Wikipedia talk:Content disclaimer/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Offensive pictures

Offensive pictures, human genitalia, human humiliation, torture and co, are not treated along the same standards on Wikipedia; In particular, female genitalia are hidden, while male genitalia are visible or pictures of torture are visible as well, such as on Iraq prison abuse scandal. In short, double standards exist, that indicate Wikipedia is somehow censoring a simple clitoris, while showing erected penis or pictures that make many people just feel sick in disgust. I am troubled by this. I would like some opinions about this, and to know how people feel like about censorship (ie, removing images), hidding images behind links (eg, the clitoris) or just plain display potentially offending images (eg, torture). SweetLittleFluffyThing

Concur with Ant. Wikipedia shouldn't require parental guidance. Or should we really have to ask the developers for a "child lock" feature???? Even on the anatomy pages schematic drawings are of more use than outright nudity of either sex. JFW | T@lk 11:22, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
I have some ideas about a separate version of WP with particular consideration for kids that wouldn't impact on other's freedoms. Some scratchy thoughts at User:Pcb21/WP for kids. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
I have no problems with nudity of either sex whatsoever. I don't like toture pics, but then I don't like torture. I think I should be informed of such things and as the saying goes a picture is worth a thousand words.So my opinion is that they should stay in the articles. However if people want links like in the clit picture I'll not object, but we shouldn't censor. theresa knott 11:33, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
Sex is one thing. Tortue is another -- to me, tortue photos just very shocking to look at. You're bound to get to sexual images sooner or later, but if you get used to seeing people bleeding or scarring dying painfully --you're desensitized, in a bad way. --Menchi 12:00, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
Menchi do you think we should have the offending pictures in a seperate gallary or do you think they should be deleted all together?theresa knott 12:08, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
A disclaimer would do. So long as the disclaimer is not hidden so it doesn't...disclaim as it should. And if the person is morbid enough to check it out AFTER seeing the disclaimer. Well, they have only themselves to blame. :-) --Menchi 06:22, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
On sensitive issues we have several times in the past done whatever the wider mainstream media has done (Kobe Bryant's accuser etc). The torture article now has a link to the decapitation video, which is more than other news outlets are doing it appears. The idea of watching that personally grosses me out and it is the first time I have thought "Yes people should have the personal freedom to make their own choices, but that doesn't mean I need to provide the means for them to do so." Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
There was a whole, lengthy, discussion of this, right here, less than a month ago. Unfortunately, I haven't time to find where it all got archived (and can't remember if it was particularly conclusive, either) but it's out there somewhere... - IMSoP 13:16, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Profanity contains (some of the) previous discussion, and the tentative policy is at Wikipedia:Profanity. Whatever the policy is, it looks like it is not consistently enforced given the difference between boys' bits and girls' bits articles that Anthere talks about above. When there are problems of consistency like that I guess it is hard to say "Ah, yes, we've done this discussion ten times before. Here is the policy and here is the talk that got us there. Now be quiet.". Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:43, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
First, let me preface this by saying that I was the one who re-added the pictures to penis. Stated simply, this is not the mormon wikipedia - it's not bowdlerized, and not censored. (This same issue has come up at, to mw knowledge, John F. Kennedy assassination, brain, penis, clitoris, etc etc)
We don't go out looking for potentially offensive pictures, but if one that is a useful addition to the article, being potentially offensive should not stop us from using it. If that means we need parental guidance, so be it. The kids can handle it - the pictures in question are (IMHO) relatively tame. You can look in almost any encyclopedia and see the same things - a picture of the brain, penis, clitoris, etc etc. →Raul654 13:52, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
I would prefer having links rather than embedded photos. I'm not morally offended, but rather I find photographs of male genitalia to be just plain unpleasant to view, for whatever irrational reasons. I would still like to be able to read the penis article. Of course, it could be said "well, that's just your problem", but I wouldn't be surprised if a large number of Wikipedia readers held the same viewpoint — in which case, I would argue that omitting the in-line photos would improve the article. — Matt 14:29, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Matt that graphic pictures generally shouldn't be inline, but should be optional viewing. I disagree with the statement that reference materials commonly have such pictures. They usually just have a diagram. I think the Iraq abuse photos are OK inline at present, as it is still breaking news, and news articles I've read indicate seeing them is necessary to understand how extreme the abuse is/was[1]. When the dust has settled, they should probably go optional as well. Niteowlneils 18:50, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
If I'm not in the mood for seeing a penis I don't type "penis" into the search bar. Same w torture or womens goodies or whatever. Does anyone seriously think a child who for whatever reason has a need for researching a penis shouldn't be allowed to see a nonsexual photo of one? Medical textbooks are allowed for kids, and I and my children have reviewed texts on anatomy w a minimum of thrills and chills. Cutting peoples heads off is far less disturbing than the graphic woodcuts and photos of torture equipment from the inquisition which I studied at length as a child. Encyclopedias and other reference texts are the last place that should be censoring. Check out the pic on this page *warning, shocking classical art* ----> Pan (mythology). I think some perspective is needed here. Sam Spade 15:01, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
I'm rarely in the mood for viewing penis photos; that's just my nature, and I don't think I'm unique. Despite this, I might want to read an article on the penis without viewing a photograph of one. I'm not advocating censorship — I don't want to stop other people, including children, from looking at photos, hence I'd favour indirection (i.e. a link to a photo). If a large number of other readers share my aesthetic reaction, then this would improve the article for many people. If most readers are OK with the photos, then keep them inline — it's a benefit to the article. — Matt 15:20, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
My point is that if your wanting to learn about the penis (or torture, or whatever) seeing a pic is an important part of that process, and should be an expected cost of researching the subject. That being said, I think having a clickable link for the squimish to avoid isn't censorous, and while I feel it unnecessary, it would seem acceptable in some cases. Sam Spade 16:38, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Right, but aside from displaying or not displaying nude pictures, is that okay to you that pictures of male genitalia are displayed (hence, not enough offensive) while pictures of females genitalia are hidden (for being very offensive) ? Is there a pov there ? SweetLittleFluffyThing

