Talk:Fuck/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Screw you, Wikis.

I spent a long time expanding the Hebrew part. Then it tells me it's impossible, since I'm no admin. Well, you got screwed. I'm not doing this again.

Well shit! Had we realised that you were the only person who could work in the "Hebrew part", you'd have had admin status right away! PrometheusX303 13:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey - cut that out! :( --ElKevbo 14:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Would someone with editing capabilities please note that the word fuck has always had a vulgar conentation. Here is an excerpt from http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/fuck.htm.

'Fuck' is an old word, even if it's been an almost taboo term for most of its existence. It was around; it just wasn't used in common speech all that much, let alone written down and saved for posterity. Likely its meaning contributed to its precise origin becoming lost in the mists of time — scholars of old would have been in no hurry to catalogue the growth of this word, and by the time it forced its way into even the most respectable of dictionaries, its parentage was long forgotten.

Bhog

"Bhog" in Marathi, a Sanskritic language, is to "enjoy" or "suffer" as the case may be. Thus a person in sexual union with a woman is said to be "bhog"ing her. Regardless, the word appears to be onomotopoeatic -- a word that mimics the sound made during the act.

Both mistake

"The word "Fuck" is the only word in the English language that can be used to describe both pain, pleasure and discontentment."

Three things are listed to what "fuck" can describe. "Both" only considers two together. (anon)

I think that is just a silly sentence in general and should be re-written entirely.PierceG 18:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC):
Or just deleted. How is that different from any other expletive? Jsnell 18:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the (admittedly much milder) "crap" could be used in a positive way. ;) I think what the sentence is trying to say, is that the action it describes can cover all three feelings ("he fucked me" might mean anything from "he screwed me over", to "he gave me [possisbly good] sex", for instance). This may or may not have something to do with the action it's typically said to describe, i.e sex, which can cause any one of those three things, whereas a lot of other expletives aren't sexually-related ones ("shit" for instance, refers to defecation). Runa27 21:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Shit is a poor example, since "That's the shit!" is used to denote something as being exemplary.

Wikipedia is not censored

so why does the phrase "in code because of its unacceptability," appear under etymology? Say the fucking words, goddamnit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.179.232.3 (talk • contribs) 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow , pay attention to what you read. The word fuck first appeared in code because of its unacceptibility in a poem. BauerPower 20:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Or, to put it a tiny bit more clearly - that sentence was referring to the word being "in code" in the poem, due to its unacceptability. Runa27 21:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A lecture in the word "fuck"

The word "fuck" has approximately one hundred different meanings and functions in the English/US-English language. But if you are within this article of the English page and then click on the link "German", all that you will find is the connotation "ficken" (to fuck, sexual intercourse). But why is this so ? The German and the English language have the same origine, and still the word "Fuck" seems to have a hundred times more meanings than the German translation "ficken" or "Fick". This is a very strange, and the most strange observation that any linguist can make on a single word: having two meanings in one language, but having about one hundred meanings in the most related "sister" language ? Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (15012006)

Once you get beyond the definition and origin of the word, this whole article is nothing more than potty humor, profanity, and just plain "trash talk." More like a challenge as to how many times you can use the word fuck on a page and have it make some semblance of sense. 71.244.163.156 16:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. Description of how the word is used in the American/British/etc. culture (popular or otherwise) and how it is reacted to is necessary for a good article. There's a whole phenomenon surrounding the word, and that has to be described. I'm not saying that you should have an article for each and every swear word, but "fuck" is certainly special in many ways (read the fine article for details :-).
Personally, as a non-native English speaker who has never set his foot on US soil (or indeed any English-speaking region), I found the article informative. Mind you, I have no trouble with the actual usage of the various forms of the word, but I didn't know of e.g. the legal aspects of it. Frankly, the whole idea of prosecuting someone for swearing sounds silly, and that it has been (unsuccessfully) tried so many times for this one particular word is surprising. Also, I recently found out about the "frak"-style systematic euphemism by watching Battlestar Galactica, but had I not done that, it would also have been new information. Not everyone who speaks English knows a lot about American culture, and the "fuck" phenomenon is much more important than e.g. Allyourbase. 82.103.215.147

linguistics

Isn't much of this part taken from the "History of The F' Word" flash movie on multiple sites such as funnyjunk.com ? Does that matter?

