Talk:Fuck/Archive 5

message: It should be noted that in Italian exists the verb "ficcare" which means "to put inside" and which is sometimes used with the same meaning of "to fuck". "Ficcare" could be someway related to "fuck" throught a latin origin, and is very similar to "fuccare" in "Fiers, fliies and.."
:Perhaps, but even in other Germanic languages there are cognates, for example the German word "ficken". I can't think of a Norwegian cognate (my childhood tongue) apart from a crudely borrowed and rarely used loanword "føkk". Well, some sources give the etymology "fornicate under command of the king", not sure I believe that's true. Wilsonsamm (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Italian

message: Fuck, it seems should not have a definition on wikipedia... I say its vulgar and has no definition except (appologies) to say "Go fuck yourself" or "motherfucker", or even "I fucked her" its not really anthing that deservs a wiki page.. thanx
75.108.171.234 (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that the media often has an eye on it (or a patch over it), and it is in many ways a historically prominent term and something of a measure between the lines of censorship and permissiveness, I'd say it's a pretty good subject. Especially in an encyclopedia that looks at things in such an open way and without direct commercial restraints. Who is like God? (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is just your opinion. Fortunately, Wikipedia does not support censorship. It is a frequently-used word! plus, having a legitimate entry removed just because some dude finds it unpleasent is just wrong. --~Magnolia Fen (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Erm... I think you should read what Wikipedia is not. In this case,  this. Akira Tomosuke (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, if any word doesn't deserve to be here it's cunt since it has no good meaning, but Wikipedia has an article on that, since it's not censored. Wikipedia is a site for common knowledge, and since fuck is used commonly in movies, comics, books, video games, the Internet, or even DVDs of television shows (such as Family Guy and Drawn Together), it deserves its own article. Hope I explained it clearly enough. TheBlazikenMaster (talk)
Cunt was once used as the medical term for vagina so I'd say that it's relevance on Wikipedia stands as being historical, topical and current.Fletch 2002 (talk) 03:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't think you understand what an encyclopedia is.  As others have stated, Wikipedia does not support censorship, as it is an archive of information.  Censoring anything would be a prime example of putting a limit on information.  I personally visit the Wikipedia in pursuit of unbiased and uncensored information.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.142.53 (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: This is awkward

message: I guess it would be interesting add to the article that fuck in portuguese is fuder (verb), foda (noun), fudido / fudida (as in "fucked") :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.193.253.60 (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portuguese translation 

message: merge Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: support - the "history" article seems to be pretty much rubbish, I wasn't even aware of it until now. - Ugliness Man (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: support per nom. Rpresser (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger Proposal 

message: This is an acronym used in the 16th century by the British House of Lords when describing the act of Rape. The acronym is extrapolated from the term "For Un-consented Carnal Knowledge.24.146.12.109 (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an urban legend, mentioned in the "false etymologies" section.-Wafulz (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  F.u.c.k 

message: To me, the "Common alternatives" section is a bit much, and does not really add much to the meaning or history of the term. Does it really need to ramble on with so much? Just an opinion. :-P
72.213.129.138 (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly seems to have become an "every alternative I could find" section, not just the truly common ones.  I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that "Belgium", "Smeg", "Gorram" or "Drokk" are common alternatives.  I'd go so far as to put them in the trivia category, rather than appropriate to the core article at all.  --SilyOlPooh (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common alternatives? 

