Talk:Fuck/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Old stuff

Q--The first paragraph is from "F-Word and its many uses" by Monty Python? Isn't this a copyright infringement? No.

Just wanted to point out that puki isn't actually Malay for fuck; the word actually means "cunt", with pukimak meaning "mother's cunt". Although it is used as a vulgar interjection, (e.g. "Pukimak kau! Pergi mati lah! (Your mother's cunt! Go and die!))", it's rather inaccurate to place in in this article. To my knowledge I don't think Malay has an exact equivalent to 'fuck'. --TheSeez TheSeez, I too noted the article's inaccuracy, and i have taken the liberty to correct that according to our native understanding. But there is a word for 'fuck' in the Malay language, which is 'kongket'. I remember this from my naughty experience with the Kamus Dewan in the school library when i was only 15.

I thought wikipedia wasnt a fucking dictionary -stevertigo

This isn't my favorite entry either. But since this word has such a colorful history and touches on censorship issues some people think that makes the word an encyclopedic topic. BTW, it is customary to place comments at the bottom of talk pages. Yeah, I know, it is a weird custom but it is easier to follow talk threads that way. --mav

Actually, AFAIK, German ficken is the correct root, which in turn has the same root as the German word zwicken (to nip of pinch).

Also, should we link to The fuck page? --Magnus Manske 19:07 Sep 23, 2002 (UTC)

...criminal charges of obsenity.

Is that true? I thought obscenity is defined as pornography that's too strong for community standards. AxelBoldt 14:07 Sep 23, 2002 (UTC)

The text mentions Joyce. Miller, and Bruce, all of whom were arrested before Miller v. California (1973), which created the "prurient interest/community standards" doctrine you mention. --LDC

Please explain to me why "swearword" and "taboo word" are "superfluous" links. Also, could you please specify why Brussels is a relevant link. Thirdly, what is the point of adding a 655 page English usage manual to a bibliography on the word fuck?

Looking forward to hearing from you -- KF 23 Sept 2002, 17:05

If there was really a point to this article, I'd like to know what it was. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Why not write about obscenity, censorship, or community standards or taboo words or something general like that? --Ed Poor

Holy shit, Stephen! I forgot to "move" the text before deleting the article!! What the fuck was I thinking?! --Ed Poor

Etymology : Maybe from the french "foutre" now very old fashionned but common till XIX century ?

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary has "akin to Dutch fokken to breed (cattle), Swedish dialect fokka to copulate" --Ed Poor
Btw, does anyone know if the Afrikaans word "fok" is derived primarily from old dutch or english? Maybe english or a combination of both seems most plausible?
My understanding was that "fuck" came from the Dutch word "fok" (singular of fokken) implying sex with animals, which also apparently exists in the Afrikaans-Dutch as well. Rnt20 09:41, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

IMHO it's so old that is has the same unknown origin in latin and saxon languages.

I expect we'll be learning presently that it derives from the Old Prussian language... user:sjc

I think these sentences should be rewritten. They are pretty much saying the same thing twice, using different examples, and spelling the root differently. Also, there is need for a better explanation of the greek words (compare Greek "oiphô" (verb), and Greek "zephyros" (noun, ref. a Greek belief that the west wind caused pregnancy) ) This sounds strange to me? Where does the wind come from?...:

"These roots, even if cognate, are not the original Indo-European word for to fuck; that root is likely *yebh-, which is attested in Sanskrit and the Slavic languages, among others. However, Wayland Young (who agrees that these words are related) argues that they derive from the Indo-European *bhu- or *bhug-, believed to be the root of "to be", "to grow", and "to build". [Young, 1964]"

"The Common Indo-European word for "intercourse" was likeliest "3eybh-" alternating with "3yebh-", where "3" is the H3 laryngeal: compare Greek "oiphô" (verb), and Greek "zephyros" (noun, ref. a Greek belief that the west wind caused pregnancy) and Sanskrit "yabh-ati" (verb)."

F.U.C.K. at Woodstock !

" which has a highly suggestive hieroglyph. " Please, please we want a picture !

As far as I can see, the article consists of two things - a historical account of the use and acceptance or lack thereof of fourletter words, and etymological guesses. The second part is iirc explicitly listed as one thing not to include in articles (although I don't remember in what policy or whatever I read it) and the first part should by any reason be placed in an article about profanity in general. If there's ever a vote on deleting this article - moving the (in many ways otherwise very good) content if desired - count me in as voting for deleting it. -- User:OlofE

The entry doesn't contain the use and acceptance of four letter words, but of "fuck" in particular. Etymologies aren't one of the taboo topics in Wikipedia; it's certainly not necessary for all entries, but for some, in particular those for which there exist folk etymologies, I'd think it reasonably appropriate. --The Cunctator

I protected the page, to prevent any _more_ gratuitious deletions. Apparently I have started a trend; I had no idea I was a role model for vandals! It's very embarrassing. --Ed Poor 20:18 Sep 23, 2002 (UTC)

There's no need for the page to be protected. Any gratuitous edits can easily be reverted. --The Cunctator
Very well. I bow to the consensus, as always. --Ed Poor

I agree, I mean soemone else coudl add something. Pages shoudl only be protected if its genrally not possible to add to it anymore. Also if the layout has beena pproved etc. - fonzy


The Channel 4 television comedy series Father Ted introduced to the mainstream a swear-word which was almost "fuck" and not quite a euphemism, prolifically used by the drunken and lecherous priest Father Jack Hackett: "feck".