Yes, that is a matter of taste, and/or POV. Many prefer the nude female form to the males, and the wiki is vaguely democratic. And so things happen this way. Consistancy would be nice in EVERY area of the wiki, but thus far, I have found it in none ;) What to do? Maybe some more democracy will help? And if the majority wants breast, but not penis? What then? lolol... Sam Spade 17:18, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
Speaking as a younger Wikipedia user, I think there are many of us out here who feel the same way I do: optional viewing, please, via links. Anyone agree? Rissa of the saiya-jin 19:16, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
No, I disagree - first, it's a slippery slope as to what is 'objectionable' - someone was arguing earlier that the graphic pictures on human brain would be objectionable to vetrans. Second, putting it in link for essentially buries it, which is censorship in itself. Third, it takes away from the utility of the article. →Raul654 19:48, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
One: yes, there's a scale of "objectionableness", but it's not necessary to pander to every objection. We should, I believe, attempt to guage what might be unpleasant to large numbers of people, and act accordingly. The chief mechanism for this should be common sense. Two: Would you argue that a "Wikipedia contains spoilers" message is censorship? I do not believe that giving the reader a choice about whether to see a photograph is censorship. Three: Giving some readers a sense of distaste also takes away from the utility of the article. There's no loss of information for moving a picture to a link, just convenience. We should judge whether this loss of convenience is worth the aesthetic gain for a subset of readers. — Matt
Agree with Raul654, taking pictures about subject X out of any article deptives the article of something, also agree with Sam Spade that people who don't want to see a picture of a penis really shouldnt be looking for one in the search. I do not agree with the external linking of pictures, it takes something away from the rest of us because we can't print the article proprely without going through great trauble. Also an article is just more pretty with inline pictures than extenral, i think everyone agrees on this because we have inline pictures everywhere as opposed to external ones, it can be argued that it is nothing but a violation of NPOV ot be removing valid content from an article just because you are not comfortable with it. I have written down some thoughts on the issue at this page on meta and would appriciate some input. However until something like that proposed system is in place we should not gutting articles left and right at the loss of other readers just because we think it's a taboo subject, an encyclopedia should be timeless, not reflect the taboos of the time. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:11, 2004 May 12 (UTC)
People may want to read an article about a topic without seeing a picture of it. Other examples: menstruation, anal sex, Coprophagia... — Matt 09:15, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

My concern is that putting some of the more offensive images (Goatse, pictures of dead bodies, etc) up violates NPOV. That is to say, since there is usually a substantial controversy over the appropriateness of showing these images, it is POV for us to show them. We should offer links on a factual ground, but in the case of really controversial and debatable images, to display them is to say that it's OK to display them. We should remain neutral - those who feel it's right to view these things should be able to. Those who feel it should be hidden should not have to. This is the best NPOV compromise available. Snowspinner 00:15, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

I would draw a strong distinction between "shock" images of torture or execution, and clinical, non-shocking, non-sexual anatomical pictures. Absolutely, the article on "penis" should show a picture of a penis. Why shouldn't an eleven year old girl see a picture of a penis if she's curious about the human body? Are we really going to deny her access to that information because it offends some people's moral scruples?

The article on foot contains inline images. So does the one on Ear. There is no intellectually honest reason for excluding one from penis or clitoris, or the rest. Really, a penis or a clitoris is a lot like a foot or an ear, except that a lot more people are curious about the "sexual" organs because they don't happen to have them.

It's the job of an encyclopedia to "shine light into the darkness" on these issues and say, "look, there it is, a clitoris. Now what was the big deal?"

- Thparkth 20:07, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Do not forget to vote and give your opinion at Talk:Nick Berg, where on ongoing poll is going on, over the keep/remove/inlinelink severed head of Nick Berg. This is a poll to try to determine a new policy on the topic of potentially offending images. Thank you for all your comments :-) SweetLittleFluffyThing 05:33, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Child Safety and Wikipedia

Is there a policy in Wikipedia to deal with the inclusion of material that may be considered unsuitable for children?

Obviously Wikipedia is about open sharing of information. However there are entrie that will inflame some parents and terrify school administrators. (see Oral sex) What will inflame some parents will not cause a stir among others. Wikipedia and censorship to not go together, however it will be a tragedy if Widipedia is blocked in its entirity from schools.

Yes. The policy is that this is an encyclopedia, and it's up to parents to monitor what their children read, not us. RickK 23:38, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

So, for example, does a list of which movies Drew Barrymore appears nude suitable for inclusion in an encyclopeadia? Paul Beardsell 23:41, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, because the information is sub-trivial. That she has appeared nude, and even a semi-nude photo of her, would be of value to the encyclopedia, but a list of someone's opinion as to whether she was or was not nude is not. And besides, you've only given half the information. Was it full frontal nudity, rear nudity, side, partial, see, your trivia could get even more trivial, so why stop there? RickK 23:53, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that Wikipedia relies on self-censorship. That is an ethic that I subscribe to. I don't believe that formalising the system will make any difference. On the other issue, all I can say to Paul Beardsell is "Grow up". Noisy 23:59, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If resorting to bowdlerism is being grown up then I want none of it. Presumably Noisy actually knows what side of the argument I am on. Paul Beardsell 00:04, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, why stop there? [2] Paul Beardsell 00:07, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There is so much useless sub-trivia on Wikipedia. Why are we discussing only nudity references? Paul Beardsell 00:09, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There are two legitimate concerns here - protecting Wikipedia from being blocked by censorware vs keeping our content as accurate as possible. Our ad-hoc policy is one of common sense - if you go to penis, don't be surprised if you see an explicit photo - it's assumed that you knew what you were getting into by going to that article. By and large, it's generally understood that clinical anatomical pictures are OK, but that's about as far as we're willing to go.

Also, we only put that kind of content in places you would "expect it". By the same token, there's a concern that we shouldn't "push" that kind of content onto people, which is why it is unlikely that such a picture will ever make it to the main page.