To be fair, it is included as an external link (which double as a references section, though it really shoul dbe named as such) The JPS 23:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

FYI...fuck is not a swear word, it is profanity.

Au contraire. It is both. Quote: A profanity (or "swear word", or "curse word", or "foul language") is a word, expression, or other usage which is generally considered insulting, rude or vulgar. Runa27 21:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Problem with trying to find swear words in other languages

Hi! I noticed that there are many so-called F*ck words in other languages. I noticed the Japanese word because I am Japanese. There is no such word in Japan and Fuzakeru meand to Joke around. It is not a swear. Also, it is not a vulgar word. I find this disturbing because this is giving false information to people. I find this highly offensive. I really want this section to be deleted. What is the point of knowing the terrible language in other country's language. Fuzakeru, Yaru is not a swear word. Yaru is indeed means to do and in situation, it can mean to have sex. But it is not a swear like English. Swearing is more of Christian tradition. Japan is not a Christian country. Yaru cannot be a swear because does not equal the word f*ck. F*ck off does not equal, Yaroze! Please don't degrade Wikipedia with this information. Thanks.

Are you saying that japanese do not swear? That is pretty ridiculous.
They do, but not necessarily using words that mean "sex". DenisMoskowitz 23:02, 2005 August 27 (UTC)
The anon is trying to explain that Japanese is a lot more sensitive to expressing deference to hierarchical relationships between members of society. In Japanese, verbs and adjectives have special conjugations that express the hierarchical relationship between the speaker and the listener. And it goes far beyond that. Entirely different verbs are used to express what someone of a higher social status is doing, compared to what the speaker (who is always expected to be humble) is doing. There are also various honorific prefixes used for nouns to show respect to the listener and there even ways of expressing a sentence where you simultanuously express your own humility, your deference to the listener and respect to the third party you're talking about, mostly with just verb conjugations and a few prefixes. There's even a special conjugation to express disrespect to the listener. The end result is that you don't need to call someone a "goat-shagging son of a one-eyed tax lawyer" to get them seriously pissed off, but it's just enough to drop all honorifics and address, for example, your boss like you would address a drinking buddy to get you in serious trouble.
As for the article, if you want to list translations, do it at the Wiktionary article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and we're not in the business of providing translations of either words or concepts that isn't immidiately relevant to the article. And as you can see above, cursing and explicit very seldom translate properly to other languages, not even ones that are very closely related. "Fuck" is no exception. If you're hellbent on keeping an article about a word that isn't actually an encyclopedic concept, then at least stick to English.
Peter Isotalo 17:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

This page is a *bit* too long

And contains about 75% 97% deadwood (including the reference to Deadwood). I'm going to start cutting it back, and perhaps if anyone else who has this on their watchlist could do the same?
brenneman(t)(c) 13:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok... the more I look at this article the worse it is. Was this ever good, is there a previous version that can be used as a template or something? I'd like to just take to it with a torch and saw, but I'd like to hear input. Oh, and um, fuck yeah... or something.
brenneman(t)(c) 14:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Aaron, it's not just you. Most of it is anecdotal trivia or simply irrelevant to an encyclopedic article. If it were up to me, I would have this deleted and replaced with just a link to Wiktionary. I don't give a rat's ass about the explicit nature of the word, it's the fact that it's a dictionary definition just like "damn", "jump" or "grasp" that bothers me. I know it's never going to be deleted, though, because people seem to think that any dicdef that is somehow more (in)famous than other dicdefs should have an encyclopedic article about it's usage. That this results in nothing but bloated etymologies and a lot of "in Punjabi fisher tradition is most complex and interesting"-factoids seems to go by unnoticed. If this thing is going to be kept the following things need to go simply because they're completely obvious policy violations:
  • Every single translation - if you want to list translations, do it at Wiktionary
  • All of the trivia - listing 50 different spelling variants isn't encyclopedic, not even remotely
And right now the article isn't just a dicdef because of the word (not concept) it describes, but because it's actually organized like a dicdef with sections called "verb", "interjection", "past participle", etc. I'd say that your 97% estimate is pretty much right on the money, Aaron. Please clean it up and try to discourage people from adding the most obvious trivia.
Peter Isotalo 16:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, plus how on earth is a picture of someone sticking their middle finger up at all relevant? "The phrases "Fuck off!" or "Fuck you!" can also be gestured, by giving someone the finger." - this is totally stupid and I would consider untrue, I don't know of any other article that has a picture of something that is only vaguely related. I dare say it was only added because the uploader thought it would be funny, plus it is a fucking crap picture. Martin 16:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
The translations are raising controversy. Since it's a big section, how do people feel about putting them into a seperate article? It'll make the main article more manageable (and easier to spot vandalism)The JPS 23:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
The translations are not encyclopedic. Moving them to a separate article doesn't change the fact that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. And I've already explained that curse words simply aren't directly translatable because they're culturally specific. If you want to pursue this further, take it to the English Wiktionary and see what they think. We are not in the business of keeping unsubstantial material just because people add it here without knowing or reading WP:NOT.
Peter Isotalo 06:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Moving the translations to another article is fine with me - then we can VfD the "List of Translations of Fuck" article and remove the link once it succeeds. DenisMoskowitz 15:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Official votes should be kept out of any reasonable decision. We don't need AfD-permisison to delete obviously unencyclopedic trivia of questionable factual accuracy. And considering that AfD is more concerned with keeping content, no matter the accuracy or relevance, it would probably be voted to be kept "to prevent deletionism" or because "it's useful" or some other completely irrelevant reasoning.
Peter Isotalo 19:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I sympathize entirely, but I see two options - option one, we take turns deleting the section as people who quietly disagree with us take turns adding it back. Option two, we take smaller, less controversial steps toward getting rid of the section and get rid of it slowly. DenisMoskowitz 01:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
We needn't bow to the will of the odd IP that comes along from time to time and adds useless stuff that they won't defend on the talk page. Just delete the section and if people bring arguments for keeping it we'll discuss it and otherwise we'll keep it gone. --fvw* 01:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