Probably a complete coincidence, but "fek'" means "feces" in Esperanto, and makes an excellent light swear word in that language. --Brion 04:05 Oct 14, 2002 (UTC)
I'll see what I can find out. It probably is a coincidence but who knows the script writers may been being very very clever indeed. user:sjc
It seems to be rife in just about every dialect in the UK with every meaning but that which this article deals with....user:sjc
And I thought "feckless" meant "irresponsible or incompetent."  ;-) --KQ
"Feck" is a very common swearword in Ireland. It's original meaning was "to steal" but it has since become a commonly accepted, but less rude, alternative to fuck user:delta_avi_delta

Worth mentioned French Connection's rebranding themselves in the late 90s as "fcuk" (for French COnnection UK); and the high profile of those initials in their ongoing UK ad campaigns? -- Tarquin 19:43 Jan 29, 2003 (UTC)

Sure, if you put it that it is a sign of changing standards that they could play with people's heads that way while respecting the taboo "to the letter" (pun pardon applied for). Ortolan88
Wow. I thought it stood for Football Club UK. I agree that just for clarity it should be added.

feck is a common milder swear word used in Ireland. It is the sort of thing a middle aged uncle who wanted to swear but didn't want to cause too much offence would use, if there were kids about. A longer, even cleaner version, often used by old Dubliners was Janey Mac Whereas older people (60s+) or Reverend Mothers (having had one too many Gin and Tonics, or having spent too much time testing the Communion wine) would tend to say, well, janey mac, the younger generation (35-) use phrases which mix traditional swearing with religious imaginery, as in Mother of Divine Fuck (mixing 'Mother of God', another Reverend Mother-ish polite 'swear', with the F word) Another religious quasi-swear is 'Jesus, Mary and Joseph', usually said by religious people who if they had the chance they would use the F-word twenty times in a row but they are too polite to. Another Religious type swear is 'Hooring Jaysus' (or in American-speak, Whoring Jesus, though it is pronounced exactly as written in the Irish version.) JTD 04:55 Jan 30, 2003 (UTC)

Is the word feck derived from fuck, or does it have a distinct etymology? -- Oliver P. 01:23 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

I suspect it is a more polite pronounciation of 'fuck' but I have no proof. JtdIrL 11:33 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

I'd say it's derived from feckless, or at least there's a Northern Irish variation which is "he has no feck in him" basically means "he's useless"; "fecker" could also come from this usage. The most common usage of "feck" means to take without permission (as opposed to outright stealing; there's a similar contrast between "cute hoor" and a straight con artist), but there's a card game called feck, and it's the name of an item used in Pitch and Toss [1]. If I remember, I'll look it up tomorow. -- Jim Regan 23:45 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Bartleby.com gives feckless as being descended from the Scots word feck, which is an alteration of effect. Effect comes from facare, to make, so feck = to make off with? I'd say the "useless" meaning comes from faic (pron: fwak), which is an Irish word meaning nothing or a bit; "Níl faic agam" has the same basic meaning in Irish as the Hiberno English phrase "I've got feck all". The "steal" usage, I note from the local ireland link above, is originally a Dublin usage, and was used by James Joyce. -- Jim Regan 00:01 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The word frig is not a bowdlerization of fuck. To frig means to masturbate.

That's not right. To frig is to finger a woman's genitalia. If she's frigging herself then it's masturbation, but if someone else is frigging her then it's foreplay or possibly an alternative to copulation or cunnilingus.JimD 18:09, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines it as:
Frig v. late M.E. [Origin unkn.] 1. intr. To move about restlessly. 2 trans. To rub, chafe a 1529. 3. trans. and intr. = Fuck v 1598. Hence Frigger. Frigging vbl. sb. and ppl. a.
Now of course words change their meaning over time. But this explains the chorus "Friggin in the riggin'"--CloudSurfer 10:47, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"In the Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy trilogy, it is sometimes replaced with zark. In the Judge Dredd universe it is replaced with drokk. "
- Aren't these just made up naughty words? If so what the fuck are they doing here?
"The previously mentioned fsck usage is derived from the Unix command fsck(8) for "file-system check". It has been noted that this command is particularly appropriate, as it is the option of last resort. Fark is a bowdlerization which originated on the website fark.com. "
- I don't fucking get it. Is this person suggesting that a fuck is an option of last resort? (admittedly a view held by an ex of mine, but surely a minority?) On the other hand, last time I used unix fsck was standard after a loss of power without a shutdown, not a last resort. Also are we to believe that fark was never used before the fucking creation of fark.com in 1999?

Michael

There must be room for FCUK in this article. Mintguy 00:50 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

This article cited in court: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/fword1.html -- Jim Regan 23:10 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

2003 Legal Document of the Year award . . . specific citation regarding the first use of the word "fuck"

That is fucking awesome. Thank you for sharing. -豎&#30505sv 23:22 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

No problem. I was going to look through the document to see if there was anything which could be of use here, and it jumped off the page at me -- Jim Regan 23:57 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Just a notice, this article has been linked to at http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/7/29/234343/208 in reference to the smoking gun article, so expect some vandalism. MB 16:02, Jul 31, 2003 (UTC)

This sort of midword insertion of "fucking" can occur only before stressed syllables... Un-fucking-beleivable. Un-fucking-attainable. I think I found some ex-fucking-ceptions. :) Bugmuncher 01:51, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

ah, excellent! So it seems that it's also fine between certain morphemes in a single word, even if the following morpheme starts with an unstressed syllable. Can you think of a consise way to fix the page to make the point more precisely? --Tb 23:43, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This is great!- elmsyrup

As a speaker of American English, I'm fucking dying to know whether British English uses "fuck" the same way. Anyone know? --zandperl 03:51, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Pretty much. Marnanel 05:38, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There's some dodgy "linguistics" in this article if you ask me.

