:Additionally, if showing pictures of torture significantly added to the informational content of the article, I would advocate their inclusion (though perhaps on a subpage where the squeamish weren't forced to read them as part of the article). To take a specific example for the future, if Wikipedia gets to the point where audio recordings are made available from it, there are audio tapes of executions that were played on NPR? last year. Some segments of them might be *highly* relevant and informative on the death penalty page. Finally, could somebody please explain to me why people are so insistent on jumping through hoops to avoid the use of the word where its use for purposes of accuracy is so justified. It's just a word describing (if with a lack of poetry) a usually highly pleasurable act performed by billions of people around the world every single day. --Robert Merkel |
Robert - we can make the identical point without being explicit. I don't see the need to use the word. I personally am in favour of keeping the 'pedia as clean as possible. - MMGB
But isn't it more important for an encyclopedia to provide full and accurate information rather than to just "make the right point" with deliberately incomplete and obscured data? The term FUBAR doesn't mean "fouled up", it means "fucked up". The fact that it's often bowdlerized is also useful to know, but I think that kind of thing is only a secondary piece of information. -BD
Firstly, I think we are all agreed that "fucked up" is what the original saying was, and "fouled up" was a euphemism for describing the acronym to generals and women (no sexism intended, but I gather that was the way things were in the 40's)?
If so, according to the way I read the policy page, explicitness is called for here. The expression was "fucked" so in the interests of accuracy we should use "fucked" in the article. "Fouled" is *not* making an identical point, nor are the allusions. As AxelBoldt and others have pointed out, many people, particularly non-native speakers, may not recognise the allusions. If you disagree with the foul language policy, I suggest we take the debate there. If you disagree with the way I'm interpreting or applying it, by all means continue the discussion here. At this point, I'm going to restore the older version. --Robert Merkel
Finally, could somebody please explain to me why people are so insistent on jumping through hoops to avoid the use of the word where its use for purposes of accuracy is so justified. It's just a word describing (if with a lack of poetry) a usually highly pleasurable act performed by billions of people around the world every single day. --Robert Merkel