message: The French word foutre is an approximate translation to "fuck" or "copulate". 
It was commonly used as an interjection during the French Revolution, and often printed in some newspapers of this period. [what is the reference for this statement?]
It is sometimes used in the passive participle adjectival form foutu(e) = broken for a thing or fucked for a person. In this form it is usually not considered vulgar.
It is used in a variety of vulgar meanings: "va the faire foutre "="Fuck you", or "j'en ai rien a foutre "="I don't give a shit/fuck", "je fous ça où?"="where the fuck do I put this", "qu'est-ce que tu fous ?"="what the fuck are you doing?". The word foutre is also often understood as a vulgar version of "sperm".
*Literally:
**"va te faire foutre" = "Go to fuck yourself" [intimate / impolite singular]
**"j'en ai rien a foutre" = "I have nothing of it to fuck"
**"je fous ça où?" = "I fuck that where?"
**"qu'est-ce que tu fous?" = "What is it that are you fucking?" [intimate / impolite singular]
*Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  French translation 

message: *I find it very dubious that the term "Holy fuck" has ever been seriously applied to refer to any religious sexual act.  I suggest removing the statement, along with its accompanying reference, from the article. Silly rabbit (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: *"Fuck is not widely used in politics, and because of this[citation needed], any use by notable politicians tends to produce controversy."
*:Is this a joke? Do you need a citation to say the sky is blue now? 38.98.223.57 (talk) 08:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: kind of... yes. Hohohahaha (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Because of this" makes a non-obvious relation. For example, the assertion draws the following question or critique: "Does fuck really draw controversy in politics because it's not commonly used in the context, or does it produce the controversy because groups consider it vulgar, rude, or politically incorrect?" Who is like God? (talk) 06:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed 

message: I always heard it was an abbreviation of "for Gods sake", "fuck sake".</br>ThisMunkey (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't even work linguistically. John Reaves 19:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  For Gods Sake 

message: The primary use of the word is an expletive infix. The article says that use is occasional. The meaning as sex is widely understood but by far the secondary use of it.</br>ThisMunkey (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Supply a published source with supporting statistics on the relative frequency of various uses and we'll consider your assertion. --Rpresser 18:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt this is true.  Granted it is prevalent in expletive infixation, so are many other words and I personally here it used by itself far more often. John Reaves 18:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would put it in but I dont know where a good reference to that would exist. John, youre saying you doubt thats true but granted that is the case XD.. I'll have to buy some of the online dictionaries.</br>ThisMunkey (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alan Dundes probably wrote about it. (Also, please try to be more respectful toward other editors - laughing at them using emoticons isn't at all polite). Fuzzform (talk) 08:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't look like he's laughing at me, then again his reply doesn't really make sense. John Reaves 13:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I said you double negatived (its not true but it is)</br>ThisMunkey (talk) 12:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep in mind "expletive infix" refers to the insertion of an interjection within a word (as in "abso-fucking-lutely"). Regardless, pointing out it can be used in that specific way (not to mention how often that happens) in the main definition is out of place. Remember also that this isn't the Wiktionary. Listing exact usage forms is a task for the dictionary, not an encyclopedia, which needs to put the use and function of the term in a general but concrete overview related to any relevant subjects. Who is like God? (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Um John didn't make a double negative. He said he doubt it's true (and so do I). He conceded it is prevalent in expletive infixation, but so are many other words and that more importantly, it's used by itself far more often (which is almost definitely true, indeed I've never head expletive infixes used at all in real life but I've heard fuck a lot). In case you still don't get it, you claimed it's primary usage is as a expletive infix but even if fuck is prevalent as a expletive infix (which may or may not be true), the fact that expletive infixs are relatively rare, and people use fuck so much more in other contexts (fuck you, fuck off, what the fuck? fuckers, that's fucking hilarious, your comment was fucking dumb, who the fuck do you think I am? that's the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard etc etc) means you're almost definitely wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The primary use - ''not'' occasional 

message: New details about OED's research on the origins of the word are available here:
:http://www.oed.com/news/updates/revisions0803.html
An excerpt:
Perhaps someone could revise the article based on their discoveries. 68.167.252.101 (talk) 12:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: OED Etymology update

message: That line about fuck being once the most offensive term of all that people kept editing in and out is pretty subjective, and not necessary. The intro just needs to give the very essentials of the term in not too many words; the historical section deals with how offensive it's been in different periods, and what changes occurred in that respect, in a much juicier way than a simplistic sentence we could argue over till the end of time. Who is like God? (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was once the most offensive term 

message: The rather famous History of the word fuck sound file created some discussion on my webpage a while back, when man calling himself voicedude (wishing to be anonymous) sent me an e-mail saying he had worked with Wagner and was the first one to listen to it. See post. If I look through my archives I probably still has this e-mail and could contact him. Anyway, I just wanted to ask who put that line there (in the external links section).. Sigg3.net (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source of Jack Wagner reference? 

