibilities even more so. <-Omicron 17:54, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
  28. 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)
  29. haha, GT. :P JangFett (Talk) 03:40, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
  30. —Tommy 9281 04:18, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
  31. Fuck this and fuck that. -- I need a name (Complain here) 12:10, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
  32. Tyber J. Kenobi's Droid 22:30, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
  33. I have labored over this since it was first posted, so I want to make a few things clear: (1) I absolutely do not condone the use of profanity; (2) There are places on Wookieepedia where such language has been used and will undoubtedly be used, therefore a fair warning to potential and existing users is not only in order (and I believe the heart of this proposal in the first place); (3) If someone decided to start ranting on a user talk page with profanity and it is deemed offensive to the parties involved in said conversation, then it should be dealt with by the administration harshly and swiftly and we can judge how that would be handled should such instance arise; (4) If anyone came to my user talk page and used profanity, I would neither appreciate it nor would I even respond to the inquiry as it shows a lack of civility and respect; (5) This CT, as I've concluded, is not a referendum of whether or not Wookieepedia (or Grunny, for that matter) condones the use of profanity (or other potentially offensive language), as this is solely about providing a disclaimer-like clause to WP:NOT for potential users; (6) I think some of the comments from both sides of the issue, including "advise" that has popped up, have been too heavy-handed and off-topic, so please keep this conversation within the topic to which it belongs; (7) Should you have any response to this, please leave those comments below in the discussion section. — Fiolli 20:08, October 10, 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. 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 Hey, it's me! 00:42, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
  3. 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)
    • I'm finished arguing with this. If we can't come to some sort of compromise, I'm not even going to waste my time. I'm sorry Master Fredcerique that I'm leaving this discussion to you, but I don't feel like we're getting anywhere. --Gmalek (The ability to edit does not make you intelligent) 13:27, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't blame you at all. Maybe it's time for me to stop and let someone else with different points to continue. It's hard for me to stop, but I should probably focus on getting Main Title to GA, so yeah...:P MasterFred (Whatever) † 21:58, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
  4. . . . but Wookieepedia IS censored. We censor spam links. We censor gibberish. We censor personal attacks. We censor personal information. We censor KB questions from people who didn't RTFM. We even censor many forms of free expression on contributors' user pages. Censorship isn't just about bad words, and regardless of how you feel about them, there's plenty of OTHER stuff we censor on sight here, and rightly so. jSarek 21:50, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
    If the wording were amended to remove the "and other pages", I might be OK with it.- Esjs(Talk) 15:10, October 8, 2010 (UTC) (Vote struck, reason: Per policy: fails productivity requirement -- Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:39, October 11, 2010 (UTC))
    • Per Esjs. Content should not be censored. Everything else should. MasterFred (Whatever) † 16:18, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Per Esjs. Darth Karikawill destroy your planet! 13:43, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Does this include pornography? :P SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is 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. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:00, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
      • Awwww… 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 (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… 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—the obscenity that is The Clone Wars doesn't count. =P - Brandon Rhea Alliance Starbird (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? -- Riffsyphon1024 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 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. Xicer9Atgar(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 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) 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 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—even when they might be found just as offensive by some people—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 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 (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. Cylka-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 (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. Cylka-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—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 (Whatever) † 12:51, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
      • It's called Chaos :). OLIOSTER (talk) 12:54, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
        • That's what it's called. I knew there was one somewhere in Star Wars canon. :P Master Fredcerique (Whatever) † 14:02, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
          • You do realize, Master Fred, that in case of an edit conflict, just scroll down the page—there are two edit boxes, of which the lower contains your text. Just copy it and paste it to the box on the top. 1358 (Talk) 14:29, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
