This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Offensive material page. |
|
I have no problem with profanity in articles where it makes sense to preserve original quotes, nor any problem with uncensored discussion on the talk pages. However, I do have a concern about putting profanity on the front page, as was recently done in a story about a best-selling book entitled Go the Fuck to Sleep, a book whose own publisher declined to print the uncensored title on the cover. The Wikipedia front page will be seen by lots of children, and will be seen before any warnings can be given about offensive content. There's no point in having offensive content warnings or discussions anywhere else on the site if profanity is permitted on the front page, where it is viewed before sensitive readers even have the opportunity to be warned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.236.176 ( talk • contribs)
I have a similar concern to the OP's, which I aired when the day's featured article was Gropecunt Lane. The main page editors of that time seemed unable to grasp why this might be questionable main page content, and appeared to be indignant at being challenged; some of them hinted that they quite enjoyed picking articles that could offend (comments along the line of "just wait 'til you see tomorrow's FA")
The fundamental points about the main page, I think, are:
With countless high quality articles on the site, there is no need to put offensive content on the main page; and since there is no such need, the principle of civility should apply to the choice of main page content. 82.3.243.45 ( talk) 22:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
“Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not.”
If the inclusion of offensive information is part of Wikipedia’s mission then being offensive is a given.
Here is my issue with the mission of this site: Wikipedia is putting an ideology concerning the importance of availability of information over any concern of social responsibility.
Information in and of itself can be harmful. A brain developing naturally can be harmed (i.e. affected in a manner that could be perceived as unhealthy) by exposure to dislocated images and content. The mission of Wikipedia is an amoral one if it is less concerned with the real world results of its influence than its lack of censorship. If this statement reflects a truth than Wikipedia cannot be perceived as a social benefit without ignoring certain human realities; where is the empirical evidence that information has no harmful influence?
To attempt to separate ethical principals and moral behavior is essential to intellectual understanding but can be harmful when utilized in the context of mass exposure to ideas generated by such a position. The issue itself is not a moral issue but one of public health. If there is evidence that exposure to certain content can be harmful to the mental health of certain individuals, and/or disruptive to the developmental processes of children, then what is the justification of producing and allowing such a system as Wikipedia to exist without any restrictions in society? Any justification must put public health below public knowledge in terms of societal importance.
If a mission has aspects that can result in unhealthy social reaction than said mission may actually be inherently antisocial. Is absolute free expression worth a possible risk of decrease in public health? Are the personal ideologies behind Wikipedia part of a philosophy of individualistic expression which challenges all ideas of social benefit, worth and health? If so, how could the mission of Wikipedia not be a socially destructive goal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motherengine ( talk • contribs) 14:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I think it might help us craft a more neutral guideline if we moved this page to wp:controversial material, mostly because it's a less emotive term. up for consideration, anyway… -- Ludwigs2 19:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
The alleged issue of whether is can be encyclopedic to include a video (or even a still image) of animal mating behavior has been raised at Talk:Cat#Mating behavior video vs. still photo. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 18:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
About this: What exactly do you mean that Help:Options to not see an image is "not a useful page"? AFAICT, it's the only page in the project that provides practical advice to a person who is so offended by a given image that he doesn't want to see it ever again. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
This page is succinct addresses the point that the user should go create their own Wikipedia account and gives the link on how to filter specific words so that a Muslim reader can freely use Wikipedia and not be offended. Some of this text from FAQ Q3 can be added into the template under MfD. -- Alatari ( talk) 06:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I've done my best to incorporate the WMF resolution on controversial material after Jimbo has declared it part of Wikipedia policy. [1] This page seemed the most appropriate place for that. ASCIIn2Bme ( talk) 13:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: the statement on "curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, including determining whether it has a realistic educational use and applying the principle of least astonishment in categorization and placement" in the Resolution is not limited to images. Their definition of controversial content is not limited to images either. So the curation urge also applies to controversial text about sex, violence, religion, and just about anything else that might offend some reader. Which is why this guideline seemed the best place to add the info on the resolution. ASCIIn2Bme ( talk) 06:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, someone copied the material to a separate page and started a RfC on it: Wikipedia talk:Follow the principle of least astonishment. ASCIIn2Bme ( talk) 05:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I think that the issue in a previous RfC was the conflating of two separate issues: first, whether or not "not censored" ought to apply to "trivial" or "gratuitous" material, and second, whether or not "not censored" exempts offensive material from relevant inclusion guidelines. The answers, if I am interpreting policy correctly, are: yes to the first, no to the second.
