Wikipedia:Profanity, civility, and discussions

In this article, the topic of Wikipedia:Profanity, civility, and discussions will be explored in depth, with the aim of exhaustively analyzing its various facets and offering a complete vision of its importance and impact on today's society. Along these lines, both historical and cultural aspects will be addressed, as well as recent studies and findings related to Wikipedia:Profanity, civility, and discussions. Additionally, different perspectives and opinions from experts in the field will be examined in order to shed light on this ever-evolving topic. It is hoped that this article will not only provide valuable information, but also generate reflection and debate about Wikipedia:Profanity, civility, and discussions, in order to promote a deeper and richer understanding of this topic.

Some Wikipedians may react differently than others to expressions of profanity.

The policy Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored is a community standard, and this essay does not dispute it. In an apparent logical conflict, the policy Wikipedia:Civility helps to identify incivility as "rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions." How does this shake out?

The essay Wikipedia:Offensive material states, "Material that could be considered vulgar, obscene or offensive should not be included unless it is treated in an encyclopedic manner." That's the measure used in this essay.

"Encyclopedic" profanity

Can profanity be "encyclopedic" in nature? The article on Profanity seems to be a good example. There are other examples of articles that contain words widely considered "profanity" such as Seven dirty words, Profanity in science fiction, and Profanity in American Sign Language. Articles about profanity seem to be acceptable in Wikipedia, and this essay does not dispute that position.

"Unencyclopedic" profanity

Discussion forums such as (but not limited to) article talk pages, user pages, and deletion discussion forums are not "encyclopedic" in nature and are generally regarded as support for the encyclopedia but not a part of the encyclopedia. In these types of pages, the policy on Civility comes to the front. Not only is "gross profanity" considered uncivil in this forum, it can easily be argued that it is not encyclopedic.

Naturally, discussion about the inclusion of a profane word or phrase in the article itself (such as, "Should the article Seven dirty words actually contain the seven dirty words?") can be written in the discussion because that is germane to the discussion and part of building a better encyclopedia. No problem.

However, profanity directed at a user is a personal attack (after all, name calling using non-profane words is also a personal attack). That's a clear violation of WP:CIVILITY.

The catch comes in the range in between--where one editor may consider use to be civil and another may not. In that case, the measure should be "is the use of profanity 'encyclopedic' in this case?" An alternate question to ask is "could I write this contribution to the talk page in a way that does not use profanity and still have the same impact?" Generally editors will find that avoiding profanity in talk pages can help prevent misunderstandings and other potential interpretations of uncivil behavior.

Profanity can be considered offensive by individuals in discussions. Find a way to avoid its use for the sake of civility.