HRWiki talk:Swears

From Homestar Runner Wiki

[edit] What questions does this page need to answer?

Off the top of my head, I would say, (1) Do we want to continue to maintain separate censored/uncensored versions of pages? (2) If so, what words trigger the creation of a censored page? (3) What words trigger content warnings? (4) Do we want to use content warnings at all? (5) What words, if any, are not acceptable outside of articles (for example, on talk pages)? The organization of this page will probably be in flux for a bit until we can get a handle on the discussion, so bear with us. The name of this page might even change if someone has a better idea. Links to previous threads (or blockquotes) where this has come up are welcome. — It's dot com 04:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(1) Yes. (2) That would require consensus. We will likely agree on a standard set of words, and argue vehemently on a small number of words, probably to exasperation. (3) That would require consensus. We will likely agree on a standard set of words, and argue vehemently on a small number of words, probably to exasperation. (4) Yes. (5) Same standards we apply to uncensored articles must apply to general talk. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  04:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Qermaq on all accounts. -- Super Martyo boing! 21:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

In light of recent events, I think we should finally create the actual policy/article. I like the name. OptimisticFool 23:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What words are over the line?

A lot of the above questions hinge on some kind of determination on just which words are bad words. I would say that definitely on the "bad" side are (group 1) strong sexual language (all uses of the word "fuck" and its derivatives as well as descriptions of sexual organs or acts), excretory functions ("shit", "asshole", and other strong scatalogical language), and strong insults ("bitch", "bastard") or religious cursing ("goddamn"). Then there's (group 2) mild swearing (which is allowed on early-hour network TV): "damn", "hell", "ass", "piss"; and (group 3) euphemistic swearing "gosh", "crap", "darn", etc. I think that only group 1 words should be censored in articles. Group 2 words should be allowed to remain. In general, neither group 1 nor group 2 words should be allowed outside articles (e.g. on talk pages). — It's dot com 04:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Of course those words should be allowed on talk pages if they are quotes from the article and advance the discussion. Loafing 04:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, but those would be the exception, not the rule. — It's dot com

I think those are great definitions — I very much like the division into the three groups, and I think you've corralled the words into their proper pens. And the Network TV thing is a good parallel. Trey56 05:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the groups idea. Group 3 is fine for everything on this wiki, considering the website it's about has most words in that category. -- Super Martyo boing! 21:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's my take. There are 3 different scenarios: (1) Transcripts of HomestarRunner.com and related releases (2) Transcripts of TBC and their interviewers (3) What we say. I firmly believe (1) should always be verbatim. (2) should be censored mildly, removing say groups 1 and 2. Then there's (3) in which no group 1 or 2 words should be allowed, unless we're discussing the above with the Warning Template in place.

Still, a slight quibble with the category definitions. Would "fuck" be equally objectionable in a statement like "I want to fuck Marzipan" as in a question like "What the fuck did they do to The Paper?" Leaving aside the fact that neither would be appropriate for an otherwise warning-less talk, isn't there a qualitative difference here? Should that be reflected, and if not, why? Also, what precisely differentiates "poop" from "shit"? That is not explicit. Dot Com laid out "excretory functions" as a parameter for group 1, but is it always? I can call him a "Poopsmith", but I cannot call him a "shit shoveler", regardless of the alliteration we all benefit from. That much is clear. The category definitions should lay out why. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  22:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your distinction between the severity of the two uses of "fuck". However, since neither kind of use is generally acceptable in PG forums (like network TV), I think either sort of use should still fit in group 1. In that case, we would treat that word the same way regardless of the context. Trey56 23:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally am more offended by "shit" than "poop", but I could see how others would devise that they have the exact same meaning, so are the same on the offense scale. If worse comes to worse, we still call him The Poopsmith, but we can refer to him as the feces shoveler if needed. -- Super Martyo boing! 22:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, we HAVE to call him "The Poopsmith", that's his canon name. That's not in question, as far as I'm concerned. Still, do we agree by concensus that "shit" is worse than "poop" and by what criteria? I'd like to see us be a little better than random or roundabout with this. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  22:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Group 1 is strong swears (roughly speaking, things you can't say on TV without getting an MA rating, plus a few other words mentioned above), group 2 is mild swears, and group 3 is euphemisms. "Poop", a euphemism, falls in group 3. Scatalogical talk that we don't allow also includes nonsense like "Strong Bad's candy being brown is not also a reason because it's chocolate, but possibly because Strong Bad went in it." "Fuck" is always out, regardless of the qualitative difference (especially since I can't imagine TBC ever using the word in its literal sense either on the site or in an interview; this would pertain mostly to us). "Screw" would be out too, if it's referring to the actual act (as opposed to the more general "Screw all y'all"; again, this would apply more to our own talk, because I just don't see TBC using it in a sexual context). I agree that (1) transcripts of h*r.com should always be verbatim. I think that (2) a couple of group 2 words should not necessitate an entire censored version, but if we're censoring a group 1 word from an interview, then we'd might as well get the group 2 words while we're at it. And (3) yes. BTW, SMB, everybody knows the Poopsmith shovels whatsit. — It's dot com 23:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(in reply to Qermaq's last post) I don't think that's entirely possible. For whatever reason, society has deemed certain words to be more crude than others. If we permitted uncensored use of "shit" just because we allow "poop", than we could just as easily permit "fuck" because "have sexual intercourse with" is a perfectly acceptable phrase. There's no inherent reason one is more crude than the other, we just have to accept the fact (for the purposes of this wiki) that things are the way they are and act accordingly.

