Wikipedia:Offensive material
 | This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles may contain profanity, but only for a good reason. Do not use disclaimers. |
Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not.
In original Wikipedia content, a profanity should either appear in its full form or not at all; words should never be bowdlerized by replacing letters in the word with dashes, asterisks, or other symbols. However, when quoting relevant material from external sources, rendering a quote as it was originally spoken/written trumps our style guidelines. If necessary, you may indicate that the blanking was in the original quote by saying so in some way outside of the quote, for example by using "[censorship preserved]" or "[sic]".
Discussions about whether to include an offensive image or profanity are often heated. As in all discussions on Wikipedia, it is vital that all parties practise civility and assume good faith. Words like "pornography" or "censorship" tend to inflame the discussion and should be avoided. Objective terminology is more helpful than subjective terminology.
Disclaimers should not be used in articles that contain profanity. All articles are covered by the five official disclaimer pages.
Other ways to reference strong language in an encyclopedic manner
At times, strong language should be retained in the article exactly as sourced. However there are cases where the information can be characterized without loss of information, and the actual wording adds little to the article, and other cases where it can be footnoted if specificity is required. This is often useful in cases where the strong wording is relevant but not central to the statement. For example:
Before:
According to the New York Times,[1] Jane was heard shrieking that John was a "piece of shit" and a "bitch" when the police were called.- [1]Source citation.
After:
According to the New York Times,[1] Jane was heard shrieking insults at John[2] when the police were called.- [1]Source citation.
[2]For example, "a piece of shit" and a "bitch".
- [1]Source citation.
An example of this: before after (from the article Signifying Rapper).