|From: Axel Boldt axelboldt@yahoo.com |Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 11:05:33 -0700 (PDT) | |--- Neil Harris usenet@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote: | |> Link all the random obscenities to a single |> "obscenity" |> article, which gives the whole subject a thorough |> treatment... and that |> includes etymology, history and usage of the |> commonest / most vulgar as |> in the [[Fuck]] article. | |I don't think [[obscenity]] is the proper article |title though, since it has a specific definition in |law which does not include profanities. The general |overview should be at [[profanity]], which is where it |is already. Nevertheless, I think important words like |"fuck" and "nigger" deserve their own encyclopedic |treatment, especially since other encyclopedias shy |away from them. | |Note that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" does not |mean that we can't have encyclopedia articles about |certain words. | |Axel |
Axel is correct as to the need for articles on certain individual words.
We can also have a constellation of articles like [[taboo]], [[profanity]], and, now, [[obscenity]] to cover different angles on the same basic subject.
Tom Parmenter Ortolan88