I have thus altered the wording of this section to reflect this.-- New questions? 05:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm notifying this essay talk page due to its relevance to Freedom of speech. I've recently gone ahead and created WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:
Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt ( talk) 03:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I found one image that is so graphic — in my opinion, the most graphic image I have ever found on Wikipedia — that one could argue that it is offensive and should be replaced by a milder image. Here it is: 1. Any opinions?-- Solomonfromfinland ( talk) 05:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
If Wikipedia was truly not censored, it wouldn't be disallowing edits with automated filters. 69.142.223.83 ( talk) 15:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Hahaha you Ready 2die ( talk) 23:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
For the game Superhot, there is a noted influence to a music video which is called, properly as per band and release on album, "Bad Motherfuckers". However, the sources that name this video bowdlerize it to "Bad Motherf*ckers". (though it's obviously still clear what they mean). We are not quoting the sources directly, as paraphrasing/summarizing is fine for the statement, so is it appropriate to de-bowdlerize the name to the uncensored form if the sources do not do that, or should it be left as the sources give it? -- MASEM ( t) 17:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I recently followed an RFC that involved an image that a few editors thought might be pointlessly distressing to some readers. The discussion itself is irrelevant except for its typicality: several editors promptly provided knee-jerk responses about Wikipedia being NOTCENSORED and No True™ Editor ever caring about emotions. The whole thing could be held up as the prototype of such discussions, complete with multiple editors claiming that their side 'won' and assertions that the RFC was invalid because it was not neutrally phrased. (Well, it was typical except for the part when three editors actually consulted reliable sources, but I would like to believe that's not atypical for the subject area.)
But a minor tangent in the discussion prompted me to find out what the official policy-based reasons for including images are. It turns out that there is exactly one reason for including any image:
Per policy, if an image doesn't do that, then it shouldn't be included in the article, full stop.
I'm feeling like the editors who are hand-waving at NOTCENSORED aren't considering that point. It's just "you think someone might be offended, but we don't care if you're offended, so the image stays". I'm thinking that there should be a slightly different response: "Wait, does this image increase understanding? If yes, then we don't care if you're offended and the image stays, but if no, then – well, we frankly still don't care if you're offended, but the image should be removed anyway, because it should be removed even if you weren't offended".
I hesitate to touch NOTCENSORED itself, but I wonder what you think about including a brief explanation of this issue on this page? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Hey. I replaced WP:SHIT with WP:S***. SamRathbone ( talk) 06:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
GFDL Kimanh2015 ( talk) 11:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
A few years ago, I was given a thirty day suspension for stating that there is a moving handheld camera in the Carrie Prejean masturbation tape, with a link to the video as a source. When I appealed the decision, I was told I should know better than to include a link to pornographic material in a BLP. This makes no sense to me if Wikipedia is uncensored and the specific pornographic material is discussed in the article and notable through coverage in the media. As written at the time, the article said that Prejean was alone in her room when the video was taken. Unless she had her camera on a motorized device, it clearly was not true. -- Scottandrewhutchins ( talk) 21:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
The situation that is the basis of this edit can be generalized as: media personality A uses a social media account using uncensored offensive language, which causes a controversy that is deemed appropriate to include. However, the reliable sources that discuss this controversy quote the social media but bowlderize the offensive term. Including of the word or the quote from the social media account as replicated from the RS is deemed appropriate, but the question now because: do we keep the bowlderizaton as given by the RSes, or do we go the route of avoiding the bowlderization. I'm wording on the assumption that the word that was censored in the RSes is clearly obvious what it would be. -- Masem ( t) 21:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
This relates to the immediately preceding section here, although I am giving it a new section title because I don't think that it is limited to quotations which originated on social media. I believe fundamentally that we are interested in preserving any bowdlerisation which exists in the original primary source material, but we are not interested in preserving bowdlerisation in secondary sources which arises merely out of those secondary sources imposing their own censorship. Please see the form of words in this proposed change (now reverted pending discussion here).
Clearly there may at times be an element of judgement in applying this guideline, and it may depend on the individual circumstances surrounding the quotation. However, in many situations it will be pretty obvious.
What do you reckon?