            • Oops, hehe. I forgot about that. lol MasterFred (Whatever) † 16:10, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • Is it ironic that this thread is blocked on my school proxy for "exceeding weighted word limit"? XD NAYAYEN 22:30, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • What I find interesting is the excessive amount of WP:POINT violations being made. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 22:57, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
    • I also find it ironic that we have a userimage policy that states all images must be "family-friendly". If this is the case, then what's the difference with everything else on this wiki? MasterFred (Whatever) † 12:49, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
      • If you happen to be surfing Wookieepedia at work or school (hopefully not while you're supposed to be doing something productive), a stray "bullshit" buried on a talk page is less likely to get you in trouble than an R-rated picture. —Silly Dan (talk) 13:52, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
        • Not at my school. I'm on right now in French class (I'm ahead of everyone else, so it's OK) and I'm pretty sure that, if the teacher saw the language on this page, I would not be allowed on this forum. I have to scroll past the "for" votes fast so that no one sees the comments some people made. That's sad. MasterFred (Whatever) † 14:04, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • Get this. I talked to the person who runs all the computers in my school this morning and I asked her why the Wook was blocked at our school. I asked her because I wanted to edit during school when I had free time. She says, and I quote, "We blocked that site a couple years ago because teachers found that people happened upon articles that had 'inappropiate' wording on it". So... --Gmalek (The ability to edit does not make you intelligent) 21:55, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
    • So we should impose censorship just so some school will unblock us? Nah. OLIOSTER (talk) 22:29, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
      • Not just some school. Most schools. I don't want my school blocking this site either. If they do, then I'll hardly ever get to edit. And I'm sure there are many active and quality editors who use school computers that run the risk of getting blocked due to language. I don't know if you're in the same boat as us Oli, but it's serious, and I love editing here too much to let the cursings of some ruin it for me and others. MasterFred (Whatever) † 06:22, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
        • The fact is that we don't and probably never will be in the business of telling people what kind of language to use. Is it unnecessary to drop a "fuck" every once in a while? Yes, but the users here are editors, not morality police. The only censorship that should occur is in cases regarding attacks or defamation, and pointless profanity doesn't fall in that category. Is it sad that you can't use it at school? Yes, but that's not a problem that we can address. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 06:37, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
          • 100% per Trayus. Xicer9Atgar(Combadge) 07:03, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
          • Coming from a school where Wook used to be blocked, I sympathise with Fred. However, I can also see it from Trayus' point of view. For me, it hinges on whether civility should be treated as a guideline or a policy. Regardless, it's probably not even entirely our fault that they're blocked. Chances are the entire Wikia domain is filtered for swearing. Besides, there a plenty of other *ahem* methods to get around systems. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is the truth) 14:06, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
    • This is an argument in favor of increasing the use of profanity throughout Wookieepedia. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 20:16, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
  • So you're saying we should just leave it alone and completely ignore the unnecessary usage of swears? and i'm not saying that you guys have to take on more responsibility, but I'm saying that userpages should be censored because they are all too easy to get to. I would be more than willing to take on that responsibility if no one else feels the need to. But whatever. Im done with this discussion. Obviously I'm talking to a stone wall right now. --Gmalek (The ability to edit does not make you intelligent) 13:24, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
    • Before I go, I want to put out one last compromise that I think we can all agree with. "Censorship should pertain to userpages, talk pages, forums, etc. It should not pertain to articles, quotes, etc." Does that work? I'll admit that censoring quotes is a little extreme and could really affect the meaning and flow of them. but we, as the maintain-ers of this site, should show a little civility and morality when it comes to expressing opinions on things. Instead of "fuck", use 'frick". Or use "butt" instead OF "ass". It doesn't change the meaning of your opinion, but it is appropiate for even the smallest of kids to see. Can we at least agree to that? This way the discussion can end and we can all go back to work! Yay! --Gmalek (The ability to edit does not make you intelligent) 13:41, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