  • "She was fucked by him" is not intransitive, it's passive. (Maybe "Don't fuck with me" instead?)
  • "He really gives a fuck" uses it as a noun. Not a verb.
  • "He is fucking rude". It's called a participle, and any verb can do it.
  • "It's wet outside, fuck, it's cold too." Conjunction? If anything, I'd call it an interjection.

Any reason not to just delete the whole section? (Picking out the useful bits, like the stuff about infixing...) Sdw25 06:42, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Also: The gerund "fucking" (or "fuckin'") is commonly used to intensify a verb or noun.... If it's used to intensify a noun, it's a frickin' adjective. A gerund is used in the place of a noun. Marnanel 05:38, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Prefix? I doubt it. Fugly is a portmanteau. Unless there's a real example, let's strike this section out. Quincy 10:11, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

French Connection U.K. (FUCK for short), along with its ad campaign, deserves a mention in this article, I suppose. Tomos 19:58, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Except that it isn't FUCK for short, it's FCUK. Maybe you're dyslexic? Graham 22:23, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Let's say I'm the kind of audience the advertiser wanted to reach... and I am hardly alone, media coverages suggest. Tomos 10:37, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Just because 'fucking' is inserted inside another word, that doesn't make it an infix. Infixes are a type of affix, which is a bound morpheme by definition. Quincy 06:22, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Smeg

Removed the smeg connection. Smeg used in the BBC comedy drama Red Dwarf is not a euphemism for the f-word. It is a distinct vulgar term meaning hard lumps of congealed semen that can be found between the glans and foreskin of a penis.

I'm not sure whether "smeg" should be mentioned or not. It is sometimes used in the same way "fuck" is, but only as an expletive rather than as a term for sex. I don't think its ever been officially confirmed that smeg is short for smega (which is hard lumps of congealed semen that can be found between the glans and foreskin) rather than just a made up word (although that is the rumour). Saul Taylor 01:37, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It's called smegma. And it's "exfoliated epithelial cells and transudated skin oils", not "congelated semen". In any case, "smeg" is more likely a bowdlerization of "smegma" than "fuck".
Acegikmo1 01:46, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The writers (Grant Naylor) are asked at every con about the meaning of "smeg", and on the few occasions when they don't neatly evade the question by telling fans "it's 'gems' backwards" they insist that they did 'not' mean it as a bowdlerization of "smegma". Whether to believe them is a different story entirely.
Rissa of the saiya-jin 03:48, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
So why hasn't it been reinserted?--ZayZayEM 08:38, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

History of usage

I had the impression that fuck as a common expression has only started in the late 40's or 50's with the beat generation. I see gangster movies from the 20's using it and I'm not sure that is accurate, my parents were born in the 20's my father in WW II and they were both pretty hip for the times, drank, smoked and partyed a lot rode Harleys and Indians and they are both offended by the word where as my generation (60's) it has come to mean little and even less now for young people I believe. As I said I always wondered if these gangster movies were correct then this show on HBO Deadwood has come on that is 19th century I guess and the main character uses it every other word. I don't doubt outlaws cussed but I don't think fuck was used in that context at that time is that correct?

Just interested Linda

I heard from a guy I know who is a unofficial entymologist, that the word fuck came from the word flog. He says in the british navy there was a rule that u cant copulate with prostitues to prevetn STD transmission, and . If u went and um, copulated with a prostitue and it was discovered, when u returned to ur ship u would get flogged or whiped (same thing I belive), and thats the origin of the word. It would mean in this meaning unlawful sexual relations. This guy figured this out on his own. Tell me what u think people, I dont know if this should be added to the entymology list.Patcat88 05:01, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)


You might want to revise this phrase... "In 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the mere public display of fuck is protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendment and cannot be made a criminal offense." -Anon

Just wanted to say this is a damned gem of a wiki! fascinating!

There's a new play being produced in Manhattan, NY on Off Off Broadway in the Fall, 2004 called "Sex, Fucking and Making Love." It’s generating its own legal controversy and it hasn’t even been produced yet.

H0riz0n 11:04, 30 Jun 2004

I'm taking out the other languages section

From the article:

The verb fuck in different languages

  • Chinese(Cantonese): diu (similar to the pronunciation of "deal" in English)
  • Chinese(Mandarin/Putonghua): 1. diao(it also refers to the male's genitals, esp. in N China, ie penis; it means "damn" or "darn" in Taiwan)2. Cao (similar to the pronunciation of "chow" in English)
  • Danish: Kneppe
  • Dutch: Neuken
  • Esperanto: Koiti (intransitive)
  • Finnish: Nussia
  • French: Baiser
  • German: Ficken
  • Italian: Fottere
  • Lithuanian: Pisti
  • Norwegian: Knulle
  • Polish: Jebać
  • Portuguese: Foder (or Comer subjectively used, because it means "to eat", in Northern Portugal pinar is also used) (following a couple of slightly less used or used only in certain contexts Brasilian slangs for fuck, Trepar originally meaning to climb, carcar unknown etmology, ferrar uknown exact etmology, perhaps meaning to attach horse shoes, or to brand cattle, perhaps better translated as to screw
  • Romanian: a Fute
  • Spanish: Joder (in Spain), Chingar (in Mexico), Pichar or Tirar (in Colombia), Coger (in Argentina).
  • Swedish: Knulla
  • Russian: Yebat' (transitive), yebatsa (intransitive).

Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. More specific; this article does not in any way need or depend on this wordlist. Only the usage of the english word is discussed, and it's usage or etymnology cannot be linked to other language's forms of the word. ✏ Sverdrup 00:22, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I disagree thoroughly. The word list is interesting and adds to the article IMO. Anyone who would be interested by the rest of the article would be interested by this section. Just because something could theoretically be shifted to Wiktionary does not mean it must be in all cases. Restoring. - David Gerard 20:32, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Yep, we disagree. I think the list is unrelated and pulls down the article to an unencyclopedic level. ✏ Sverdrup 21:59, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I disagree to deleting the list. You may be surprised but there are languages, or at least Japanese, that don't have a equivalent. I wrote "Japanese: (Untranslatable)" into the list and this doesn't mean that a translation exists, but cannot be written out of sensitivity. A translation simply doesn't exist. When a word like "Fuck you!" is spoken, it is translated into something like "Kono Kusoyarou!"(lit. You are shit!). The existence of the word "fuck" that most people consider needless to discuss, has led to discussions in Japan on why Japanese language doesn't have a insult like "fuck". Revth 05:00, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by that, Revth. The verb "fuzakeru" is butchered to intend "fuck" all the time and is translated as "zakennayo!" the in the Japanese subtitles of many American films to express "fuck off" or "stop fucking around." I edited the footnote in an attempt to dispel the mythos that "fuck" is untranslatable by explaining the Japanese language's reliance on implicit context. Also, where is this "discussion" happening in Japan? Are Diet members debating anachronisms in the language or are people on the streets thinking "gee, we've never really fucked before?" --Psients 07:03, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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, Kutabare 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! Also,Kutabare means to die. Not f*ck. It is a strong word but not a swear. Please don't degrade Wikipedia with this information. Thanks.

It would help if you signed or dated your posts, and didn't make them in the middle of a discussion page. If something is wrong in the article, change it. --Vyran 14:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

There is an alternate way of saying it in Japanese くたばれ, which can both mean 'Die!' or 'Fuck you'.

  • The fact that there are languages without direct literal equivalents is another argument for how inappropriate this list is here. Some of the supposed "translations" are just using the strongest native vulgarity available, and it's only anglophonic arrogance that would call these versions of our verb "fuck". So we've got non-encyclopedic inaccuracy, linguistic POV, and a "What Wiki is Not" example (a dictionary) all going against it. At the very least I would like it moved to a separate article, because the "Anyone who would be interested by the rest of the article would be interested by this section." argument is unsound: I'm not. Tverbeek 19:29, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The subject is a word. Why isn't this complete article moved to the English Wiktionary? Marc Mongenet 03:10, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Fix

This edit duplicated the entire talk page, and I undid it. --Yath 05:22, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oops, sorry

I was looking at too many diffs at once, and accidentally reverted User:Bornintheguz's edit. My fault. - jredmond 18:23, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why reverse removal of image Blankfaze?

(Reverted edits by Philip Baird Shearer to last version by RickK)

This is an English word not just an American English word. As I said in the summary I removed the image as it is in the finger article and IMHO is no more relevent here than a V sign.

Please explain why you reverted my edits. Philip Baird Shearer 13:28, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Well, in my humble opinion, the image is relevant. Also, the sentenced you replaced was fine, while yours, "The fucking things fucking fucked" is stupid. Thanks. blankfaze | (беседа!) 01:15, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You have quoted me incorrectly. Perhapses you did not understand the sentence because I missed out an apostrophe it should have read "The fucking fucker's fucking fucked" If it is added and you are a native speaker, then you should not have a problem understanding it. But if you hold such a strong attachment to the first sentence, then I will not quibble with you about which should appear in the article.

V-sign

Is "the finger" is more relevant than "the V sign"?. The article is about the word "fuck" and the hand gesture can mean "up yours" (as well as "fuck off" or "fuck you"). (If the gesture had a universal meaning precise verbal equivalent, there would be no need to articulate the words when forming the visual gesture). As there is a page specifically for the finger,(as there is for the V sign), why include the image in the article and exclude a link to the V sign? Philip Baird Shearer 13:04, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • I quoted you right. I understood. Plus, I don't even know what the fuck the "V sign" is. blankfaze | (беседа!) 15:04, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'd always understood that "the finger" means "up yours," in spite of what most people think. Gyrofrog 04:42, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Two fingers as per the 'victory' sign, except facing the other way and raised as per the finger. Standard in the UK, used to be standard in Australia but the single finger is now quite popular there (was all but unheard of in my youth). - David Gerard 15:49, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hmm, very... interesting. blankfaze | (беседа!) 15:53, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Finger or "V sign" or both, gestures that often mean "fuck you" are relevent, choose a picture of any or all of them. —siroχo
The "V" gesture is supposed to represent a pair of legs that are "spread open" and receptive. (Just in case anyone was curious about it).JimD 18:30, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)
Eh? It's nothing to to with that! Read V sign if you actually want to know the meaning violet/riga 10:23, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