As far as a list of nude pictures that Drew Barrymore has appeared in - a text list isn't even close to something we'd need to censor. →Raul654 00:16, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

Besides, thats a hypothetical example of the problem of unecyclopedicness and superficiality - not of decency. ;) -SV

Well, where in Wikipedia would one expect to find a list of the pictures that Drew Barrymore appears nude in? I too am not entirely sure that the list is important enough to be included, but somebody thought so. What I was objecting to was the removal of that information, the Wikipedia default being that info is not removed. It is accurate info, presumably. That there is som much seemingly useless trivia in Wikipedia does not lead RickK to delete that. When he does the nudity but leaves the rest then that is nothing less than Bowdlerism. Paul Beardsell 00:30, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ah. Good point. (Sorry about the edit conflict - things can be hard to post here on the pump.) About keeping info versus deleting it, I tend to lean toward keeping, but in the context of a useless trivia article, triviality is fine. In the context of a biographical article about an actress, a separate list of where that actress appears nude is rather trivial. I agree theres a lot of trivial stuff on wikipedia - Pruning the category list ought to be a top priority, but there needs to be better ways to visualise it in order to get to it. -SV

This is a very topical subject these days on Wikipedia. In the general sense, the extreme ease by which materials are avaliable on the web will have a reconciling effect on the extreme interpretations of decency. On the practical side, the battle is between what should be done (according to common sensical, moderate, and agreeable standards) and what can actually be done about it. Artificial control means are completely antithetical to WP, and everything done here has to be done in the name of NPOV and openness, or it just doenst have resonance. If Wikipedia is to appeal to parents for their children's use, the basics should be considered; even vulgar topics are not to be treated profanely here, and articles that are problematic could be categorized as (adult) of (mature) in nature, and not included on certain DVD distributions of WP. If kids are online, they have access to any number of possibly profane things, and WP is the least of those. IMHO "A child-safe internet" is an oxymoron, wo then how much is Wikipedia expected to be like Netnanny or AOL, rather than what it is? -SV 00:34, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree with that wholeheartedly. But that very good point does not apply. We are not talking about porn or even the use of swear words. There is no way that I wish a first time user of an encyclopedia (a very advanced 6 year old, say, or an average 10 year old on their first independent school project) to be protected to the extent that (s)he is not allowed to know that sometimes people appear nude in movies. And that Drew Barrymore actually has a vagina! (Although that point does not yet appear in the article.) Paul Beardsell 00:48, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, I disagree - its not about that at all. Your talking about defending superficial use of a list - which is a methodology intrinsic to categorization; categorization must be encyclopedic. Sorry if I misunderstod the topic.SV
RickK is not removing a list but simply removing (censoring!) half a dozen occurrences of the word "nude" from the list. That lists are or are not desirable really is not the issue here. Paul Beardsell 01:01, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think the consensus of opinion is that there is no good reason to censor the article. Who disagrees? Paul Beardsell 02:25, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think it trivializes an article on a legitimate actress to highlight, in the list of her movies, which ones she appears nude in. This is not something we normally include in profiles of actors and actresses, nor shoudl we. It's one thing to discuss nude appearances, in the text of the article, where they are relevant to a person's career, and another to turn the list of what films someone has appeared into a "hey, if you want to see her naked, rent this movie." -- Jmabel 04:29, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

What would be wrong with that? It is (by definition) prudish to object to what you are objecting to. But, by your own measure, this issue is pertinent to her career and thereby acceptable. Paul Beardsell 13:35, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps a generic article of Nude scenes of famous actresses would be somewhat appropriate; it *is* somewhat, vaguely, in a certain dimension and when you're looking at it with one eye closed, encyclopedic. At least for a perv like me. On a side note, every time I see "Drew Barrymore's nudity" in my Watchlist, I come here thinking someone's finally posted an example. Meanies. --Golbez 09:31, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Maybe we should have a PICS label [], or do we already? Kokiri 16:04, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The people here on this website do not care for children or about morality. As I have stated earlier, this is an adult playground and it has much filthy content that no child should read that many libraries and schools should censor this website but the great amount of contributors and the owners do not care about this. It is about them having fun. Another sign of the sickness of this society. I do not know why they think this ought to be a *source* for highschoolers. This is an anarchistic website.WHEELER 15:48, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure anarchy is known for its desire to create a large population of Administrators. --bodnotbod 18:16, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
More to the point, the people on this website do not care to write exclusively for children or decide what is "moral" to show tro other people's children, and realize that an encyclopedia intended for adults will -- must -- contain content not suitable for children.
The "filthy content" might briefly shock a child (assuming she even understood it), but I wager she'd be wakened by screaming nightmares for a month if she read Holocaust and saw this picture, or this one, or this one.
Should we remove those pictures from Wikipedia to "protect children"? Turn the Holocaust survivors' "never again" into "never again seen"?
Or what about Khmer Rouge and this picture of victims, some of them children like those you want to protect? Will throwing that picture down the memory hole make Wikipedia more "moral"?
What about sanitizing inconvenient pictures of American and Iraqi Casualties in the U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Iraq. Are children too young for those pictures of their country's "accomplishments"? Shall we censor those pages too?
Or maybe it's a better idea for parents to sit with young children while they browse wikipedia or any site?
Truth, which is what Wikipedia aims to present, is incompatible with censorship; a Wikipedia "suitable" for children is not a Wikipedia that is useful for adults. And who decides what is suitable? You? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? The Wiccans? Fred Phelps? The Human Rights Campaign? The Republican Party? The Democratic Party?
Better to let each parent decide for his own children, rather than attempt to decide what is "moral" or "suitable" for others' children by censoring Wikipedia. -- orthogonal 16:53, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The children will be entirely safe once freedom is entirely destroyed. -- Stevietheman 17:59, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

While you're making wikipedia safe for children to read, why not also simplify the language the articles are written in? Oh wait, that's already been done.

 (Thanks Orthangonal for the excellent essay above!!!!) --ssd 05:21, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, protecting children from TV, books, magazines etc. is their parents' job, not ours. "Children safety" should not be a concern. This is not a "family" encyclopaedia.

Secondly, use common sense. Listing all films where Drew appears nude on Drew Barrymore is like listing all films where her hair is blond. Non-encyclopedic, sub-trivial and entirely off-topic. I can understand it being mentioned in articles on individual films, if they deserve articles.