message: Language Log has had a number of posts on the subject of bad translations from English to Chinese that mistakenly use the word "fuck". (This post has links to a few others.)  These include:
* "Spread to fuck the fruit" (for "Loose dried fruit")
* "Fuck the certain price of goods" (for "Dry foods price counter")
* "Do you want to fuck what?" (for "What do you want to do?")
The problem, it seems, is that the same character 干 is used in simplified Chinese for words meaning "dry" and "do" and also in the latter sense can mean "fuck". And automatic translation software doesn't always know which one is appropriate ... --FOo (talk) 21:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erroneous translations from Chinese 

message: As much as I agree with wikipedia's anti-censorship stance, I think the sentence 'where the speaker feels that extreme emphasis is needed, it may happen to be used several times in a sentence, such as in "fuck the fucking fuckers"' is a bit much. It seems like more of a joke than anything else.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.18.57 (talk • contribs) 
:Agreed - I've removed it. Mindmatrix 14:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fuck the fucking fuckers? 

message: *Why the "fuck" is the table of contents on the right hand side? Isn't it usually on the left? 01:49, 12 May 2008 User:74.38.85.31
*It would make the starts of the text lines irregular. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what the comment above means, but we don't put TOCs on the right in article space. I figured it was moved to cut out the white space, but still... no. LaraLove|Talk 14:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of contents right hand side 

message: The actual term in Welsh is cnuch.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.150.26 (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welsh 

message: I suggest you delete the entry for 'fuck' as its neutrality is in question
Also, can you delete www.wikipedia.org because it is not neutral toward knowledge, it seems to promote knowledge. people should be stupid , like worms
202.92.40.8 (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: The first paragraph claiming a Swedish origin from "fock" is total fiction.86.158.247.51 (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: The use of foot meaning French foutre doesn't occur in Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's Dream, as indicated in the article, but in his Henry V. It's in a scene where Princess Katherine asks her waiting maid (in French) how one says pied in English, and is told in reply that the English word is foot. This embarrasses the Princess because foot is pronounced the same as French foutre, meaning fuck. Tom 129.93.17.106 (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: serious error in "Early Usage" section

message: Where is the content for this article? Fair enough, having an etymology of a word (term or name), and a few references to it's history of use are good ways to fill out an article, but where is the rest of the content? Where is that encyclopedic content that can actually be read with the believe you learnt something without simply memorizing a series of facts? I know i presented these as questions, but don't respond as such, i simply feel it is time that this article be rethought, it has absolutely no content. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content 

message: The pronunciation of the word fuck literally means jaw in Arabic. Arabs use a few words that have the same meaning as fuck, with most of them being country or region specific and not widely used by all Arabs or even the official Arabic language at all."Yoaasher" or "Yodaej" are official Arabic words that literally mean "to fuck with", as in "to have sex with someone".
"yoaashir" and the other word should be "yodjamii"/ "yodjami3".
In fact, there is one word that is used almost everywhere in the Arab World, and is an 
"official" Arabic word too: (......), you've just to replace the f witn n and the u with soft ae, 
the word wasn't considered obscene in the past and was used in literature of pre-islamic / islamic eras, but it is considered extremely offensive nowadays.
the pronunciation of the f word is also a verb which means to rip esp two things (apart), to open Pullinyerleg (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arabic 

message: It seems like this page should be getting attacked all the time by ClueBot...I'm afraid to add a "Fuck With" bullet, but I will. Graham (talk, contrib, SIGN HERE!!!) 22:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ClueBot resistant? 