History and usage section

I've divided this section up a bit, as it was a long block of text. It will no longer be a strictly linear timeline, but I think thats ok, because it'll give a better idea of what has happened regarding the word. As people think about it, the sections will sort themselves out better than at the moment i'm sure. —siroχo 00:44, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

Dictionary definition

As it has been disputed whether or not this entry is really just a big dictionary definition, shouldn't we be adding Template:notable? anthony (see warning) 11:46, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No. Run a straw poll if you like - David Gerard 17:18, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't see the purpose of a poll. What would be the poll question? anthony (see warning) 18:14, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"04:08, 12 Aug 2004 Maveric149 (removed odd tag; this article has been cited in a court case, so its notable)"

I don't see how being cited in a court case makes a topic encyclopedic or notable, and I don't see the court case even being mentioned in the article. In any case, regardless of whether or not there was a court case where this article was cited, it's still disputed whether or not this article is encyclopedic. anthony (see warning) 15:56, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Have you taken the time to read through the article, Anthony? It takes an encyclopedic approach to history and usage of the word "Fuck"—including court cases, censorship, and various instances of usage—it takes this well beyond the scope of any dictionary. Yes some of what is included is a dictionary definition, but it only makes sense to include such, since the article will be referencing the definition throughout. I don't see any valid reason to dispute that this article is encyclopedic, other than to cause an unnecessary stir. —siroχo 07:12, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
I've read it thoroughly. It's a very good dictionary definition, but history and usage are dictionary definition topics. The valid reason to dispute that the article is encyclopedic is that it is an article about a word, and I am not the only person who disputes such an article, so I hope you understand that your accusation is against many people other than myself. anthony (see warning) 13:51, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Sorry if i was a bit harsh, general wikistress, but i'll be taking a break for a few days soon. Anyways, I understand that many of the topics covered here are standard pieces of a dictionary, yet there are many things in this article that cannot be in a dictionary, including the relevent court cases, the folk etymologies presented, its censorship history. Some usages (for exmple, references to politicians using it) could not be included in a dictionary, if they did nothing to affect the word itself. Even the list of replacements for the word could not really be included in a dictionary. One note, the court cases I refer to are NOT ones that cite this article, unless otherwise notable, such a case should not be in this article. Anywayas, if we stripped the article down to its bare-encyclopedic-bones, we'd be left with an article missing a lot of context. So the article itself is encyclopedic to be sure, even if parts of it are not. —siroχo 14:12, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
I don't see why dictionaries can't include relevant court cases, folk etymologies, or censorship history. They certainly include etymologies. And the court cases are just a subset of the censorship history. That part could easily be merged into an article on censorship. The key here is we have an article about a word. Traditionally, that's not what encyclopedias are for, so that's why people, including myself, dispute whether or not the article is encyclopedic. You're free to disagree with me, but the tag doesn't say that the article is encyclopedic, it merely says that it is disputed whether or not it is encyclopedic, which is clearly the case. anthony (see warning) 14:13, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Image:F*uck!

File:F*uck!.png
F*ck! image

What is the purpose of this image in this article? If there is a need for a graphic that shows "fuck" typeset, surely an uncensored version is more appropriate. --MikeX 11:42, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

I added a caption to the article about how its a common censor, that work? —siroχo 12:26, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)


RTFM

I think we should add a reference to RTFM here, too. After all the most common expansion of this widely used Internet admonishment does contain the expletive at hand. Perhaps we could even mention, in passing, that UNIX systems administrators and some other UNIX and Linux enthusiasts sometimes use fsck (pronounced "fisk") as a humorous bowdlerization. Thus RTFM is often expanded to: "read the fscking manual" (READ THE FUCKING MANUAL). JimD 19:42, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)

This is a true story. A friend of a friend (I know, I know, but I heard it from the horse's mouth) plays in an classical orchestra. At one rehearsal session, things were not going well, and the conductor, a heavily accented Polish gentleman with relatively poor English, was getting increasingly exasperated. Finally his patience ran out, and he threw down the baton, shouting at the musicians "You bastards think I know fuck nothing! I tell you... I know Fuck All!!!!"Graham 09:27, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Belgium

Regarding GRAHAMUK's removal of my edit on grounds that "rm ref to HHGTTG - there is no evidence that the word fuck is implied by any supposed substitution, it's in the mind of the reader. The word Belgium is used in all versions. No relevance" I'll grant that the relevance is tenuous, which is why I'm not going to try restoring this. That said, the claim that "Belgium is used in all versions" is patently false; I have a copy of the 1982 U.K. paperback edition of Life, the Universe and Everything open in front of me right now, and I quote from page 114:

'Oh,' said Arthur, 'oh, well I'm sorry I didn't. What was it for?'
'The Most Gratuitous Use of the Word "Fuck" In A Serious Screenplay. It's very prestigious.'
'Oh,' said Arthur, 'yes, and what do you get for that?'
'A Rory. It's just a small silver thing set on a large black base. What did you say?'
'I didn't say anything. I was just about to ask what the silver...'