Thirdly, avoid bad taste. "Wow! She's nude, dude! nudge-nudge-wink-wink." Zocky 07:35, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Do you want this resource to be used? What parent wants their children exposed to "penetration this" or "penetration that"? What libraries are going to link to this website with fist fucking and gerbil insertion techniques? Is this a playground for perverts or for the general community at large? While our site is going to remain de-linked, other online encyclopaedias are copying our work, posting it on their website and getting credit. How about establishing a family wikipedia?? a child-safe wikipedia? or a Christian wikipedia? That libraries and families can safely link too. Otherwise I feel, this site is going to be taken advantage of others and be sidelined. Has Wikipedia been turned into an adult playground for academic perverts and homosexual propagandists?WHEELER 15:11, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As often, I think that WHEELER has gone over the edge. Hear that, "academic perverts" and "homosexual propagandists"? In my humble opinion, those who obsess about "perverts" (and, worse, "academic perverts") and homosexuals are probably those who have a skewed view of reality.
If you wish to create a Christian Wikipedia, feel free to do so. The material is available under the GFDL; just find servers to host you.
I also differ with your opinions that "libraries and families can safely link" a "Christian Wikipedia". I suspect that in countries such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, a "Christian Wikipedia" would be considered inappropriate for children. This is an international web site, not just a conservative US Christian site. May I remind you that in certain locales, merely showing a photograph of a bare-headed woman is already considered indecent? David.Monniaux 06:50, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Wheeler, while being quite emotional, has a legitimate point. We are striving to be an encyclopedia; that in mind, an encyclopedia is something that a child will wish to use. There is no way to mark something as unsuitable for children in this encyclopedia. Yes, what one person considers unsuitable for children may be different than what another person considers unsuitable for children. Yes, we should have all the content available, even objectionable content. However, I feel it would be a good idea to label certain pages as being unsuitable for children. Samboy 00:53, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I suggest that we add categories for classifying material that are considered potentially harmful to children in some locales: explicit description of sexual techniques, explicit anatomic photographs, discussion of religious and political propaganda. There would be different categories, so that filtering systems could make fine-grained decisions. David.Monniaux 06:50, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Whatever the ultimate solution, transparency is always better than censorship. Give people the tools to filter out "indecent" content, but beyond that, we have to keep this content FREE (as in freedom). -- Stevietheman 19:36, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Censorship sucks. And this is an international encyclopedia. In Europe, showing breasts is not considered porn. Salasks 22:06, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

New stuff at the very bottom please.

Interwiki links

Please add the following two interwiki links:

[[sv:Wikipedia:Förbehåll för innehåll]]
[[vi:Wikipedia:Ph%E1%BB%A7 nh%E1%BA%ADn v%E1%BB%81 n%E1%BB%99i dung]]

Thanks. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs, blog) 05:17, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Done. jni 09:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As an administrator in Chinese Wikipedia, I just linked here therefrom. Please add an interwiki to Chinese:


Thanks. --Jusjih 07:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposal: Option to disable ALL inline images

(I think I saw that this has been proposed and rejected before, but what the hey...)


  • Some people, for various reasons, don't want to see images of sex or violence. (For instance, I often browse Wikipedia at school, and I don't want everyone in the classroom to see me looking at a big Autofellatio.jpg vandalism.)
    • These same people might not mind seeing text describing the same thing, becase (a) people across the room can't see what you're reading (easily) and (b) images have a greater impact on people - they're more disturbing to the viewer, and much more likely to upset other people in the room, than text would be.
  • Proposals have been made to flag images as "sexual" or "violent" or otherwise objectionable, but the topic is so fraught with politics and emotion that any such system will be inherently POV and lead to massive edit wars, and thus has been rightly turned down.
  • Turning off images globally is incredibly inconvenient if you browse other sites at the same time. Even in browsers that let you disable images from just (and I don't think MSIE is one of these), it still presents a number of inconveniences:
    • You can't see the nice images in the skin.
    • You can't see LaTeX-rendered math, which isn't likely to be that obscene.
    • You can't see the tool buttons on the edit form. Etc.
    • If you do want to see an image in an article, you have to unblock images. In Firefox, this is just a right-click operation, but it's almost certainly harder in IE and other browsers.

Therefore, I suggest having an option in Preferences that would allow users to disable showing any inline images in pages. (I mean things included from the Image: namespace, not LaTeXified equations, skin images, tool buttons, etc.) The description and a link to the Image: namespace would be shown, and if they wanted to see the image they could click on the link.

  • It's still inconvenient and impedes viewing, but far superior to blocking all images, either from all sites or from
  • Yes, images could still be uploaded over and vandalized. There's a solution to that, too: have an option that would:
    • When the link in the article to the Image: namespace is clicked on, go to a page with a thumbnail (max 100px in either dimension, scaled down a minimum of 3x) image.
    • The user would then look at the thumbnail. It's easy to tell whether or not it's objectionable this way, but a thumbnail is less likely to be disturbing to the viewer and to other people in the area.
    • If the user then clicks on the thumbnail, they see the full-size image.
  • Having this option off by default is fine, in case anyone sees having it on by default as censorship.
  • This could also help with the (so far hypothetical, I hope) problem of filtering software blocking all of Wikipedia because it might contain naughty pictures.


Nickptar 20:54, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I'd support such a thing. But such a proposal would need to be ran by wikipedia's technical people, as well as policy people, where ever that is Borgs8472 15:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
A worthy idea --Temporitron (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Please add category...

Please add to Category:Wikipedia disclaimers. Thanks! -- Beland 01:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Minor wording change

I changed the sentence saying that "essentially all" articles are written by non-experts to a statement that "the great majority" are written by non-experts. The experts are a small minority here, but there are a fair number of them floating around, and some are very active. Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits has two Ph.D.s in mathematics in the top 15, and I suspect that the majority of our math articles are by mathematicians or math grad students. "Essentially all" in my mind means that there might be a handful of exceptions, not entire broad subject areas of exceptions. Isomorphic 08:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this is controversial so I was bold and just changed it, but I thought I ought to note my reasoning since the page is protected. Isomorphic 08:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Please add [[it:Wikipedia:Disclaimer sui contenuti]] Snowdog 23:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Done. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Censorship option in prefs

How about an option in user prefs that allows text censorship? Those who don't want to see swearing could have it masked or have the page blocked completely, depending on the options. --Adbabypenguin 11:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


Please, someone add interwiki to pt:Wikipedia:Aviso de conteúdo. --555pt 12:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Many Thousands?

Perhaps it should now read "over a million articles". —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 15:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. I was on my way over here but you beat me. :) —CliffHarris (-T|C-) 02:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

İnterwiki addition request...

Would you please add the interwiki link for tr: ?

--Doruk Salancı 15:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Check! Uncle G 16:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Make wikipedia understandable to everybody

Salve, "graphical depiction" is a strange expression for "picture" or "image". Why not use the simple alternative? NOTE: A depiction is always graphical. There's no need for that adjective. IP


We've got:

Wikipedia contains many thousands of articles on a vast array of topics. A relatively small fraction of these topics are frequently censored by educational, governmental, corporate, parental and other filtering schemes.