(Moving back left) Was really bold. I now hand the axe to whomever wants to continue the purge.
brenneman(t)(c) 02:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I have removed the following:

The following anecdote appears in one of Niall Ferguson's absorbing studies of the British Empire. On the eve of independence for the colony of South Yemen, the last British governor hosted a dinner party attended by Denis Healey, then the minister for defense. Over the final sundown cocktail, as the flag was about to be lowered over the capital of Aden, the governor turned to Healey and said, "You know, Minister, I believe that in the long view of history, the British Empire will be remembered only for two things." What, Healey was interested to know, were these imperishable aspects? "The game of soccer. And the expression 'fuck off.'"

It appears in Hitchens C. A Very, Very Dirty Word: The British Empire's second-greatest gift to the world. Slate, July 6 2004. Ref.—encephalon 03:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Notable fuck bands

I am going to delete this entire section unless there is much opposition, it is totally usless, thousands of notable bands use the word "fuck", are we really going to add them all to this list? Martin 09:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I know I'm late with this comment, but I just noticed this section today. I think it might be worthwhile to make note of bands with the word "fuck" in their name, since such a thing is much more rare, and also because when a band uses the word in their name, it's virtually a conscious decision to never be played on Top 40 radio. Clusterfuck is the only band name I can think of off the top of my head, but I know there's at least a few others. - Ugliness Man 17:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
More notable is the San Francisco band Fuck, who made a minor splash on the indie circuit in the late nineties. Not notable enough to be included here, though. You could make a case for a disambiguation for them -- they'd be in the top half of the hundred million shitty, er, fucking indie bands that are included here for no reason. Fnarf999 07:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
There is also the Wisconsin punk band, The Crucificks. Fork me 22:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
And what do they have to do with the topic at hand? - Ugliness Man 14:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I just chopped out this entry:

It is believed that the first rock song to have the word fuck is The Doors' song "The End" on ::their self-titled 1967 album "The Doors". The line containing the word is "Mother, I want to fuck you". Jim ::Morrison screams out the last two words so that they can't be heard clearly. Another early example of the use of fuck is John ::Lennon's 1970 song "Working Class Hero" in the lines:
They hurt you at home and they hit you at school
They hate you if you're clever and they despise a fool
'Til you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules
The Beatles also seem to have used the word in the song Revolution 9 in the line "join the fucking navy."