POV: There are quite a few changes made in the U.S. edition; the use of "Belgium," and its accompanying explanation, is probably the single one that's unambiguously an improvement. Shmuel 04:39, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I stand corrected, I checked the reference and you're right! I tend to feel that the canonical HHGTTG is the radio series, predating as it does all other versions, and that's where "belgium" as a swear word first appears. I'm not sure that the radio play scene where "belgium" is used even appears in the books - a quick scan through I can't find it, and I can't remember... (the scene is where the Heart of Gold materialises inside the 15-mile high marble plastic cup and Zaphod falls out, hanging on only by the towel thrown to him by Ford....). It's so hard to keep up with all the different versions!! I still don't think it's all that pertinent to this article though. Graham 09:33, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Baise Moi

Please see the entry for Baise Moi and the talk page about this. My high school French tells me that "baise moi" literally means "kiss me". I now understand that in slang it means "rape me" or "fuck me" with a degree of violence. The entry in here used to say:

when the controversial French film Baise-moi (2000) was released in the UK, its title was bowdlerised to Rape Me, rather than the literal Fuck Me, though this may have been for effect.

After an edit by User:Rich Farmbrough who has correctly removed the word "bowdlerised" it now says:

when the controversial French film Baise-moi (2000) was released in the UK, its title was changed to Rape Me, rather than the literal Fuck Me, though this may have been for effect.

But it still clings to the word literal which I believe to be incorrect. I have been waiting for a French speaker to make these corrections in both articles. If indeed this is a correct interpretation then the UK release under the title "Rape Me" may have had no censorship aspect at all. If that is true then it really needs a significant rewrite of its mention. However, I guess it would have been a hard film to advertise in the papers and on TV if it had used the title "Fuck Me". Perhaps the entry should be changed from:

It is still often censored on broadcast radio and television; in 2002, when the controversial French film Baise-moi (2000) was released in the UK, its title was changed to Rape Me, rather than the literal Fuck Me, though this may have been for effect. A simlilar thing happened to the Swedish film Fucking Åmål. A similar kind of censoring is offered on many online forums, where users are given options to filter out vulgarities.

To:

It is still often censored on broadcast radio and television; in 2002, when the controversial French film Baise-moi (2000) was released in the UK, the title chosen was Rape Me, rather than Fuck Me. (Both are slang translations of what was intended by the original French title.) A simlilar thing happened to the Swedish film Fucking Åmål. Censoring is also offered on many online forums, where users are given options to filter out vulgarities.

(I have also removed the second use of "A similar".) The problem is that it loses a lot of the strength of the concept of censoring which is the thrust of this part of the article. --CloudSurfer 18:50, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Don't trust high school language teachers; they're sometimes wrong, in that they give wrong (by use, need, and context) forms for some words. (cf. one's perdance rather than perte for loss, or other crappy translations of phrases that aren't as hard as they claim). Baiser is a noun for kiss, but a verb for to fuck. Embrasser is to kiss. Also, baisser is to drop or lower (to go down?). lysdexia 06:54, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Webster's New World Concise French Dictionary defines basier normally as "kiss" or "to kiss" and as a vulgarity "to fuck." --Martinman11 00:12, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fuck the fucking fuckers

Is Wikipedia citing this sentence in all seriousness? That was on some "fuck usage" video. I mean, honestly, are we going to cite "hide and go-fuck-yourself" too? It just makes it sound very juvenile, and definitely not of anything that should be nominated for FA. Mike H 07:11, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I've had a problem with that sentence for a while. I find it wholly dumb. But I'd not care to edit-war over it. blankfaze | (беседа!) 07:18, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
My view of this sentence was that it was an example of how often "fuck" could be used in a sentence. It is a short and pithy example. If the sentence read, "What the fuck do you fucking think you are fucking doing with that fucking thing?" you would probably recognise that as common parlance for some people. I personally have heard the sort of sentence I have given but not heard the one in the article. That does not mean that some creative word smith has not said it. --CloudSurfer 07:44, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fucking Fucker's Fucking Fucked

I am the source of this contribution. The phrase was originally coined by a construction worker in a fit of annoyance when his skillsaw didn't work. He threw it to the ground while spurting out "Fucking fucker's fucking fucked!" referring to the saw. There is no "The" at the beginning; the first "fucking" functions as an article in this case, and the extra "the" at the beginning would be superfluous.

In fact, this is a great example showing the versitility of the word fuck, because each usage of fuck represents a different syntactical usage: an article, a noun, a present participle (to is), and an adjective.

MarkRose 22:32, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

Infix notes

"Fucking" is in fact often cited as the only infix in the English language. That bit probably deserves its own little section.

The letter "s" is also used as an infix when pluralizing certain words: spoonful -> spoonsful, passerby -> passersby.

