Talk:Fuck/Archive 4

message: The Ulysses pun in Fuck#Usage_history should perhaps be explained explicitly. Took me a while to figure it out ("If you see Kay" is pronounced "F U C K"; "See you in tea" is pronounced "C U N T").
Can't make the edit myself as the article is locked.
--81.225.74.128 20:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Ulysses pun is fairly self explanatory, but maybe that's just me...—Gaff ταλκ 20:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't to me. --MarSch 10:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't get it at all until I read this. Definitely a good edit to make.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.109.141 (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ulysses 

message: Why was my link change refused? All I did was download the inferior wav file, convert it to MP3, upload it and then change th wiki link to a direct download of the MP3 file.
I posted in the mod who made this change "talk" section a few days ago but he hasn't responded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nakedgord (talk • contribs) 16:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't do that but there are several issues why this was probably done. Firstly, wav is preferred to patented and proprietry formats like MP3. Secondly, I'm not particularly sure why you call the wave file inferior. It is uncompressed albeit at a low frequency and bitrate. Your MP3 is lossly compressed but significantly larger then the wave file. I presume this is because you probably converted the file to a higher frequency and bitrate. However unless you did significant processing, this was pretty pointless and is just a waste of space. Indeed if you didn't do significant processing the MP3 is almost definitely lower quality then the source. Ultimately, given the small size of the wav, I see little reason to replace it with a recompressed lossly compressed format. And if this was done, it should be OGG not MP3. Also, the copyright situation of this file is somewhat unclear. It's probably okay for us to link to kavefish page but given that you've called this an 'open source' file despite the fact it's questionable whether audio files can be open source and there's no evidence this file has been released under any sort of 'free' license (if it were, we could upload it to the commons) and the fact that you don't appear to have asked the kavefish owner about the copyright status of the file suggests we should use a file with a less dubious copyright situation. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, you should never added links to your own page to an article. If you believe they add something, recommend them on the talk page. All in all, thanks for making the effort, but we'll stick with the original, sorry. BTW, you should sign your posts, and post to the bottom not the top. Nil Einne 20:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MP3 file 

message: It is names after Fornification Under Command of the King, which was an old doctrine where the king slept with any newlywed womenYoungKeta 00:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the term for this is droit du seigneur meaning "Right of First Night" - "Fornication Under Command of the King" is not something I've ever heard of, but "Fornication Under Common Knowledge" was a crime in Puritan times that could land you in the stocks!Jechot 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add this to the Etymology section: 

message: Is a German noun and should therefore be capitalized. 217.230.142.21 16:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks, now fixed (by User:Rettetast). --h2g2bob 17:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fock! 

message: ::While cleaning this article up, delete it.
Perhaps a compelling argument in favor of your proposal?  And please include in your argument an indubitable proposal in favor of your position as he/she who decides what is to be included in the knowledge base of Wikipedia.  In other words, constructive discussion.  I think that's what the Wikipedia staff had in mind. Eganio 01:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CLEAN UP

message: The fact that you can say that Fuck is culturally important is wrong.  What if a child was looking through here, and saw this, would that make you feel like he has learned something ge should know, i think this should be removed from wikipedia.  It is ridiculous.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       signed,
Dimosthenise
Um, pretty much every kid already knows about the word "fuck".69.141.79.71 22:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah most kids already know the word fuck reading this might acttually stop them using the word because they can see what it means and know that it is rude plus the kid would have to search for fuck first and so he would need to know the word anywaysCharlieh7337 (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: As a matter of long-standing policy on the English Wikipedia, Wikipedia is not censored, not even for profanity. As someone who delighted in looking up profanity and obscene terms in an electronic version of the American Heritage Dictionary as a teen in the 90s and read (and disliked) Catcher in the Rye in high school, I fail to see the issue. - RedWordSmith 05:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  this is ridiculous 

message: do 13 year olds count, by the way i only have an account because i was bored and i was done researching in school.
you wouldent belive kids these days —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rappidfire50 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you've finished with the fuck article, check out the spelling and grammar ones. ;-) Jonathan3 16:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  YOU ARE RIDICULOUS 

message: In Denmark the word has seen a massive exposure and is used virtually everywhere. The word is not perceived quite as vulgar or offending as in English speaking countries, but it is still considered an offensive word and is used in the same fashion.
The danes have taken the word and use it as a danish word combining it with other words (for example "Fuck dig" meaning "fuck you" and "fuck af" meaning "fuck off"). The Danish handballer Anja Andersen wore a sweatshirt to a high profile handball match, with the words "Fuck Janteloven" written across the chest ( http://www.paint-pics.webbyen.dk/billed.asp?PrivatBilled=2709966 ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jantelov
The impact off the word has actually meant that the Danish equvalent "kneppe" (that litterally means "to fuck") has been extended to having some of the same uses as fuck has (which it didnt have before). Hence it is now possible to say "knep af" (Fuck off), "moderknepper" (motherfucker), "knep dig selv" (fuck yourself) and so on.
The emphasising use of fuck however is not transfered to "kneppe" so in these cases Danes still use fuck (ex: fucking godt = fucking good).
The word is used in radio, tv and even advertising without causing much disturbance. The reason for this could very well be, that the word is not a native word. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ClintDawg (talk • contribs) 17:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danish 