      • Ignoring the disturbing notion that you actively desire to return to work, I take exception to the idea of changing words "without changing their meaning". The fundamental nature of swears and curse words are to jar the sensibilities of the audience, or at least those members of an audience who would by shocked by such language (placing at least as much culpability for the problem on listeners for arbitrarily choosing to interpret certain words as "bad" but their synonyms as "good"). By suggesting less offensive words are more appropriate deprives any such statements of their intended weight (again, a weight that is only carried so long as the offended choose to be offended), and negates the whole point of the exercise. It's censorship with the serial numbers filed off. Incidentally, it's just as feasible to suggest that those of delicate sensibilities in the world simply stop considering certain words offensive as it is to suggest that people who use those words should stop doing so; that is to say, unlikely. And shame on the parental figures of the world for propagating this myth that some words have some kind of magical evil infused into them, and thereby propagating a needless and laughable cultural wrinkle generation after generation. It's almost as if adults feel compelled to fabricate a more manageable sin that they can then shield their children from and then pat themselves on the back. Disengaging rant drive. Dangerdan97 20:10, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
        • OK, why are these words "bad". Because that's their meaning, just like every other word in every language. They have a meaning and were created to offensive. People didn't create them and then randomly decide, "Oh, let's make this word 'bad'." They created the for that purpose in the first place. And excuse me. My parents are against those words very strongly. And slang words are no better than the real ones. This is why I try to refrain from using words like "crap" and "dang". They are simply inpolite. MasterFred (Whatever) † 21:10, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
          • "They created the for that purpose in the first place." Ummm ... sorry to correct you there, most words commonly refered to as "swear words" were not created for that purpose. Bastard, for instance, is used to describe a child born out of wedlock, and has several other meanings as well, including a typeface, a township and a colour to name a few. People didn't create them and then randomly decide, "Oh, let's make this word 'bad'." Wrong again, in some cases. Swear words have historical origins, or started off as colloquialisms. At some point, people decided that these word were vulgar, and classified them as such, usually because the words were related to sexually practices or other bodily functions that were considered to be "unclean" or "obscene". Some words, like fuck have origins dating back to before 1500 in Europe, and has long been considered to be an acronym for the term "For Unclean Carnal Knowledge", although that is apparently know disputed. And, as for slang - the development of slang words is how language evolves. Words you use today may have been slang terms fifty years ago. No word is inherently "bad" - it is society that has labelled these words as vulgar. - Cavalier OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 21:40, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
            • I stand corrected. But still, as you said, society has labelled these words as vulgar. We are part of society, and in a sense, we serve the part of society that enjoys Star Wars. Therefore, since society considers them vulgar, shouldn't we (not to suggest that society is always right, in fact it is hardly so in these days). I mean, really, it's not that hard just to use more polite language. MasterFred (Whatever) † 21:56, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
              • Society also generally considers scholarly research of speculative fiction to be an inappropriate pastime, though I do admit the stigma these days is nothing compared to thirty or forty years ago. Numerous members of our population have endured varying degrees of disdain and mockery from members of orthodox society for our Star Wars (and other) interests at one point or another, and that familiar sensation of being told to do "what decent people do" is possibly what the above snowball vote is a reaction to. At the risk of bounding into hyperbole, asking the members of Wookieepedia to watch their language is comparable to telling them to stop wasting their time on a frivolous Star Wars website. Dangerdan97 23:14, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
                • Once again (I grow tired of saying this), working on this site is not considered uncivil. Cursing is. Therefore, as JMAS said, this would just be upholding WP:CIVIL. MasterFred (Whatever) † 22:13, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Graestan's advice

Just work on the wiki and mind your own business. Go start your own wiki if you want it and the users' pages to fit your exacting specifications. This CT at its inception had very little to do with all the whining and argument for the sake of argument that is festering in the discussion section. All this misplaced moralism and fault-finding is much more disruptive to the site than the occasional F-word or whatever. Graestan(Talk) 04:24, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

  • It's all in good faith Grae, and it's still a civil discussion, not really an argument. Just a discussion about censorship on a CT that regards censorship. Isn't that what discussion sections are really for? Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 05:11, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
    • Exactly. It's a civil debate on a subject that many of us feel is important to the quality of this site. We're all (or most of us) civil here. Just a friendly debate amongst fellow Wookieedians. MasterFred (Whatever) † 11:26, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
    • now I don't think thats quite fair to us. This discussion is civil and I'm still editing while monitoring this discussion. This discussion is important and I feel that is my right to voice my opinion on this topic. --Gmalek (The ability to edit does not make you intelligent) 14:38, October 8, 2010 (UTC)