Reference to this article in a legal brief

From a Colorado court case, via The Smoking Gun. +sj+ 05:41, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is very clever and very funny. We should, with permission of the author, use some of the data he collected. I particularly like the humourous list on the last page of appropriate places for the use of the word. For those reading this article, Wikipedia is consistently referenced at the beginning with Id., presumably being Ibid (in the same place or the same reference), mentioned many times. --CloudSurfer 07:24, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Monty Python

As funny as the opening paragraph is, isn’t it plagarism? It seems almost directly lifted from Monty Python’s history of the word Fuck. Mr. Brownstone 13:57, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I came to this article long after it had been written. It may have originally been based on the Monty Python work but it has now gone way beyond it. It would be hard to think how you would otherwise open an article on this word. You would start by describing the word and then listing its main areas of use only to expand on that in the body of the article.
Tom Lehrer wrote, "Plagiarize, plagiarize, let no one else's work evade your eyes". A sentiment that all at Wikipedia I am sure take to heart. Perhaps more kindly, "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery". My understanding though is that once you have made significant changes to a work it ceases to be breach copyright and probably moves beyond plagiarism. There is much in Wikipedia that is plagiarized in the sense that it is lifted straight from public domain texts without any credit being given. A cogent point is that no one is claiming responsiblity here. This is a collaborative task. For all we know, one of the Pythons may have written the original entry. --CloudSurfer 07:04, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that its anything like plagiarism. No novel concept is presented that would have to be credited to any one author, and it's worded completely differently than the Python's version. —siroχo 08:52, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Point taken, gentle(wo)men. I will refrain from making such sweeping claims about plagiarism in the future. :) Mr. Brownstone 22:35, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

BTW, isn't the Monty Python claim "derived from Frichen(?)" total bogus? It just sounds like something they made up to get a more "scholarly" image.

Those dots go inside the quotation. lysdexia 06:54, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wonderful and Original

Although others may have used the work fuck in contexts similar to those used here, especially in the introduction, there are limitations to the usefulness of mere originality where the purpose is encyclopedic. Plagiarism is ripping off another's work and claiming it for oneself, for one's own merit or profit. Here the purpose is to document a cultural and linguistic reality to which we all innure great meaning and sometimes offensive overtones. As such, there is no choice but to use the word as it has been culturally.

strongest?

how can fuck be the strongest vulgarism of the English language? It appears the person who wrote this moves in very distinguished circles... It cannot possibly be that, seeing how it is uttered constantly and unthinkingly. I could make various suggestions for stronger vulgarisms (but won't). dab 17:24, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's not very encyclopedic. :-) I think "vulgarism" is intended to include only single words (obviously excluding compounds). In that sense, I think it's pretty well-accepted that "fuck" is the strongest vulgarism, even if individual words that include "fuck" (like "motherfucker" and "fuckwad") may be more vulgar in regular use, not to mention whole phrases. I don't think adding that provision to the article makes it better, though. JRM 17:43, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)
Everyone I know has some weird aversion to cunt (obviously I don't — cock is from the same language, but everyone uses it). Fuck is losing its power due to overuse.--ZayZayEM 00:59, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The article on cunt seems to back you up: "With the growing acceptance of the word fuck in print and broadcast media, cunt is the last genuinely unprintable and unsayable word in mainstream media (not counting highly politicized expressions such as nigger, which are part of a new taboo vocabulary)." I think this does warrant a rewording of the "strongest vulgarism" claim. For now, I'll use the weaselly "among the strongest", failing more-or-less official sources that compare vulgarisms. JRM 01:10, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)
I'd agree that "Nigger" seems to be more 'powerful' than 'fuck' due to overuse

Incredibly Unbelievable

The phrase used early in the article, "incredibly unbelievable", is a howler! The literal meaning of "incredible" is "unbelievable", as in "you can't give credit to the idea". I suggest a phrase like "amazingly unbelievable" or "profoundly unbelievable". Hu 02:50, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

Federated University of Conquering Kings

Ought to be founded; would be fucking good for a fucking laugh. Rickyrab 21:32, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC) What the fuck, eh?

Tsk. Facetiously unhelpful comment, kid. File under "contemporary kookery". JRM 22:30, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)

Pardon me if this is wrong . . . (NPOV dispute)

. . . but I think this article is less than neutral. o_O; It's not biased, per se, but the people who are writing it are obviously having a heck of a lot of fun. (comment by User:Purplefeltangel -- Céçaquiéça 04:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC))

Hrm, and this is not NPOV? I see nothing but facts on this page. -- Céçaquiéça 04:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Huh?? You're going to need a better reason than that to stick an {{npov}} tag on the article. — Asbestos | Talk 09:04, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fuck in Arabic

Neak could be read twenty ways as an arabic word (e.g. nay-ak, neek, nuh-ak, n-eee-k or n-i-k long or short ee). It would be useful to have it spelled out in the Arabic Alphabet or at least phonetically. If spelled phonetically, I could write it in Arabic.

Isn't there an official transcription for Standard Arabic?

Originally meant "to penetrate"?

The second sentence begins: "The word originally meant 'to penetrate' " What is the source for this? And why is there no mention of this meaning in the "Etymology" section? Paul August ☎ 22:19, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that unreliable sources are being parroted here. The etymology section is quite thorough, and should be considered more authoritative. I wouldn't be opposed to removing it completely, and maybe we should put in a brief recap or a link right at the start, to prevent this sort of thing from happening again. JRM 22:37, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
  • Yes from googling it doesn't look like a standard theory of its derivation, I agree with removing it. Kappa 23:05, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From Dictionary.com:

Q. What is the origin of the word fuck?
A. It is remotely derived from the Latin futuere and Old German ficken/fucken.
Originally, this was a quite acceptable word! It was recorded in a dictionary in 1598 (John Florio's A World of Words). It is remotely derived from the Latin futuere and Old German ficken/fucken meaning 'to strike or penetrate', which had the slang meaning 'to copulate'. Eric Partridge, a famous etymologist, said that the German word was related to the Latin words for pugilist, puncture, and prick. The word, which entered English in the late 15th century, became more rare in print in the 18th century when it came to be regarded as vulgar. It was even banned from the Oxford English Dictionary. In 1960, Grove Press (in the US) won a court case permitting it to print the word legally for the first time in centuries -- in D.H. Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover (written in 1928). One folk etymology, which is incorrect, is that it derives from "[booked] for unlawful carnal knowledge."