On first reading, this makes it sound like governments et al. are actively editing Wikipedia to perform their censorship. Can someone with write access change the second sentence to

A relatively small fraction of these articles are on topics which various educational, governmental, or corporate institutions would wish to censor. Some or all Wikipedia articles may therefore be blocked and unavailable to some readers due to such an institution's automated filtering schemes.

Steve Summit (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't do anything about it, but I just wanted to say that (a year late though I may be) I support this. In particular, even if it has an alternative definition in the dictionary, "scheme" tends to imply something illegitimate or malicious in nature, which strikes me as ironically bordering on POV. Caswin 01:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki request

Please add interwiki link for Serbian language Wikipedia. The link is:

[[sr:Википедија:Одрицање за садржај]]

Thank you. --Branislav Jovanovic 09:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Done, thanks. JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

post-traumatic stress disorder

What is the source for this claim: "Wikipedia may contain triggers for people with post-traumatic stress disorder."? --AHA2 14:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should add "* Do not taunt happy fun encyclopedia." in there some place. :) ... The mention of PTSD is a bit too specific an off the wall, Wikipedia might also provide paranoid schizophrenics with with fodder for their delusions. Perhaps we should add a more generic "Some content in Wikipedia may upset pre-existing mental illnesses", or the like. --Gmaxwell 23:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm thirding this. How many wikipedia users suffer from PTSD, and how many of these have specific triggers that correspond to an internet encyclopaedia? Checking the PTSD article reveals little discussion of specific PTSD attack triggers, and it's a grey area for many people, even after reading the article. Why, then, does the content disclaimer reference post traumatic stress disorder in particular, and without further explanation? It is impossible to generalise this unusual claim about mental health triggers across all mental illnesses ("Wikipedia includes material that may trigger LSD flashbacks"), and so I vote that this line is removed entirely. --Sebastian Wolf 23:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I just found the Wikipedia may contain triggers for people with post-traumatic stress disorder statement myself and did a big Scooby-Doo HUH?! I'm removing it as There was no contention to its removal discussion here, nor did anyone provide citation. David Spalding (  ) 19:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
But the page is protected so I CAN'T remove it. Is there an admin in the house? David Spalding (  )
I asked the user who added it to give us a clue as to why it's there..... David Spalding (  )

Okies, so by triggers I wasn't thinking that folks would be triggered by reading an encyclopedia, due to a traumatic experience in a library. Rather I was thinking that, for example, someone with war-caused PTSD might be triggered by a photograph of a bomb site. I have no objection to its removal. Alternatively, one might change the line below it as follows:

Wikipedia may contain images and videos which can trigger epileptic seizures, post-traumatic stress and other medical conditions.

Hope that helps. Martin 14:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:V is no more

The link to Wikipedia:Verifiability needs to be changed to Wikipedia:Attribution. --Xyzzyplugh 01:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

 Done - Harryboyles 04:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


I think that there should be clarification on the censorship aspect of Wikipedia. Even though illustrations, pictures, etc. of human organs might be okay, I think that as for private parts, only illustrations should be used. (Wikimachine 19:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC))

Att no longer policy


Att is currently proposed policy, not policy. WP:V link should be put back. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   07:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

this seems to already be done. CMummert · talk 21:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

interwiki to RU

{{editprotected}} please add interwiki to RU

[[ru:Википедия:Содержимое Википедии может вызвать у Вас протест]]

--One half 3544 18:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

done. CMummert · talk 22:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Photosensitive epilepsy


There's been some discussion at the pump (Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive AK#Avoid movement in pages) regarding animations being used in articles. I figured we might want to add something to this disclaimer regarding photosensitive epilepsy and other possible medical conditions triggered by such images. We might as well be better safe than sorry now that we have people complaining about the issue. I suggest the following addition:

"Wikipedia contains images and videos which may trigger epileptic seizures and other medical conditions."

Of course, I am not a lawyer. --- RockMFR 05:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. I am not a lawyer either, but this seems appropriate and is highly similar to the post-traumatic stress disorder disclaimer. Nihiltres(t.c.s) 18:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as there are images that could triger photo-sensitive epilepsy on the site, would it not be sensible for pages that carry such images to notify users of that possibility in the orange banners you get before some articles, (don't know the proper name for them, guessing it's probably headers or banners or some such). This would aid them in identfying risks to there health, with little to no inconveniece to users that don't suffer from the condition. --OffiMcSpin (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

A new policy about this is being proposed at Wikipedia:Involuntary Health Consequences. Please come and discuss it. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 02:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


Im scared to look at wikipedia again! T.Neo (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

"documenting all human knowledge"

I imagine somewhere there's some essay-long refutation to what I'm about to say, but doesn't the early statement that Wikipedia has an "ambitious mission of documenting all human knowledge" blatantly violate WP:NOT#INFO and the first "not" statement of WP:ENC? A disclaimer is the last place any misinformation should be, and since WP:About doesn't state that to be Wikipedia's mission, it doesn't seem to me like it should be here. Sticky Light (talk) 07:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Wikipedia cannot and should not attempt to document "all human knowledge". It should contain only pertinent information about subjects of interest to the public. I'm astonished that this disclaimer can open with this outrageous and ridiculous claim, and that it seems to have done so for several years!
This "ambitious mission" contradicts WP:NOT and WP:ENC - which stipulate that Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for miscellaneous information - and it may tend to encourage banal trivia entries and an unscholarly approach. Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}I suggest that the opening clause, claiming that Wikipedia aims to document "all human knowledge" be removed. The disclaimer would then begin with the statement that "Wikipedia contains millions of articles on a vast array of topics", which does not require any such qualiying statement about Wikipedia's "ambitious mission". Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 02:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Not done. Changes to the disclaimer should be brought up at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Also, I'm not even sure removals are really possible at all. --- RockMFR 04:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}This has now been discussed at Village Pump & consensus predominantly agrees that this statement should not stand. Please either remove this first clause or replace with neutral wording such as "In its encyclopedic function, Wikipedia contains millions of articles on a vast array of topics". Thank you. Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 10:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 Done PeterSymonds (talk) 15:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Many Thanks. Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


I think the following portions of text should be removed from the content disclaimer:


The text "WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS SPOILERS AND CONTENT YOU MAY FIND OBJECTIONABLE" was added August 31, 2006 by JzG after PseduoSudo added that text to a copy of the content disclaimer in his own userspace, and requested [3][4] it be added to the content disclaimer. I think that text needs further discussion on this talk page.