message: "Fuck" is a word generated from the days after the Plague hit Britain. It is said that the then King ordered the poeple of the country to "Fornicate Under Command of the King" in order to raise the population after so many died. Over the years this has been abbreviated to "F.U.C.K" and used as a slang word that is considered very offensive.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.133.95.245 (talk) 15:00, March 21, 2007
:There's an entire section of the article dedicated to false etymologies.  --ElKevbo 21:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin

message: "The word is generally considered offensive." and i am the king of Mars...
fuck is something we do, and is not offensive... ppl that say that it is offensive are stupid in my world... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.233.245.51 (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  offensive... 

message: You may want to add this piece of information to the entry:
On April 4, 2007, New Zealand's Education Minister Steve Maharey was forced to withdraw and apologise for saying "fuck you" to opposition MP Jonathon Coleman during question time in Parliament. The utterance was made after Mr Maharey denied Mr Coleman's suggestion that the minister was a racist for saying that Cambridge exams were better suited for countries like Botswana. After making the denial, an angry Mr Maharey sat down then said under his breath "Fuck you", followed quickly by the words, "Sorry. I'm fed up with you Jonathon". The words could clearly be heard in the chamber and was broadcast on live TV and radio. It is believed to be the first time the word has been used publicly in the New Zealand House of Representatives.
Signed, Jamie Adams —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.154.139.167 (talk) 10:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think used publicly is the right wording since he clearly didn't intend for the public to hear it. We have no way of knowing if someone has said it before but it not been picked up. Probably better to say something like 'publicly broadcast' or 'heard in the chamber'. Nil Einne 20:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, Mr Coleman didn't specifically suggest Maharey was a racist AFAIK. Rather, a radio broadcaster had done so. Maharey had understadably taken offence at this and had threatened to complain to the board. Coleman asked Maharey if it was appropriate for a government minister to complain to a government appointed board. Maharey is believed to have taken offence with this because he felt there was a suggestion he didn't have a right to complain at being called a racist. Nil Einne 20:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swearing in politics 

message: The word Raketemensch is actually spelled Raketenmensch. The n was missing —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 77.177.22.146 (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  German Section 

message: 'FAQ' is actually more commonly spoken with every letter pronounced seperately. It's not pronounced English as written in the article but rather like this: ɛf ʌ ku - 11:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And what's your basis for that assertion?  It could be regional, I don't know, but as far as I can tell there's been no comprehensive study or poll on the subject.  I personally pronounce it as the letters, but I constantly hear people say GameFAQs.com soundling like "game fax".  I've heard both "ef ay cue" and "fak" in various circles, I don't think either is more prevalent than the other, although since I personally use "ef ay cue", that's more prevalent in my head... which might be where your assumption comes from as well. - Ugliness Man 05:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FAQ

message: Note number 1, referring to # ^ http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/f/fword.html - this page no longer exists.  -86.134.12.250 22:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. WayBack link available. --h2g2bob 08:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note out of date

message: The article is already bogged down with too much trivia, but I wanted to mention these in case someone can think of a good way to mention them in the article.  At least once on the original Star Trek series (or it may have been in one of the movies, I'm really not sure), Dr. McCoy said to Spock "are you out of your Vulcan mind?"  I'm pretty sure it was intended to sortakinda sound like a pun on "are you out of your fucking mind?"  Also, there was an episode of Duckman where the word "fogging" was used as a very obvious evasion of "fucking"... a beatnik-like doorman said that Bernice's negative attitude was "fogging" his psyche (or "fogging" something, anyway, I can't find the exact quote), and she went into a rant using the word "fogging" in phrases like "if you don't get us a fogging seat...", and the more she said it, the more it sounded like "fucking".  Sorry I'm not being very eloquent here, it would've been better if I could've found the exact quote, but my Google-fu has failed me once again. - Ugliness Man 03:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia had a great entry on fictional expletives, which is now sadly deleted. --h2g2bob 08:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop culture evasions. 