--Corvun 23:41, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Then we have multiple sources, and until everything is figured out and the etymology section updated, any one etymology should not be present in the intro as to not mislead our readers into thinking we know the "correct" one, which we do not. (We are not concerned with providing the "correct" one in any case, just to represent all views.) I still say remove it, but update the etymology section to reflect the new information. And we could really use an expert on this, but that's been observed before. JRM 07:50, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

I think we _should_ be concerned with providing the correct one (and maybe common incorrect alternatives (i.e., the acronym thing about some King is clearly invented)). It's just that in this case it's impossible as we don't have the correct one. NPOV doesn't mean we don't care about truth, it means we're very careful not to censor some truths.
Corvun has now rewritten the lead in regard to the above issues. Paul August ☎ 14:29, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Alternate meaning "sperm"?

I remeber I read an English translation of Marquis de Sade's "120 of Sodom" quite a while ago, and it used the word 'fuck' extensively (understandably), however not as a verb meaning "to copulate" or "to rape" but as a noun meaning "sperm". I'm not certain, but the translation seemed old -- the language was archaic, but this could have been intentional. Anyone know anything about this?

Un-fucking-believable Cadence

Am I the only person alive who says "Un-be-fucking-lievable" instead? iambic: UN-FUCK-ing-be-LIEV-able. Compare to UN-be-FUCK-ing-LIEV-able. Seems to have a better cadence to me, and it's the way I've always said it. I'm aware that splitting "believable" might seem to ruin the sense of the word; isn't the whole construction ruined by the addition of "fucking" no matter where you put it, though? -Kasreyn


Do something useful

There are stubs that are barely more than one sentence long in wikipedia! While you people try to straighten out the correct gramatical useage for the word "fuck". Just go to the stubs page and see what kind of stubs there are. I remember bay rum could be helped. [comment by User:Megan 189.]

Be sure to read Talk:Bay rum before modifying the stub category. And by the way, what the fuck does this have to do with fuck? Wondering simply, -- Infrogmation 13:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

can´t believe people would spend so much time on such a stupid article, instead of just getting down to the shortest version: Fuck - expletive. and basta... aren´t there more articles to write about? Antares911 22:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But people LOVE to talk about the F word. It's so fuck..... errr, fuck...err, fun! — Rickyrab | Talk 30 June 2005 03:21 (UTC)

Dutch connection.

A Dutch link to the f-word is backed up by Michael Quinion in his excellent book 'POSH and other language myths'. The Dutch verb 'fokken' means 'to breed'. Not only in middle Dutch, as Quinion states, but in modern Dutch as well.

Without any more details, that isn't really that surprising - it's a distinctly Germanic sounding word, and it's pretty clear that Dutch and English are fairly closely related languages. - IMSoP 21:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Arconymn

Hello. Is it true that this word stands for Fornucation Under a Crowned King? Thanks. Zscout370 (talk) 11:00, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

No. 66.92.237.111 01:05, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
So much for "Federated University of Combined Kindliness"! — Rickyrab | Talk 30 June 2005 03:20 (UTC)

Its so technical

Ahh, the color of the human language. XD

"Fuck" is a fuckin' popular word!

Sorry... had to get it out of my system. :-D — Rickyrab | Talk 30 June 2005 03:18 (UTC)

Intercourse the penguin

I seem to remember this line ("Intercourse the penguin") in a Monty Python skit with two "middle aged ladies" talking and one referencing a penguin which I think was on top of a TV. As such, it would be an early ephemistic reference to the word. Can any Python fan who can give a date for this show and verify the quote put it in the article please. ----CloudSurfer 09:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Episode 22 of Monty Python's Flying Circus.
First Pepperpot 	Oh, intercourse the penguin.
  On the TV screen there now appears an announcer.
TV Announcer 	It's just gone 8 o'clock and time for the penguin on top of your television set to explode.
  The penguin on top of the set now explodes
First Pepperpot 	How did he know that was going to happen?!

--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Korn "Y'all want a single"

That song has 'fuck' in it 51 times, by my count. Shouldn't it be listed? And why are there two sections on songs? (oops, forgot to sign it) DevastatorIIC 01:28, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

derivation of the word

heard years ago that in the old days when a person was placed in the "stocks" for adultery a sign was placed above his head which stated-"for unlawful carnal knowledge"- the authorities were tired of writing all of that so they changed it to f---!

That's a well-known fake etymology, and it's discussed in the article: Fuck#Fake_etymologies. Acronyms are a recent invention in English, so most stories about a word originating from an acronym are fake. Rhobite 20:46, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Fuck/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

There is a real need to research the word "fuck". Derogotory? Demeaning to women? Fun? What the fuck is going on here? This not a well understood word, except to certain groups whose members understand what it means in particular in the context of that group.

Last edited at 23:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fuck/Archive_1&oldid=1136352494"