Jim Morrison does not say the word 'fuck' on the first Doors album, though he implies it. The claim that this was the first use in a rock song has no source. There's nothing significant in John Lennon and the Beatles' use of the word, since it had been used plenty of times before.Thinginblack 19:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Second Fake Etymologies Paragraph

I think the author of the second paragraph of the fake etymologies section might be confusing a made-up backstory to the word f*ck with what I think is the true origin of the British two-fingered sign for f*ck off. That story goes that a common tactic towards prisoners in the hundred years' war was to cut off their index and middle fingers so they could no longer fire bows, and the English bowmen used to wave their fingers at the French to show that they did have these finger, and so would be shooting arrows at them. Unless someone can correct me, I will delete this paragraph. Rich 00:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

(Ref: http://www.snopes.com/language/apocryph/pluckyew.htm)

I would have to agree with what appears to be the prevalent opinion here - this article is unencyclopedic. If I wanted to be amused, I would use uncyclopedia. I use wikipedia for research and information.


Middle finger photo

Where did it go? Zach (Sound Off) 03:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I removed it as unencyclopedic quite a while ago, as part of a general "trim the fat" from what continues to be a really terrible article. It wasn't even a good photo of a middle finger. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Caribbean "gibberish"

The article leaves out a very popular variation on the word "fuck" used extensively in the English speaking Caribbean, most notably Jamaica. This is the use of the noun "fuckery" which translates best to the English word "gibberish", or the term "unacceptable behaviour". In a sentence such as "He is talking pure fuckery!!", this can be translated to "He is talking pure gibberish!!"; while "At the party they kept up a lot of fuckery" could be translated as "At the party they displayed unacceptable behaviour".

Logan3d 06:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good approximate translation would be "bullshit", or something? 惑乱 分からん 10:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Major Volatility

This page on Fuck seems to be experiencing some major volatility, with large swaths of information being deleted and then replaced. Do we have any final vision as to how this should go? Maybe most of the extraneous information could be moved over to history of fuck? --Cyde 07:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Creation of "History of Fuck"

The new page History of fuck has been created, but already somebody wants to merge right back in from whence it came. Here are my reasons why this is a bad idea: This article SHOULD NOT be merged into the article on fuck. The article on fuck needs to be concise and talk only about the etymology of the word. The section history of fuck is for all of those other interesting random tidbits on the word that were taken off the fuck page because they made it lose conciseness. --Cyde 08:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

It's generally considered bad form to spin off a new article to hold things that were removed from another article. It's not simply that the main article was bloated, but that the material in question is, well, bad. Not to mention that the title doesn't appear to conform to MoS. - brenneman(t)(c) 09:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I am going to revert back to this revision soon, since then the article seems to have declined, and then we should afd the History of fuck article. Martin 23:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Fuck it, I'm not even going to afd the history article, no one has the right to just split an article without asking, I'll delete it tomorrow unless anyone other than Cyde has any objections. Martin 00:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I didn't just split the article without reason, people were already fighting over what content belonged in the main article and I resolved the dispute by separating out the history from the basic "need to know" info.
I am neutral about whether it should be split, but the article title 'History of fuck' is atrocious! This is the sort of thing that is giving WP a bad name amongst academics, etc. It should surely be 'The history of the word "fuck"', if anything, or perhaps, 'Etymology of the word "fuck"' (if that's what it's about, I haven't looked). 'History of fuck' sounds like a band name, or the title of some sort of alternative website or blog. C'mon, if this topic deserves the inordinate amount of time and energy spending on it that it has (which I doubt) then at least try and give it some sort of sheen of respectability. Graham 01:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, choose a better article title name and move "history of fuck" to it. I like the etymology one. It doesn't seem an appropriate response to just delete the whole thing though - there's some good information in there. --Cyde 17:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

journalistic prudence

I have deleted the following part, because it is simply wrong. Here is the original Washington Post article [1]

The Washington Times, in a show of journalistic prudence, reported that the Vice President "urged Mr. Leahy to perform an anatomical sexual impossibility."

--84.155.66.215 22:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Fuck O'Clock?

The article mentions many other uses of the the word( such as Go Fuck Yourself ), so why not Fuck O'Clock? For Fuck's Sake? Fuck Knows? Motherfucker? Fuckity?

German etymology

I have deleted an edit that expanded on the etymology. If these assertions are correct, please provide references. Thanks. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 20:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

As far as it is accepted, synonymous German ficken may or may not be related. It would point to a common Germanic origin.
It is extremely accepted. German uses 'Fick' mir!, Wir gefickt sind!, Ich will dich ficken, Liebling, etc., in exactly the same way as does English, attesting an analogous usage so compelling that only convergent evolution could otherwise explain it.
Nuttyskin 01:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

say what it means!