message: The Arabic reference should be removed. The spelling, pronunciation and meaning are not remotely related to the word "fuck". Anjouli 14:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Already removed --h2g2bob 08:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arabic 

message: Quick question: I remember once hearing or reading that the word in question may have been derived through onomatopoeia, from the sound made by coitus (like "piss", or "sizzle"). I have no reference to this, though. Anyone else run across this? (Oh, and sexual intercourse is itself a euphimism for coitus.) Esseh 23:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology - Onomatopoeia 

message: * I had researched this (don't ask how or why) before now, and I had gathered that it originated in the law courts of England. It was written as a way of dancing around the word "rape" on the court records, where it stood for "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge"... Would that be worth putting in? Bobitha 13:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about this video which people say stands for "Fornicate under command of the king" (an acronym) --74.119.146.37 23:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Every acronym origin is an urban legend or false etymology, as explained clearly in the false etymologies section.  I don't know how many times it needs to be said, but for crying out loud, people, please read the actual article before bringing up all this stuff that's already covered! - Ugliness Man 00:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A possible origin...? 

message: You missed something.. Fuck up is often used to tell somebody to be quiet. ie.. As an alternative to Shut Up.
Bob: Hey chris you really screwed up that car when you drove it into a tree
Chris: Ahhh fuck up, asshole
Mist admit, I never heard it quite like that. Shut the fuck up, yes. (And don't forget to sign your messages).  Esseh 15:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true: fuck up does indeed mean shut the fuck up. But no source, no place in article, amigo. RedRabbit1983 16:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Esseh is right: it is used that way. However we don't have a reliable source to support it, and, because there are so many idioms using "fuck", a minor idiom like "fuck up" doesn't rate a mention. RedRabbit1983 14:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fuck up

message: All of the phrases in this section are linked to at the bottom of wikt:fuck. This article is bloated as it is, and it doesn't need a bunch of one-sentence sections whose content is already contained in Wiktionary. Strad 23:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to be argumentative, but are they all there? Check again. I references all of the additions in this section, and admitted they should probably be in a dictionary, if not expanded - but no time was given to expand. And, if you want to delete them here to move to Wiktionary, move the extensions, combinations, and references, too. Please do not delete referenced additions. (There are lots of unreferenced ones.) Esseh 07:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, they are really all there. They are either in the entry itself or under the two expandable boxes at the bottom. They are clearly dictionary definitions, and they already exist in Wiktionary. References are irrelevant because Wiktionary does not use them. Strad 23:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about the Fuckwit? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Farm3r (talk • contribs) 06:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Extensions and combinations" 

message: * ... is the correct plural of "court-martial", both of which are hyphenated. Yeah, yeah, it's picky, but that's me :P 19:36, 21 May 2007 User:84.68.1.149
* Shouldn't that be "that's I", since predicate nominatives should have pronouns in nominative case? I'm picky too. RedRabbit1983 22:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Courts-Martial 

message: I don't think you have this listed, but where I live (Glasgow in Scotland) people very regularly tell one another to 'get to fuck'. It means 'get lost', really. Sometimes we elaborate on it and say things like 'get you to fuck', 'get right to fuck', etc. What sort of source would you be looking for to include this usage in the article? OED doesn't list it explicitly (though it might be included under the heading 'various other casual, intensive etc uses'. I don't know where else it's used in this way, though it might be very widespread.
-Emma
:Valid sources: books, articles, dictionary entries. I don't think uses should be included unless they're important — I know many Australian uses, for instance, that are not included and probably ought not to be. A separate article could be created to list all the venacular uses, and so to list those which don't merit entry into this article. RedRabbit1983 01:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, your analysis of the syntax is wrong. An imperative with an inserted subject looks wrong: "you fuck you," (unless taken as an order for one to "fuck" another). The person spoken to can be mentioned as a form of address: "Sally, go away!" However, "You fuck yourself," is an indicative, hence the reflexive pronoun. The two grammatical moods are not the same. RedRabbit1983 06:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thx :)-Hamster2.0 14:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Although "fuck you" should logically mean exactly the same thing as "fuck yourself", it seems to be generally used to mean "May you be fucked (unpleasantly)". See also "damn you". --DocumentN 16:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Missed Usage?

message: Fucktard - i.e. "You team killing fucktard." To in one word claim that not only is a person a developmentally disabled individual, but that they are the offspring of intercourse by the same.
:No. Fucktard = Fuck + Retard. The word is not a testament to ingenuity: just an attempt to marry two generic profanities. RedRabbit1983 05:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current English speaking internet culture usage 

message: I removed this mention, but another user reverted my edit without bothering to explain why.
I fail to see how a song released just two years ago is relevant to the story of the rise of "fuck" usage during the twentieth century, which is what that section is about. Such a snippet surely belongs in a "trivia" section, if anywhere. AdorableRuffian 15:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a song on an album in 1982 called If You See Kay.   20:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2005 Turbonegro song "If You See Kay" 