Thanks, -- Money money tickle parsnip ( talk) 23:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I am looking for advice regarding the use of the word "midget" in articles on professional wrestling. Because the term is considered offensive to many people, it has virtually gone out of use in many contexts. Professional wrestling is somewhat of a holdout. The term was used widely for years, but some promotions now avoid using it. I am wondering what to do with existing articles, such as biographies (which might state something to the effect that "X is a midget professional wrestler" or event articles (which might refer to a storyline in which "X recruited a midget to assist in this feud"). I think, overall, the term "midget wrestling" is prevalent enough that there isn't an argument to rename the article about the activity itself, and some historical uses (the ring name "Macho Midget" and awards or titles that specifically used the word) would remain in their present form. I am wondering if increasing societal awareness of the offensiveness of the word would justify some editing to replace "midget professional wrestler" with "little person professional wrestler" or something to that effect. There has been a discussion at the professional wrestling Wikiproject, which I am linking here for context: [3]. Any input would be appreciated. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 21:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Evening. I'm under the impression that Wikipedia imagery is halfway tame, using drawings and such, for its sexual pages. But then why are those images there at pearl necklace (sexual act) and bareback (sexual act)? Actually, to disagree a little with the complaints at the pearl necklace page, [5] I think the pearl necklace picture might be okay because it doesn't show any explicit activity, just the aftereffect. But doesn't the bareback picture run afoul the section on this page that says " 'Not censored' does not give special favor to offensive content"? It appears that this image is just there to show off. 172.58.4.224 ( talk) 07:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi - my 5 year old daughter was reading about LOL dolls with me and she clicked on the "bondage" link within the text before I could stop her. Unfortunately now she has been exposed to multiple photos of women hogtied and is very upset. I don't see how those images improve the "bondage" article at all. I often sponsor Wikipedia but am now having second thoughts about supporting it. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Seeing all girl (
talk •
contribs)
23:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
What's Wiki's stand on including the word "Nigga/Nigger" in relation to song lyrics? BenBrownBoy ( Aye?) 11:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
In original Wikipedia content, a vulgarity or obscenity should either appear in its full form or not at all; words should never be bowdlerized by replacing letters with dashes, asterisks, or other symbols. However, when quoting relevant material, rendering a quotation as it appears in the source cited trumps this style guideline.Some1 ( talk) 18:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Is it possible to hide profanity words? I'm just wondering, I have no problem. I know certain images can be hidden. Cwater1 ( talk) 20:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
At Talk:Anna Krauss we have a dispute over inclusion of this image of the biography’s subject. Per MOS:OMIMG, WP:NOTCENSORED and, of course, this page, I believe that the encyclopedic value of the image, which has no suitable substitutes, outweighs its potential for shock and offense. I would appreciate input from editors there, as it is just my opinion against that of Scope creep at this point. I have left a similar note at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images. — HTGS ( talk) 02:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Offensive material page. |
|
I have no problem with profanity in articles where it makes sense to preserve original quotes, nor any problem with uncensored discussion on the talk pages. However, I do have a concern about putting profanity on the front page, as was recently done in a story about a best-selling book entitled Go the Fuck to Sleep, a book whose own publisher declined to print the uncensored title on the cover. The Wikipedia front page will be seen by lots of children, and will be seen before any warnings can be given about offensive content. There's no point in having offensive content warnings or discussions anywhere else on the site if profanity is permitted on the front page, where it is viewed before sensitive readers even have the opportunity to be warned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.236.176 ( talk • contribs)
I have a similar concern to the OP's, which I aired when the day's featured article was Gropecunt Lane. The main page editors of that time seemed unable to grasp why this might be questionable main page content, and appeared to be indignant at being challenged; some of them hinted that they quite enjoyed picking articles that could offend (comments along the line of "just wait 'til you see tomorrow's FA")
The fundamental points about the main page, I think, are:
With countless high quality articles on the site, there is no need to put offensive content on the main page; and since there is no such need, the principle of civility should apply to the choice of main page content. 82.3.243.45 ( talk) 22:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
“Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not.”
If the inclusion of offensive information is part of Wikipedia’s mission then being offensive is a given.
Here is my issue with the mission of this site: Wikipedia is putting an ideology concerning the importance of availability of information over any concern of social responsibility.
Information in and of itself can be harmful. A brain developing naturally can be harmed (i.e. affected in a manner that could be perceived as unhealthy) by exposure to dislocated images and content. The mission of Wikipedia is an amoral one if it is less concerned with the real world results of its influence than its lack of censorship. If this statement reflects a truth than Wikipedia cannot be perceived as a social benefit without ignoring certain human realities; where is the empirical evidence that information has no harmful influence?
To attempt to separate ethical principals and moral behavior is essential to intellectual understanding but can be harmful when utilized in the context of mass exposure to ideas generated by such a position. The issue itself is not a moral issue but one of public health. If there is evidence that exposure to certain content can be harmful to the mental health of certain individuals, and/or disruptive to the developmental processes of children, then what is the justification of producing and allowing such a system as Wikipedia to exist without any restrictions in society? Any justification must put public health below public knowledge in terms of societal importance.