message: Look at the examples used on the main page. In British English it is common to replace the ‘fuck’ with ‘do’. The Latin for ‘do’ is ‘facio’. It is phonetically similar.
‘Do her' (Fuck her), to have sexual intercourse with the said person (Britsh English)
‘Do/Be off with you’ (Fuck off), as a command, to leave forthwith, go away; (British English)
‘Do him in’ (Fuck him up), to assault the said person violently (British English)
‘Do over’ (Fuck over), to take advantage of, exploit or assault violently (British English)
‘Done in’ (Fucked Up), to be bungled, ruined, spoiled or ‘wounded by violent assault’. (British English)
‘Do away with that’ (Stop fucking with that), to no longer meddle with. (British English)
‘Mess about (Fuck about)’, to act foolishly or stupidly (or alternatively to be unfaithful to one's partner or spouse). (British English)
Internettime (talk) 11:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Fuck' is related to 'do' and therefore an euphermism 

message: Wouldn't it be more relevant to redirect it to the song? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fuck yeah]] 

message: I suggest re-working the first section of "Popular Usage" to include updated information on FCC and court review of the word Fuck:
"In the United States, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) may fine a station for the broadcast of "indecent" language or images during the hours of 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. local time. In 2003, the agency's Enforcement Bureau ruled that the broadcast of the statement "This is really, really fucking brilliant!" by U2 member Bono after receiving a Golden Globe Award was neither obscene nor indecent. That decision was reversed by the full FCC, which ruled that "the F-word is one of the most vulgar, graphic and explicit descriptions of sexual activity in the English language." Complaints Against Various Broadcast Licensees Regarding Their Airing of the "Golden  Globe Awards," FCC 04-43 (rel. Mar. 18, 2004).  In doing so, the FCC overruled all prior FCC decisions in which the fleeting use of Fuck was held not indecent.
During the Dec. 9, 2002, broadcast of the Billboard Music Awards, Cher used the phrase “Fuck ‘em.” In 2006, based on viewer complaints about the 2002 show, the FCC applied its new rule that all uses of the "F-Word" were indecent. 21 FCC Rcd 2664 (2006). Fox Television appealed, and an appeals court agreed with Fox that the FCC had violated the FCC's own procedural rules.  The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to hear the case, and arguments are scheduled before the Court in Fall 2008. It will be the Court's first occasion to review broadcast indecency rules since the 1978 George Carlin decision in Pacifica Foundation v. FCC."
Terminalwally (talk) 03:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular usage 

message: Forbidden Use of Carnal Knowledge (In ancient times, when a sailor was caught being intimate with another sailor it was recorded in the ships log as F.U.C.K.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.9.17 (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another false etymology 

message: I'm reading the article currently, and can't help to notice there are many citation needed tags. When I read a Wikipedia article, I want to read an article that isn't full of citation needed tags. Just wanted to bring this to attention. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You or anyone can help, such as by: a) adding a citation, b) rewording the sentence if you find a better alternative (some will make more sense after making a more moderate or precise claim), c) removing the sentence if you have a good reason why it's not true or helpful, or d) removing the citation needed tag noting a convincing reason why it's not necessary. Who is like God? (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many citation needed tags. 

message: Aside from OR concerns - many of these are used as generic swear words and not explicitly (pardon the pun) as a stand-in for fuck - this list doesn't add any encyclopedic value.  A sourced discussion of some of these pseudo-curses ('Belgium' in particular) might be useful here, but the laundry list just encourages more cruft.  -- Vary  Talk 17:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see many of the changes I and others made last night have been reverted.  How 'bout a little discussion up in here?  I've explained why I think the list is cruft.  Anyone want to explain why we need to keep it? -- Vary  Talk 14:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard both that the broadcasters etc have always been too canny to have a 1 to 1 correlation between a swearword and a substitute as a word that sounds rude but isn't was safer; and the contradictory story that frig was Hollywood for Fuck.  As for the  cruft that someone keeps wanting to add, surely smeg is short for  smegma which IMHO is much ruder than fuck, and  I thought that Feck was just Fuck with a strong Irish accent. Which is all a long way of saying  that some of these things could become interesting worthwhile additions if properly sourced and their relevance explained - but if they are just "in tv series x fuck was replaced with haddock, that belongs in TV series X, not in Fuck and definitely not in Haddock. ϢereSpielChequers 16:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, since this section has been here for a good two days now without any arguments being made for keeping the list, I'm going to remove it again.  At this point, I hope that any further objections will be raised here rather than in edit summaries.  Thanks! -- Vary  Talk 20:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia by any other name 