The "Wikipedia contains spoilers" bulletpoint was added added June 9, 2003 by MartinHarper. As of June 9, 2003, Wikipedia:Spoiler warning looked like this.

Currently, the fact that the content disclaimer mentions spoilers is being used by editors to say that spoiler warnings are disclaimers, which is then being used to say spoiler warnings should be not be in articles because of the no disclaimers in articles guideline.

I believe those two items merit more discussion on this talk page.

If the removal of those two items is not controversial, I will be placing an {{editprotected}} template on this page in a few days. --Pixelface (talk) 09:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Belated response.
I have no opinion on whether spoiler warnings should be in articles. That discussion is for WP:NDA.
I feel that the existence of spoilers should be mentioned in this page. It is one of the things that readers may find upsetting or objectionable about our articles. It therefore should be mentioned amongst this list of such things.
On the other hand, I can't imagine that anyone would sue over spoilers. If one sees the purpose of the disclaimer pages as pure lawsuit-avoidance, then I can understand the removal of the mention of spoilers.
Hope that helps.
Martin (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


The following two items need to be removed from the content disclaimer:


I've seen no consensus on this talk page for the addition of those items. It looks to me like two users wanted the items added but there needs to be a consensus on this talk page before the items are added again. --Pixelface (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Pixelface, but the edit protected template is for uncontroversial edits - given the problems associated with this page in the past, this clearly is a controversial edit. I'm not going to go above the protection and make that change - if you want to make it, please get consensus first. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand, but the presence of those two items is controversial itself. There was never any consensus on this talk page to add them, so why do I have to demonstrate consensus to remove them? I asked to remove two items that never had consensus. --Pixelface (talk) 12:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, it would have been nice if the above all-caps text had appeared somewhere I might have seen it before I read the Eternal Darkness article. I got good and spoiled. (I was expecting to see a spoiler warning above any part of the plot that I shouldn't read as a newcomer to the game) --karln —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


(Darth Vader needed here...! ;-)

Wikipedia contains obscure information that would not be covered in a conventional encyclopedia.

(added here) What does that mean? Is it from reliable sources? If yes, the word is misused, Thx. Or, is it WP:OR? — STAR TREK Man [Space, the final frontier...] 21:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

There's lots of information from reliable sources that is not original research that one would not expect to find in a conventional encyclopedia. A lot of it is "fancruft". Other stuff comes from Wikipedia not being subject to the same space constraints as printed encyclopedias. Martin (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Exams, test and other "unseen" material

There is an argument here that images connected to this test must be hidden and a in-article disclaimer added to prevent spoiling the test. Is there a more general application here? In regards to factual material or images that may spoil a test (be it schooling or of this nature? is it already covered? --Fredrick day (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Plot warning.png

Is there a need for Image:Plot warning.png? GregManninLB (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? It was uploaded during the "Great Spoiler Debate" to highlight how ridiculous spoiler warnings had become. I like to use it as an example of pointing out the obvious. .:Alex:. 17:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

spoiler warnings

I see nothing wrong with bringing back the Spoiler Warning as a courtesy to readers. Kingturtle (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't fucking censored.

If you don't fucking like it, get your bastard ass the hell out of here. I'll be god-damned if I let a bunch of shit-stained commies' bitching fag up my sea of piss. Ziggy Sawdust (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This editor has been blocked indefinitely. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Supposedly he was banned for a sock-puppet and not for the aforementioned statement. (Which b.t.w.: I though was vulgar, but quite accurate of what Wikipedian would like to have... despite the fact that the contrary often happens). --CyclePat (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Systemic bias

Can I suggest that the current paragraph:

Wikipedia's coverage of subjects is patchy, based on the whims of its volunteer contributors (in particular, subjects of interest to young technical people are likely, but not certain, to receive heavier coverage than other subjects). Readers ....

is a bit flippant. I suggest instead (taken from WP:BIAS):

Wikipedia suffers systemic bias that naturally grows from its contributors' demographic groups, manifesting as imbalanced coverage of a subject. Readers ....

AndrewRT(Talk) 22:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Issues

{{Editprotected}} Content disclaimer has an NPOV issue. Please consider the following for implementation.

  • Please change In any case, Wikipedia is a work in progress, and many articles contain errors, bias, duplication, or simply need tender loving care. to
    • Wikipedia is a work in progress which may contains bias, duplication and errors.
  • Please change We encourage readers to help us fix these problems. to
    • Readers are encouraged to collaboratively work at fixing any of these problems.
  • Please change The great majority of articles are written primarily or solely by individuals who are not subject matter experts, and may lack academic or professional credentials in the area. to
    • Generally, material is written by individuals with unverified academic, subject matter expertize and/or professional credentials. Readers are advised to read Wikipedia's General Disclaimer
  • Please change Wikipedia contains obscure information that would not be covered in a conventional encyclopedia. to
    • Wikipedia may contain information not covered in conventional encyclopedias.
  • Please change Wikipedia's coverage of subjects is patchy, based on the whims of its volunteer contributors (in particular, subjects of interest to young technical people are likely, but not certain, to receive heavier coverage than other subjects). to
    • The coverage of some obscure subjects may sometimes becomes an interest to the technically inclined volunteer contributors at Wikipedia.
  • Please consider merging some of the disclaimers and cutting down on other repetition. --CyclePat (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
As I pointed out above, changes should be proposed at WP:VPR first. --- RockMFR 18:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Pages needing attention

{{editprotect}} The link to Wikipedia:Pages needing attention in this page currently points to a page marked historical. The link should point to Wikipedia:Cleanup. meshach (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done — Thank you for your note. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to make minor change to policy wording

{{editprotect}} I am referring to the issue of persons from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Australia), whom encounter this problem when viewing articles which may contain audio files as well as images of, persons who have passed away. This is a culturally sensitive issue which can cause distress, sadness or even offend people within the Aboriginal & TSI cultures and communities. I propose the change of wording from:

Some articles may contain names, images, artworks or descriptions of events that some cultures restrict access to.