If a mission has aspects that can result in unhealthy social reaction than said mission may actually be inherently antisocial. Is absolute free expression worth a possible risk of decrease in public health? Are the personal ideologies behind Wikipedia part of a philosophy of individualistic expression which challenges all ideas of social benefit, worth and health? If so, how could the mission of Wikipedia not be a socially destructive goal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motherengine ( talk • contribs) 14:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I think it might help us craft a more neutral guideline if we moved this page to wp:controversial material, mostly because it's a less emotive term. up for consideration, anyway… -- Ludwigs2 19:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
The alleged issue of whether is can be encyclopedic to include a video (or even a still image) of animal mating behavior has been raised at Talk:Cat#Mating behavior video vs. still photo. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 18:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
About this: What exactly do you mean that Help:Options to not see an image is "not a useful page"? AFAICT, it's the only page in the project that provides practical advice to a person who is so offended by a given image that he doesn't want to see it ever again. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
This page is succinct addresses the point that the user should go create their own Wikipedia account and gives the link on how to filter specific words so that a Muslim reader can freely use Wikipedia and not be offended. Some of this text from FAQ Q3 can be added into the template under MfD. -- Alatari ( talk) 06:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I've done my best to incorporate the WMF resolution on controversial material after Jimbo has declared it part of Wikipedia policy. [1] This page seemed the most appropriate place for that. ASCIIn2Bme ( talk) 13:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: the statement on "curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, including determining whether it has a realistic educational use and applying the principle of least astonishment in categorization and placement" in the Resolution is not limited to images. Their definition of controversial content is not limited to images either. So the curation urge also applies to controversial text about sex, violence, religion, and just about anything else that might offend some reader. Which is why this guideline seemed the best place to add the info on the resolution. ASCIIn2Bme ( talk) 06:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, someone copied the material to a separate page and started a RfC on it: Wikipedia talk:Follow the principle of least astonishment. ASCIIn2Bme ( talk) 05:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I think that the issue in a previous RfC was the conflating of two separate issues: first, whether or not "not censored" ought to apply to "trivial" or "gratuitous" material, and second, whether or not "not censored" exempts offensive material from relevant inclusion guidelines. The answers, if I am interpreting policy correctly, are: yes to the first, no to the second.
I have thus altered the wording of this section to reflect this.-- New questions? 05:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm notifying this essay talk page due to its relevance to Freedom of speech. I've recently gone ahead and created WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:
Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt ( talk) 03:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I found one image that is so graphic — in my opinion, the most graphic image I have ever found on Wikipedia — that one could argue that it is offensive and should be replaced by a milder image. Here it is: 1. Any opinions?-- Solomonfromfinland ( talk) 05:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
If Wikipedia was truly not censored, it wouldn't be disallowing edits with automated filters. 69.142.223.83 ( talk) 15:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Hahaha you Ready 2die ( talk) 23:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
For the game Superhot, there is a noted influence to a music video which is called, properly as per band and release on album, "Bad Motherfuckers". However, the sources that name this video bowdlerize it to "Bad Motherf*ckers". (though it's obviously still clear what they mean). We are not quoting the sources directly, as paraphrasing/summarizing is fine for the statement, so is it appropriate to de-bowdlerize the name to the uncensored form if the sources do not do that, or should it be left as the sources give it? -- MASEM ( t) 17:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I recently followed an RFC that involved an image that a few editors thought might be pointlessly distressing to some readers. The discussion itself is irrelevant except for its typicality: several editors promptly provided knee-jerk responses about Wikipedia being NOTCENSORED and No True™ Editor ever caring about emotions. The whole thing could be held up as the prototype of such discussions, complete with multiple editors claiming that their side 'won' and assertions that the RFC was invalid because it was not neutrally phrased. (Well, it was typical except for the part when three editors actually consulted reliable sources, but I would like to believe that's not atypical for the subject area.)
But a minor tangent in the discussion prompted me to find out what the official policy-based reasons for including images are. It turns out that there is exactly one reason for including any image:
Per policy, if an image doesn't do that, then it shouldn't be included in the article, full stop.
I'm feeling like the editors who are hand-waving at NOTCENSORED aren't considering that point. It's just "you think someone might be offended, but we don't care if you're offended, so the image stays". I'm thinking that there should be a slightly different response: "Wait, does this image increase understanding? If yes, then we don't care if you're offended and the image stays, but if no, then – well, we frankly still don't care if you're offended, but the image should be removed anyway, because it should be removed even if you weren't offended".