message: The poem section explaining the first accepted etymology appears to be copied wholesale from:
http://www.bartleby.com/61/95/F0349500.html
They have a copyright notice that states houghton mifflin (sp?) owns the text.  I assume this came from there rather than the alternate, correct?
If so, someone should surely rewrite that section expressing the same ideas and reataining the meaning, but chaning the wording, so as not to offend their copyright.  I don't think they allow usage do they?  The "all rights reserved" nonsense which everyone seems to parrot for no reason would seem to imply that they don't.
Comments?  Should that section be rewritten? --Δζ (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poem description/analysis, copyright issues 

message: What does this have ANYTHING to do with the word fuck?
"Coincidentally, the Afrikaans word neuk, which resembles the Dutch neuken, is used in the context of to strike." Moocowsrule (talk) 06:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fuck&oldid=112580518#Afrikaans, the old section got torn apart.  Afrikaans is closely related to and derived by Dutch.  I assume it's there to show the linguistic connection. John Reaves 08:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Um what? 

message: This article is extremely informative in the field of "fuck's" history and famous usage, but fails to inform the reader on the word's censorship. "Fuck" is so taboo because of its sexual connotation, which is why it is censored by the FCC. The FCC censors "fuck" because it claims that "fuck" is always used in a sexual fashion. FOX TV is taking the other side, stating that "fuck" is used all the time without the sexual connotation in mind. The FCC does not even regulates cable TV but the cable networks censor "fuck" anyway so as not to offend anyone. The MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) even has a rule that gives any film the R rating if it uses "fuck" more than twice. It is highly censored, with many people protesting the censorship. 68.33.203.176 (talk) 01:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship of 'Fuck' 

message: Overuse of the word "fuck" in our society has made it lose meaning and it has become much more common.  For example, the soldiers in World War One used it so often that it became routine.  It was more noticeable to them if it was not used that if it was.  If the sergeant said "Get your fucking rifles!" it was just routine, but if he said "Get your rifles!" it was understood to be a matter of serious consequence.  ("Songs and Slang of the British Soldier: 1914-1918," John Brophy, pub. 1930)  In many situations where it was previously unacceptable, it is growing more and more common.  In school, if a student says "fuck," it will either go unnoticed, or they will get a mere "Watch your language."  This is a great change from how it used to be, when it was so taboo that it could not even be put in the Oxford English Dictionary.  Overuse of this word has led to its loss of value.
Researchproject-olson (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Overuse

message: Someone may want to add info on early appearances of the word in published court cases, which predate most of the other in-print cites.  The best example is from an 1846 decision:
http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0103D&L=ads-l&P=9111  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.254.69.123 (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Court usage

