Talk:Romanian profanity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.	language Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Romania, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Romania-related topics. Please visit the the Wikipedia:WikiProject Romania if you would like to get involved. Happy editing!
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for Romanian profanity:
No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 September 2007. The result of the discussion was No Consensus.

Strong keep - as a native romanian speaker I can confirm the accuracy of the info. Profanities of the sort are spicing to a hight extent everyday Romanian. Might not be that all are recorded by specialty or more general dictionaries. This is not due to the fact that such expressions are seldomly used, but due to the fact that most nowadays Romanian dictionaries are rather conservative. Maybe many would not like to agree upon this, but this inventory is rather representative for how everyday Romanian talk might look like.

I agree! I also am a native Romanian speaker and consider this article to be very important because of the way this list (which by the way is in fact much longer) has been censored in my country or simply ignored when putting together a dictionary! Someone from outside my country would find it very useful as these words and phrases are extremely common! This is my opinion: If Wikipedia wants to describe the whole world it is not doing a good job if it deletes this article and articles similar to this one! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.36.77.25 (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The page has been copied to Wiktionary (puteţi vedea aicea) so at least they'll be there. I still think this article should remain to talk about the usage of profanity in Romania, when it might be ok, when it's definitely not and that kind of thing, but at least it will exist in one place. — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 16:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any deletion. Swearing and cursing is a part of every day life both in Romania and everywhere else. I encourage any constructive criticism and any modifications but I must say that the modifications made so far have in my opinion made this article worse. If there are articles on spanish, portughese and italian profanities why can't there be one for romanian profanities as well? This looks a lot like censorship to me. I would be very disappointed should this article be removed and I would start to question the nature of wikipedia as a whole. — [ para15000 ] — 15:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If the article does stay it definitely needs a lock against unregistered editors, who seem to be the main source of all the crazy nonsense — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 14:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This article has become very popular lately with Romanians, and everyone seems to add their favorite profanity. At least lock it for a limited period. 86.120.236.174 16:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed lock the article but keep it. Definetly keep it. — [ para15000 ] — 15:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Okey dokey... made some small "touch and go" clean-ups. Added a comment related to the unlisted curses in the profane section. Question. How about adding some insults too such as "sclav" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.122.244.15 (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thorough cleanup needed

This was supposed to be an encyclopedic article on the Romanian profanity --- and it's definitely not. While the topic announced in the title is indeed notable, I can't find any encyclopedic information in the article. Instead, it's made up of a list of swear words and curses. It should contain verifiable details about the use of profanity in Romanian and its place in everyday communication, in literature, in films, in the media, etc. The spread of profanity in various social layers should be pointed out, as well as the various attitudes towards profanity. Just listing curses doesn't help the reader understand the place of profanity in the Romanian culture.

To do that that there is a strong need for reliable sources. The only reference cited in the article doesn't seem to have been used at all. I would write the article myself (I've written several full articles related to the Romanian language) but I don't have access to sources on profanity. As such I just placed a couple of templates to let the readers and the editors know this article needs a good cleanup. — AdiJapan ☎ 16:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I do agree that it needs to be cleaned up (AND PROTECTED, PERHAPS), I have to disagree on the point of all of it being just a list of words. At least in the first part, the descriptions of use are much more detailed than they are on wiktionary. Some have etymologies listed, and all this is formatted into paragraphs.

After a while, I got sick of reverting bullcrap from anons, and basically abandoned the article, though. So I never got around to making the rest of it look nice. :) — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 15:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the article really is just a list of swear words, except that each word is given some explanation, a translation, and in a few cases a tinge of a context. It's almost like a guidebook on how to swear nicely. But that is not the purpose of an encyclopedia article.

I totally agree the article should be semi-protected. — AdiJapan ☎ 19:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it's any less valid than other articles on various subjects in Romanian. We have an article for Romanian verbs, one for nouns, so why not naughty words? There are profanity articles for Latin, French, Spanish, Mandarin, and several other languages. In varying levels, they're more or less the same as this one. — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 15:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You entirely missed my point. I said we should have an article on the Romanian profanity, because the topic is indeed notable. The problem is just that the current version is far from what it should be.

I believe you didn't take a good look at the articles you mentioned. Romanian verbs and Romanian nouns (both of which I've written) do contain linguistic information; if the verb paradigm is given based on a specific example and if noun declension is shown for specific cases, it's only to make the explanations clearer, not to replace the explanation. Latin profanity is a lot better than this article, since it gives information on etymology, cognates in other languages, usage in literature (Horace, Catullus, Martial), and occurences in archaeological findings. Similarly, Quebec French profanity and Spanish profanity are much better, and yet they have templates showing they still need some work. Mandarin slang is just as bad as this, which doesn't mean we shouldn't require both to be cleaned up. — AdiJapan ☎ 18:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary. Când am început să învăţ română, articolele acestea au fost foarte utile. :)

But I do know the article needs more. I just don't feel like spending so much time on it for anonymous users to come fuck it up again. I don't have that kind of patience. lol — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 19:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the relevant use and history of profanity, one could consider adding info on the Romanian avant-garde, including the likes of Geo Bogza and Mateiu Caragiale, both of whom shocked their audience by using very frank and disturbing language (Bogza went to jail for it). One could also consider the rehabilitation of slang in recent literature, and the controversies it sparked. This is just one of the paths editors could explore to bring this article back into a relevant and coherent area. It's also what I could see myself contributing, but what about the rest of the article? How about finding sources on etymologies, earliest recorded use, symbolism, etc.? Dahn (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)