I hesitate to touch NOTCENSORED itself, but I wonder what you think about including a brief explanation of this issue on this page? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Hey. I replaced WP:SHIT with WP:S***. SamRathbone ( talk) 06:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
GFDL Kimanh2015 ( talk) 11:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
A few years ago, I was given a thirty day suspension for stating that there is a moving handheld camera in the Carrie Prejean masturbation tape, with a link to the video as a source. When I appealed the decision, I was told I should know better than to include a link to pornographic material in a BLP. This makes no sense to me if Wikipedia is uncensored and the specific pornographic material is discussed in the article and notable through coverage in the media. As written at the time, the article said that Prejean was alone in her room when the video was taken. Unless she had her camera on a motorized device, it clearly was not true. -- Scottandrewhutchins ( talk) 21:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
The situation that is the basis of this edit can be generalized as: media personality A uses a social media account using uncensored offensive language, which causes a controversy that is deemed appropriate to include. However, the reliable sources that discuss this controversy quote the social media but bowlderize the offensive term. Including of the word or the quote from the social media account as replicated from the RS is deemed appropriate, but the question now because: do we keep the bowlderizaton as given by the RSes, or do we go the route of avoiding the bowlderization. I'm wording on the assumption that the word that was censored in the RSes is clearly obvious what it would be. -- Masem ( t) 21:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
This relates to the immediately preceding section here, although I am giving it a new section title because I don't think that it is limited to quotations which originated on social media. I believe fundamentally that we are interested in preserving any bowdlerisation which exists in the original primary source material, but we are not interested in preserving bowdlerisation in secondary sources which arises merely out of those secondary sources imposing their own censorship. Please see the form of words in this proposed change (now reverted pending discussion here).
Clearly there may at times be an element of judgement in applying this guideline, and it may depend on the individual circumstances surrounding the quotation. However, in many situations it will be pretty obvious.
What do you reckon?
Thanks, -- Money money tickle parsnip ( talk) 23:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I am looking for advice regarding the use of the word "midget" in articles on professional wrestling. Because the term is considered offensive to many people, it has virtually gone out of use in many contexts. Professional wrestling is somewhat of a holdout. The term was used widely for years, but some promotions now avoid using it. I am wondering what to do with existing articles, such as biographies (which might state something to the effect that "X is a midget professional wrestler" or event articles (which might refer to a storyline in which "X recruited a midget to assist in this feud"). I think, overall, the term "midget wrestling" is prevalent enough that there isn't an argument to rename the article about the activity itself, and some historical uses (the ring name "Macho Midget" and awards or titles that specifically used the word) would remain in their present form. I am wondering if increasing societal awareness of the offensiveness of the word would justify some editing to replace "midget professional wrestler" with "little person professional wrestler" or something to that effect. There has been a discussion at the professional wrestling Wikiproject, which I am linking here for context: [3]. Any input would be appreciated. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 21:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Evening. I'm under the impression that Wikipedia imagery is halfway tame, using drawings and such, for its sexual pages. But then why are those images there at pearl necklace (sexual act) and bareback (sexual act)? Actually, to disagree a little with the complaints at the pearl necklace page, [5] I think the pearl necklace picture might be okay because it doesn't show any explicit activity, just the aftereffect. But doesn't the bareback picture run afoul the section on this page that says " 'Not censored' does not give special favor to offensive content"? It appears that this image is just there to show off. 172.58.4.224 ( talk) 07:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi - my 5 year old daughter was reading about LOL dolls with me and she clicked on the "bondage" link within the text before I could stop her. Unfortunately now she has been exposed to multiple photos of women hogtied and is very upset. I don't see how those images improve the "bondage" article at all. I often sponsor Wikipedia but am now having second thoughts about supporting it. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Seeing all girl (
talk •
contribs)
23:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
What's Wiki's stand on including the word "Nigga/Nigger" in relation to song lyrics? BenBrownBoy ( Aye?) 11:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
In original Wikipedia content, a vulgarity or obscenity should either appear in its full form or not at all; words should never be bowdlerized by replacing letters with dashes, asterisks, or other symbols. However, when quoting relevant material, rendering a quotation as it appears in the source cited trumps this style guideline.Some1 ( talk) 18:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Is it possible to hide profanity words? I'm just wondering, I have no problem. I know certain images can be hidden. Cwater1 ( talk) 20:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
At Talk:Anna Krauss we have a dispute over inclusion of this image of the biography’s subject. Per MOS:OMIMG, WP:NOTCENSORED and, of course, this page, I believe that the encyclopedic value of the image, which has no suitable substitutes, outweighs its potential for shock and offense. I would appreciate input from editors there, as it is just my opinion against that of Scope creep at this point. I have left a similar note at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images. — HTGS ( talk) 02:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)