While everyone probably knows what fuck means I think that articles about specific words should start by a dictionary definition, rather than postponing discussion of its meaning to the "early usage" section. Why not add some line at the top, to specify that this is slightly vulgar when used as a verb, that it is also used as an expletive, etc, etc.

Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--Max ( ☏ | ✒ )

Why the fuck are you linking to a policy page that you didn't even read? Dudewhiterussian 05:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Etymological influence upon usage

The 19 April 2004 "Language Log" blog entry, written by linguist Mark Liebermann, discusses why some verbs "take completive up" (e.g., "polish up", "finish up") while others do not (we don't usually find "complete up").

What's going on here? Is it just a random fact about verbs that some of them can take completive up and some of them can't?
No, there are clearly some things that separate the two lists. Etymological source is somewhat predictive (verbs of germanic origin tend to work, verbs of romance or latinate origin tend not to), and so is sound structure (short verbs tend to work, long verbs tend not to). In some cases where these (correlated) properties aren't predictive, another relevant question seems to be whether the verb in question was in general use in 14th century English.

Here is information about Polish swear words (including "fuck") - Swear words in Polish language.

Hmmm. Fuck goes back to Middle English, we can be fairly sure, and the first printed citation (as this article says) was sometime before 1500. Moreover, two commonly preferred etymologies link the word to German ficken and Common Germanic fuk–, yes? All of which would explain why we can say "fuck up", of which "screw up" is a bowlderization, I bet. Anville 11:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

All over

This article is all over the place...very frustrating. Oh well, fuck it.

Fake etymologies is WP:POV and should be renamed

I think that a more correct way to describe it is "Less commonly accepted etymologies" since there is no absolute proof that these etymologies are fake. Nor indeed is there absolute proof that any of the suggested etymologies is true. Whilst common belief currently is that it is based on the German word "Fricken" meaning "To strike", but this was not actually used in German until after "Fuck" was used in English. Therefore, actually all of the "Etymologies" listed on this page as being the "true" reason can be described as bacronyms.

I have never heard or used the word "Fricken" before, neither do the German Wikipedia or Duden list this word. Where do you have this from? Cattleyard 19:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, let's get this straight - like it or not, "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge" really WAS a way to describe rape right up until about 40 years ago. That is not a myth or a bacronym at all. It was also used as a way to justify statutory rape when in fact consent was given but the person was underage. Now, whether or not that is the real derivation of FUCK is disputable. But it really was a legal term.

No, it wasn't. Fuck means carnal knowledge alright, but whether lawful or unlawful cannot be inferred from fuck itself; besides which, legal terms are notoriously useless at actually describing what they mean, hence the range of frankly idiotic interpretations given sodomy in American jurisprudence (from fellatio to masturbation, from bestiality to kissing somewhere other than the head).
Nuttyskin 01:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The article describes things as "fake" when there is no proof that they are fake, and describes things as "true" when there is no proof that they are true. This is very POV. What we should be doing is going over more common and less common theories as to what it is based on. This is the WP:NPOV to go about it. Indeed, the "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge" theory as far as I know is the MOST widely believed theory. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the methods used by historical linguists and etymologists are rooted in more than two centuries of scientific methodology. While it is true that certain etymologies are subject to debate, the etymology of the word "fuck" is not disputed by anyone who is trained and knowledgeable in the subject. Nohat 07:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Any assertion that "for unlawful carnal knowledge" was ever a real legal term is going to need some documentary proof. I for one simply don't believe it was ever so used. It has no meaning beyond the false etymology one.Fnarf999 04:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Dravidian languages

This looks like original research to me. I removed it from the article.

<<

Connection with Dravidian languages?