Some articles may contain names, images, artworks, audio or descriptions of people or events that certain cultures require approval to access or restrict altogether.

You are welcome to reword what I put as you wish, its just a general idea. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the issue is that aboriginal men invoke their ancestors at corroboree. Try not to be misleading. It is impossible to fully understand what 55-60,000 years of civilization means for that environment today, suffice to say that it affects more than just viewer sensitivities. I agree with inserting the word 'people', but the sentence could be shortened as well: Articles contain representations of people or events that are protected by some cultures. Ottre 06:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
User "may be" instead of "are" and I think you've got an acceptable statement. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 15:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, So Ottre and Philosopher, can I suggest a new wording then? How about Articles can contain audio, visual, or written representations of people or events that may be protected by some cultures.? - By the way, Ottre - I wasn't trying to be misleading, how I described it is how I had it explained to me by someone on IRC who is an indigenous Australian by birth. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
And another slight change - Articles may contain audio, visual, or written representations of people or events which may be protected by some cultures. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Yup. I'm happy with that, Philosopher. Covers it perfectly. :) Thor Malmjursson (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I would slightly favor the old interpretation. Wikipedia contains certain images which fall more into the old category than the new one. (Such as the Nazi Swastika, which illegal to be displayed in Germany in most cases.) Perhaps we can add a bit regarding that it may contain images that are illegal to be displayed in certain areas? Orville Eastland (talk) 03:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Less subjective wording

The wording about Wikipedia coverage being slanted towards young technical writers is quite dated and hasn't been touched in a very very long time. I removed that and unified the use of 'subject' and 'topic' in the final paragraph. +sj + 08:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It should read "...content that might be objectionable." Ottre 11:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

...Is not censored you jackass

I think this policy needs more umph. Umph as in boom boom, right there, in yo face cracka, what you gonna do bout it holmes?, right up in ya et cet.

Perhaps the bolded summarization should have 'you jackass' appended? I think this would accomplish the above desirable effect and be a positive contribution to the summary.

Perhaps every other declaratory statement in the full policy should be appended likewise.

And maybe add "we don't care bout your kids.. raise them yourself" to a few similar declaratory policy positions in the full policy?

Something to think about. -- (talk) 05:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)-- (talk) 05:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki request

{{editprotected}} Please add [[mk:Википедија:Одрекување од одговорност за содржината]] in the interwiki list, thank you in advance :) Brainmachine (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done Skier Dude (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Just note it

I suggest that the phrase "It should be noted that" could well be deleted from the start of the item about graffiti. Almost any sentence containing this phrase would benefit from having it removed - if we SHOULD note something, then we might as well just go ahead and NOTE it already instead of offering a philosophical musing on how we ought to. But although "shoot on sight" would be a reasonable policy regarding "it should be noted that" in general, it should be deleted that phrase especially in this context because it harms the parallelism between the graffiti item and other items. Most of the things on the list are declarative statements about Wikipedia. Wikipedia contains this, Wikipedia contains that, Wikipedia follows such-and-such policy... but then "it should be noted that" Wikipedia something else. No reason for that entry to be special as the only one that "should be noted" - what are we saying, that the others shouldn't be noted? It'd be stronger and clearer if it were just a declarative sentence about Wikipedia like most of the others. (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it against our ethos to move the objectionable to controversy sections?

Personally, I think we can cater to both those who are worried about freedom of expression and those who are worried about accidental exposure to objectionable material by moving material deemed objectionable by the community on a case-by-case basis to a controversy section near the end of the page with a link near the top to that section or its relevant subsection.

In particular, I raise the Virgin Killers album page, which for showing the original cover art at the top of the page lead to UK censors banning Wikipedia for half a week. To me it feels that that page could have served our audience by displaying the 'current' alternative cover image of the band members at the top and in the table of contents near the top show a section link entitled "cover image controversy" or a subsection link entitled "original cover image" under the "controversy" section.

Either way, viewers of the objectionable material would have had to click on a link with the word, "controversy", scrolled past a section header with the word, "controversy", followed an appropriately titled link from another internal page, or followed a link from an external page, which we would not have been liable for. We would have exerted a reasonable effort and ended the premise that a viewer could have accidentally access the image, because they had to ignore the word, "controversy" on their way to it, which gave them the option of turning away if they were truly worried about the effect of a controversial immage.

Similarly, people worried about freedom of expression and repressing items of encyclopaedic notability would know that anyone researching that controversy could link to it from the TOC at the top of the page, minimally slowing them down and in cases where the material was not at the top of the page, speeding them up.

I am not in favour of splashing "spoiler alert" in a distracting way over all possibly objectionable material like IMDB tends to, which degrades readability, or making unavailable material that fits our rules and those of pertinent legal bodies. I do however think a thin layer of protection for those who are likely to find certain images, spoilers, etc. objectionable will not harm Wikipedia. I think that, like ratings advice, it will allow people living under strict censorship (from family, school, church, organization, work, or government) to have access to the knowledge of Wikipedia, spreading the population with access rather than having it simply blocked to the unfortunate. :)--Thecurran (talk) 04:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. This talk page is just for discussing the disclaimer itself - if you would like to discuss the actual policies and guidelines regarding censorship, I recommend you do so at the talk page of WP:UNCENSORED or at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). For examples of similar proposals which have been rejected by the community, see WP:PEREN#Content. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


It would be useful to note that there is pornographic content. It might also be a good idea to make it more clear that some of the content is illegal for minors to view. Don't you think? Parthian Scribe 08:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the country. AFAIK Wikipedia is classiffied as an educational resource and is not subject to the same restrictions as pornography websites, which have a distinction on them.--Ipatrol (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


WP:CODIWikipedia:Content disclaimer. Add to page? -Stevertigo 02:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} There seems to be no objection to the WP:CODI shortcut. Therefore it is requested that an admin add the shortcut banner (similar to what is shown in this section) to the page. Dl2000 (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done I don't see any harm in adding it. Also, I included DISC and DISCL. Icestorm815Talk 05:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki Request

Please add [[hi:विकिपीडिया:सामग्री अस्वीकरण]] to interwiki list. Thanks :) --Priyanka (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 Done --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The airbase on Guian,Eastern Samar was built by the 83rd NCB not the 93rd. I was a naval corpsman attached to the unit at that time. From there we went to China.( (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC))

And what is this comment in reference to? This is a page for discussing changes to Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, perhaps you put your comment on the wrong talk page? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 DoneTheDJ (talkcontribs) 12:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


{{editprotected}} While disclaimers, none of these disclaimers are written as legal disclaimers, so could a phrase be added to the disclaimers, primarily the content one, stating:

"By viewing Wikipedia, you assume all local legal responsibilities associated with said viewing. Furthermore, you acknowledge that neither Wikipedia, the MikiMedia Foundation, nor any individual user of Wikipedia is responsible for the content of Wikipedia, and you further agree to not find fault with Wikipedia, the WikiMedia Foundation, or any individual user of Wikipedia for content that is incorrect or offensive in nature."