message: Ianmurphy420 14:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is semiprotected; any username more than a few days old can edit it. There is no need for administrator assistance to edit this page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page FLAW 

message: Judging by the age of this article I gather I will be in the minority but ...
How is it that this article is not considered a "dictionary entry"? Granted there is a lot of very interesting content but, that aside, the actual "topic" is the definition, usage, and history of a word (along with various anecdotes about it). What is the counterargument?
--Mcorazao 02:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm... it's pretty clear. The article demonstrates the significance of the word in modern culture and history, etymology etc.. and it's quite simply a very interesting word. You make the point yourself - "there is a lot of very interesting content". The encyclopedic nature of "fuck" is beyond question. Deiz talk 03:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You're on the wrong page for this kind of philosophical discussion. Deiz talk 00:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: No, the comment I replied to made no specific reference to Fuck - merely to the definition of encyclopedic. if you have evidence that the etymology, cultural significance and widespread interest in fuck is not encyclopedic, let's hear it. I think this would be a pretty damn quick WP:SNOW close at AfD.Deiz talk 02:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appropriateness 

message: * Can we have a discusison on User:Doktorschley's current insistence (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fuck&action=history ) about English "fuck" coming from the Greek verb perfect tense pephuka? This idea seems unlikely to me. "Fuck" was always a vulgarism and not the sort of word that gets picked up from abstruse learned languages, particularly as Greek was little known in early medieval England. Anthony Appleyard 20:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doktorschley's Greek theory 

message: Click here to join the discussion. TheBlazikenMaster 13:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The redirect [[fucking]] is being discussed. 

message: Any idea of a project this would go under? Profanity is listed in sociology, so perhaps that banner could be used? Richard001 09:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: And I highly encourage EVERYONE to post their opinions here. Thanks. TheBlazikenMaster 21:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[What the fuck]] is being discussed 

message: And before all the people who delight in the fact that the existence of article is something of a victory against the hyper-moralistic folk start nodding their agreement, let me be very clear.  I'm not here to make a point about the qualities of the word fuck.  I'm here to point out that, in fact, "fuck" is a word.  Says so right there at the start of the article: 
"Fuck is an English word that, as a verb, fundamentally means "to have sexual intercourse with"."
Hmm...x is a word, that means y.  I wonder why I don't see this elsewhere on this site (aside from a few others on the Carlin list)?  Oh, that's right...Wikipedia is not a dictionary .  And this article should be removed.
It doesn't matter that you might think this article is a moral victory on the crusade against prudery.  It doesn't matter that, as a result of its swear-word status it gets a more involved treatment than most words.  It doesn't matter that (as a guess, though I bet someone else could confirm this) this article gets more traffic than your average one (see, you could create a page called "videos of people fucking" and you'll get a lot of traffic, too).  It matters that this is an article comprising of a definition and an etymology.  Which isn't an encyclopedia. And so it should be deleted (after having its components added to wictionary)
Yes, I've read the "articles about words" bit written by xyzzyplugh.  Even with the legitimate nod about citations in a sphere with a paucity of the same, the ultimate conclusion seems to be for longer articles is still roughly "but we would feel so BAD about deleting them, when they worked so HARD on it."  I don't buy it.  The articles informative, but such sentiments shouldn't trump the fact that there's already a better place for this.  Wiktionary might have a different structure, but I don't see why most to all of this couldn't be ported, especially with their show/hide structure.  
2% of a dollar, but don't think I'm just soapboxing.  Please discuss.
96.10.70.45 16:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  fuck is, in fact, just a word 

message: You guys are insane about this stupid word.  Have you ever heard of fecundity?  Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin fecundus (15th century) - fruitful in offspring or vegetation: prolific.
Catch a clue you goofballs.
--Jarhed 11:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: French origin theory doesn't explain Germanic cognates. 72.83.176.58 06:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please spare me this BS 

message: "Unproved" should be "unproven." 72.83.176.58 06:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor grammar issues=

message: I wondered if it would be worth mentioning in the article that the word "FLICK" is/was never used in mainstream comics since, with the block-caps used for lettering, it would often look like "FUCK".
With deliberate irony, Peter David even co-opted "flick" as an expletive in a future-set few issues of the Hulk. Tomandlu 16:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comics - Flick

message: This article is kind of ridiculous, I mean look at its length, and all its about is perhaps the most profane word in the english language-- Ahmeri18 (talk) 09:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, the F-word might be acceptable a long time ago; but it was corrupted over history, that it is offensive. I question whether the F-word should have a place in Wikipedia. --Marianian (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Wait. You can read other peoples' watchlists? --DocumentN (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope.  Not even admins can (John Reaves is an admin). Developers can deduce your watchlist but it sounds like it would be too much work. Privacy of watchlists Rpresser (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kind of ridiculous