The Sanskrit language is derived from Indo-European. This raises another interesting debate about where the root pug could have originated. In the course of time Sanskrit and the Dravidian language Tamil have taken many words from each other. In Tamil pugu means "go inside", and pugudhal is a verb which literally means "to get inside". Medieval Dravidian kings as early as 800 AD had trade relations with the Greeks, which could substantiate the cross-continental version. The trade relations are evident from the epigraphs and coinages of ancient Tamils as affirmed by Archeological Survey of India at http://asi.nic.in/ . Also an extensive Research theory for Greek roots in Tamil is found http://www.datanumeric.com/dravidian/index.html . However, this linguistic derivation would need one of these things:-

The root pug travelled from Sanskrit to Tamil, not the other way.
The root pug travelled very early from ancestral Dravidian to common Indo-European.
The root pug travelled very early from common Indo-European to ancestral Dravidian.
The root pug came from a common ancestor of common Indo-European and ancestral Dravidian: see Nostratic.
The new controversial theory that the Indo-European languages originated in India.
Coincidence.

>>

Yahussain 04:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


Yahussain, why the ---- would it be reasonable to assume that a basic word like fuck reached English through a Dravidian language? How many Dravidian derived words are there in English at all(?)--I suspect very few and those that there are, of quite recent origin steming from the British imperial period in India.

Monty Python

I removed a couple of Monty Python attributions that i believe were wrong.

glauber 00:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

fuck

fuck means cojeme, in spanish

   - Good for you.
Cojer in Castilian Spanish means to catch, but in South American Spanish means to fuck. Thus a perfectly innocent phrase in Castilian, Quiero cojer el bus (I want to catch the bus) is frequently met with the ironic rejoinder, Por el caño? (Up the exhaust?)
Nuttyskin 01:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

vfd

Done in haste out of shock. reverted to pre vandalized state.

Mikereichold 21:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Edward VII quote

I removed this statement: In 1900, Albert Edward, Prince of Wales said, "Fuck it, I've taken a bullet" when he was shot while standing on a Brussels railway platform. I'm fairly sure it's bogus and was unable to verify on Google. OhNoitsJamieTalk 17:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

A question of appropriateness

I don't have anything against the word "fuck," in fact it's often quite useful (and perhaps even appropriate). However, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Any particular reason we need an entire article on it? I mean, it's used in some rather, ahem, interesting ways, but seriously. Wiktionary anyone? - JustinWick 04:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that the word has enough cultural significance that it merits an entry in Wikipedia as well as Wiktionary. OhNoitsJamieTalk 05:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
In that case, we should get some non-dictionary content in here... this looks like a bloated version of an OED entry (and not even as good) - JustinWick 08:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Cockney Rhyming Slang

Should the cockney Rhyming Slang 'Donald Duck' be added? Gretnagod 03:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, no, it is non-notable and unencyclopedic trivia. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
But cockney rhyming slang is used throughout the Anglo-Saxon world, particularly Australia. And, considering you admit is is solely your opinion, don't you admit you were a bit hasty in reverting the edit? Gretnagod 03:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
In fact, if you really want an adminship, surely you should try to culture other members as your current addiction to reverting as many edits, as quicky as possible, doesn't seem to be doing you any favours. Gretnagod 03:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I see the trolls are in a bit early tonight.  :) Image:Monkeyman.pngMonkeyman 03:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
What I am really getting at is that I think a decent Cockney Rhyming slang debate needs to be considered, that's all. Gretnagod 01:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
What encyclopedia have you ever read that has a whole section dedicated to the word Fuck or conotations or ryhmes thereof? It's pretty simple, it's a slang word used for one thing in the 21st century...slang. Slang != Encylcopedia. -Moocats 18:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
True, but then again how many encyclopedias have you read that have a section on things as obscure as quotes from cartoons that are only used once, ie Can't sleep, clown will eat me? Gretnagod 21:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
...it's probably worth noting that that article is up for deletion. We're dealing with the line of what's encyclopedic and what's not here. I tend to agree with Ch'marr (below) -- even if Cockney rhyming slang is sufficiently notable to have an article to itself (as I beleive that it is), that doesn't mean that every other article that could possibly contain a reference to Cockney rhyming slang has to do so. If that were Wikipedia-wide policy, articles would become clogged with barely-relevant information. Hbackman 01:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Can't sleep, clown will eat me -- Agreed. Hbackman 04:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
For one, I'm Australian, and I've never heard that particular rhyming slang. -- Ch'marr 23:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I would also point to Cockney rhyming slang - surely if it is accepted as an entry then any other article that relates to that entry should have something in it saying so? Gretnagod 21:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to be the case with the other entries. For example Britney Spears is mentioned in the Cockney rhyming slang article, but there's no mention of it on the Britney Spears page. Ie, notability is not necessarily communititve. -- Ch'marr 21:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)