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm sure the Wikimedia Foundation has one to check that legal disclaimer for correctness. That said, I'm pretty sure that that covers all our butts in case something comes down the pipe.

-- Nutarama (talk) 06:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's a big new banner for the editprotected flag. I wasn't expecting something that big. -- Nutarama (talk) 06:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you please discuss this (here or somewhere more visible) to see whether this additional disclaimer to appropriate and required? I'm not a lawyer either ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request: mention sexuality explicitly

To address one of the valid points made in WP:Hardcore images, I propose that:

  • "For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or depictions of human anatomy."

Be amended to say:

  • "Some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, human anatomy, or sexual acts."

Gigs (talk) 04:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

  • I think "for example" should remain as the sentence is an example and not an exhaustive list. I support rephrasing and expanding the rest as you have proposed. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Sounds good to me. Gigs (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} It's been on policy RfC 6 days with no objections and one positive comment. I see no need to drag this out. Please amend the following statement to read as follows "For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, human anatomy, or sexual acts." Gigs (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Gigs (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


Why and is pornography allowed on wikipedia? this can be viewed by any child at any time. i see no mention of the word pornography in this disclaimer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Overseer19XX (talkcontribs) 22:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Covered under "some articles contain graphical depictions of [...] human anatomy, or sexual acts". Wikipedia contains articles about pornography, but does not aim to itself be pornographic. See also: WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:COMPREHENSIVE. --Cybercobra (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Psiubu, 24 April 2011

95% of this town follow Qadiria thareeqa.

Psiubu (talk) 03:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done The {{edit protected}} template should be used on the talk page of the fully-protected page in question (the town's page, I presume). There is no content on this page that matches your request above. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Egg Centric, 23 July 2011

Current Bullet Point

  • Since Wikipedia is open to contributions from the public, there may at any time be graffiti present on Wikipedia.

Suggested Bullet Point

  • Since Wikipedia is open to contributions from the public, there may at any time be graffitipresent on Wikipedia. This most commonly takes the form of abusive or silly text but may also be audio visual in nature, including offensive images.

Egg Centric 12:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done, because no reasoning provided, nor does it seem this was discussed anywhere. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 16:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I think the "reasoning" is obvious. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

liaqhath ali

this is mohammed liaqhath ali from warangal of Andhra Pradesh, INDIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

"there may at any time be graffiti present on Wikipedia"

This sentence is a little choppy. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

please add the "red lock" at the top of the page -- Laber□T 14:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's necessary, or even possible. Templates that exhibit a WP:REDLOCK do so because of a feature built-in to the template's documentation: after carrying out a number of tests, it may or may not exhibit a {{pp-template}}. But that template doesn't expect to be used anywhere other than in Template: namespace or File: namespace, because its messages are designed for use in Template: namespace, and only adjust themselves if used in File: namespace. For example, the tooltip shows "This high-risk template is indefinitely protected from editing to prevent vandalism" even if used in Wikipedia: namespace. How often is there an attempt to change this page which isn't covered by the box at the top of the talk page? --Redrose64 (talk)
Not done None of the linked disclaimers have the icon so I'm not sure why we should add it to this one. Rjd0060 (talk) 07:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

At bottom of page?

Really guys? It's like yelling "duck" to your friend after they've been decapitated. Why is the only link to this at the bottom of the articles it's meant to warn users about? (talk) 05:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Graffiti revisited

I see this page as a legal document; in any case a very serious text. As such, it is not supposed to contain vague or sloppy language. Now, what the heck is "grafitti" in this context? I suggest at least to add a wikilink:

"Since Wikipedia is open to contributions from the public, [[WP:VAND|there may at any time be graffiti present]] on Wikipedia."

Please notice that wikilinking only "grafitti" may be confusing: most people know the word and will not be motivated to click for explanation.

Of course, I would prefer to see the term "vandalized" in this text explicitely, but I know that in order not to feed trolls, some of it is called politely "tests" or "jokes"... Staszek Lem (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request to bypass redirect

Please change "Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages" → "Wikipedia:Merging". Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages simply redirects to Wikipedia:Merging, a page that does not discuss moving pages. Moving (renaming) pages does not address duplication issues. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Note that there's no reason per policy to fix links just to avoid redirects, but I thought your point about moves not addressing duplication was a fair one, so I have fulfilled the request. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Server Location

Please change Laws in the United states and the state of Florida To Laws in the United states and the state of Virginia. The servers have moved.Tazerdadog (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Not done for now: Such things have legal implications. I would prefer that a Foundation member request this; or preferably, make the edit themselves. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Should this be brought to their attention?Tazerdadog (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Done, and done. Waiting for Maggie. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
OK, Maggie has replied, so Done, see here. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! Tazerdadog (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 March 2013


Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8/10/13 for grammar fix

In any case, Wikipedia is a work in progress, and many articles contain errors, bias, duplication, or simply need tender loving care.
In any case, Wikipedia is a work in progress, and many articles contain errors, bias, or duplication, or may simply need tender loving care.
This fixes the nonsensical listing of "simply need TLC" as something "many articles contain". Thanks! Ignatzmicetalk 18:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

DoneMr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

External links

At Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 109#Porn Websites On Wikipedia there was some discussion about whether links to pornographic websites are acceptable on Wikipedia (the consensus was that in some circumstances they are). I noted however that there was no mention of external links in any of our disclaimers, which strikes me as odd as its a disclaimer that almost every commercial website has, and so I wonder whether we ought to add something? I thinking something to the effect that we have no control over the content of external sites, and that although they should be relevant to the article that links to them we cannot guarantee this due to e.g. vandalism and that the content may have changed since it was added to the article. Thryduulf (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)