message: Someone has a bias - as odd a bias as I've ever seen - toward promoting a German word origin for "fuck". The lead-in section of this article entirely misrepresents the OED's position on the word origin which, in summary, is that 
1)the most that can be said with any certainty is that it is probably cognate with a number of middle period Dutch, Norwegian, and Swedish words
2) It PERHAPS has an Indo-European root meaning associated with 'to strike', evidence for which theory is grounded in part on the Latin pugnare (to fight / strike / box)
3) at a far more speculative level, it is PERHAPS comparable with some Old Icelandic, Middle High German, Early Modern German, and current German words
All of this is from the September 2008 draft revision of the OED. It would be nice if someone could change the subtle - and therefore particularly dangerous - misrepresentation which occupies a prominent spot at the beginning of the page.
Here's the OED text. Little things like this article's discrepancy are why I have such trouble recommending wikipedia for any actual research, even baseline. Small items can lead young researchers astray, and this article highlights that in spades.
"Probably cognate with Dutch fokken to mock (15th cent.), to strike (1591), to fool, gull (1623), to beget children (1637), to have sexual intercourse with (1657), to grow, cultivate (1772), Norwegian regional fukka to copulate, Swedish regional fokka to copulate (compare Swedish regional fock penis), further etymology uncertain: perhaps < an Indo-European root meaning ‘to strike’ also shown by classical Latin pugnus fist (see PUGNACIOUS adj.). Perhaps compare Old Icelandic fjúka to be driven on, tossed by the wind, feykja to blow, drive away, Middle High German fochen to hiss, to blow. Perhaps compare also Middle High German ficken to rub, early modern German ficken to rub, itch, scratch, German ficken to have sexual intercourse with (1558), German regional ficken to rub, to make short fast movements, to hit with rods, although the exact nature of any relationship is unclear."
*And yes, since I've just been yelled at by my significant other for being ironically unclear in my own criticism of the lack of clarity: I do understand that the term used was Germanic rather than German and that there is a discernible difference between the former and the latter. This is immaterial: people shouldn't have to parse lead sections of an encyclopedia, particularly when used as a first reference, which Wikipedia so often (unfortunately) is. There are better ways to state the synthesized OED position, if only the article weren't blocked!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.193.20.207 (talk) 03:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI The Beginning of the Article Makes False Claims Re: German Etymology 

message: The Korean word 씨발 is derived from the verb 씹하다 when conjugated into its future-tense adjective form. The spelling has changed from 씹할 to 씨발. Sources: http://ko.wiktionary.org/wiki/%EC%94%A8%EB%B0%9C and http://ko.wiktionary.org/wiki/%EC%94%B9%ED%95%98%EB%8B%A4.
Though it is derived from that verb, it is almost never used in that manner (this is the first place I've ever seen that reference). 씨발 is used in a emphatic manner as an interjection or adjective. Axessterminated (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Korean

message: "it serves as a meaningless intensive" should be changed to "it serves merely as an intensive," because if it serves as an intensive it affects the meaning of the phrase which it intensifies; as such, it certainly isn't meaningless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geranian Nestor (talk • contribs) 04:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: .  Clark89 (talk) 05:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to introdution 

message: *The word fuck and the giving of the middle finger may have been a result of the Hundred Years War between France and England. The English fought with the longbow, a brand new weapon that was unstoppable. They used their middle fingers to pluck the bow and release the arrow so when any of the English were taken captive by the French their middle fingers would be cut off. In a battle that occurred towards the end of the war, the French had a group of English soldiers vastly outnumbered, but, somehow, the English outlasted the French to win the battle. When the remaining French soldiers were gathered together as captives, it is said that the English would show them their middle fingers and say "Pluck You!" This phrase stuck and evolved through the english language to become the well-known phrase "Fuck You!" 04:12, 15 December 2008 User:Tghobbs
*That is yet more folk etymology. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myth of Origin 

message: In the lede, "emphatic" should link to Emphasis. -unsigned  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.235.38 (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Link

message: there's a missing "double quote". In the "Modern Usage" section, 3rd paragraph, on the end of 8th line, it says '...uses of "fuck as an infix....'
So yeah, it's missing the double quote after "fuck.AlexDuarte (talk) 06:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: -Unpopular Opinion (talk · contribs) 11:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistyping in " Mordern Usage" 

message: 1928?  Fuck, I just used it yesterday! 67.184.14.87 (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of recent uses 

message: Obviously unemployed dropouts.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.25.166 (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A tribute to the 13 year olds who use Wikipedia as their social networking