However, despite the fact that the reasons certain words are unacceptable in society are illogical, there is very little mystery about which words are acceptable and which aren't. I say we simply accept the societal norms for the purpose of the wiki and avoid as much as possible any nitpicking about which words are okay and which aren't. The categories mentioned above are very close to those used by network TV, and it's very appropriate for us to use a similar standard. Trey56 23:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreeing with both IDC and Trey, and adding: ultimately, mustn't we have a list somewhere of what words we disallow, and if necessary, in what contexts? Isn't any other approach fanciful and arbitrary? And how do we safely maintain such a list so users can suggest adds but onl trusted users can add? I propose a project page listing these words, with an appropriate content warning,. where words are suggested via Talk. Have not thought it out, could be bad, could be good. Total brainstorming here. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  23:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to Qermaq: We could use this page (not this talk page, but the blank one that it supposedly accompanies). -- Super Martyo boing! 00:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

In reply to IDC:

"Poop", a euphemism, falls in group 3. Scatalogical talk that we don't allow also includes nonsense like "Strong Bad's candy being brown is not also a reason because it's chocolate, but possibly because Strong Bad went in it."

How does that play in? Remember, the goal here is to distill our "obvious" impulses and standards into definite guidelines which spell out how to behave linguistically on the wiki in various clear-cut environments. How do we explain the above in guideline form? Perhaps that's an excellent starting point. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  23:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

a few things:

The Poopsmith, but we can refer to him as the feces shoveler if needed.

• The quote above I am concerned about the word feces provokes in me a more vivid mental image than the word poop. As far as I know, it is by no means a censored word but one that may be considered by some inappropriate to some degree. (It is only listed 3 times.)
• I have, as of late, seen shows and movies (I believe on network TV though it might've just been regular cable) that use the word "bitch" as a regular word, as if it belonged in group 2. However, in my opinion, differentiating between group 1 and group 2 is of less importance since the general agreement seems to be that both groups should be censored.
• Not only do a list of unacceptable words is needed, I believe, but a list of examples of inappropriate phrases (I remember a few months back a user had an inappropriate user box regarding Missy Palmer) even if the entire sentence is made of weak euphemisms.
• We should take care that translations themselves do not contain inappropriate content in their respective languages.

--Stux 01:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I finally made a first draft of an actual policy based on discussion to this point. I do not think a full-out list of bad words is necessary or desirable on the project page itself; rather, this talk page should serve as the primary explanation and interpretation of the policy. — It's dot com 00:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

And it's off to a nice start. Might I suggest that we use an {{about}} and {{for}}, as we do with Glossary and HRWiki:Glossary? As with Death vs. Grim Reaper I am at a loss or I would have written them up myself. OptimisticFool 01:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the wiki's policy regarding vulgarities. For uses of vulgarities within the Homestar Runner body of work, see Swears.

and

This article is about uses of vulgarities within the Homestar Runner body of work. For the wiki's policy regarding vulgarities, see HRWiki:Swears.

Respectively. — Defender1031✡Talk 01:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Not bad. I think I'd prefer "profanity" to "vulgarities" though. OptimisticFool 02:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. Swears is already the first link on the page. — It's dot com 03:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think the for/about templates are more important on Swears for people looking for the policy. It just balances to have them on both. OptimisticFool 03:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] is this considered a swear?

i was going to put a remark on looking old stating that in reality, you couldn't mistake strong bad for his great-grandmother because strong bad doesn't wear a shirt, and has no [cleavage, boobs or breasts, whichever is considered the cleanest.], or nipples for that matter. is this too much of a sexual reference to actually post on the page?

Homsarstrongbad150 20:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

nevermind. i just saw it again and noticed he was wearing a shirt

Homsarstrongbad150 20:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)