Talk:Italian profanity

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.145.184.62 (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Untitled conversations

Hi. Are we sure we want to keep the part of the page with the blasphemies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.50.185.243 (talk) 11:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Why the Undo, Drugonot? The meaninig is clear also with D. or M.!--Robertoreggi 09:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

yeah, u r right, but with full words it's much more clear and simple to read (especially for non-italian users)... cya ;) --DrugoNOT 11:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that Robertoreggi must stop to fight edit wars in every Wiki just because he feels offended by italian profanity (expecially blaspheme kind) --151.51.28.88 (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. sti cazzi (in the plural) means "I don't care at all" or "wow!" (said slowly most of the times) "sto cazzo" (in the singular) means "I don't trust you" or just "bullshit". The meaning anyway can may differ in different parts of Italy.

to sum up

• sti cazzi=I don't give a damn
• sto cazzo=wow

bye ivan (to contact me: ivanbcn on wikipedia italia, please no "parolacce")

right, but it depends on the region. In some places, the two meanings are equivalently used both for the singular and plural form. -Sal-

In my opinion it is like this:

• sti cazzi = I don't care at all
• me cojoni = wow

Yng —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.208.36.80 (talk) 11:59, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Quite no. "Me cojoni" is definitely Roman dialect (and very typical of it), and is not part of Italian language. Nobody would say it in Tuscany, or Sicily. --Angelo 20:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

From Hybris77: in Italy there's a common pun: "Dio tassista"/"Dio t'assista" in other words "God is a taxi driver"/"Could God aid yourself"

Doesn't the above phrase mean "God help/bless/assist you" or something? How come (that is, if there is any historical reason)it means "God is a taxi driver"? Please don't get impatient with me as I don't speak the language fluently.--Faizaguo 23:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As Hybris77 said, it's a pun. "t'assista" with the apostrophe is the short form of "ti assista", that means "help you". "tassista" instead means "taxi driver" (since "taxi" is called also "tassì" or "tassi" in Italian). Taxi service in Italy is very expensive and there are much illegal taxi drivers - as some foreign tourist could have experienced. So it's a sort of swearword. See for example [1] --Lucas Malor (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, thanks a lot.--Faizaguo 15:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a little correction, i put the missing "i" in "fatti i cazzi tuoi" as without sounds like "make own dicks" in place of "make your own dicks". 83.87.28.199 (talk) 09:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

I think that the blasphemy section should be write a little more "soft"... You can't write italian bestemmie in a serious encyclopedia: in the italian version [2] only adjectives related to the subject God (or other) are written, and they are not put together like "God + adjective". In english the worst profanity is (or at least I think is) just yelling the name "God!" or "Jesus Christ!". In italian it's different: it's not so rude to say the name "God" (even if this is already a blasphemy). The worst blasphemy is adding an offensive adjective to God or other subjects. This is an encyclopedia, it should explain how a bestemmia is constructed and not what it is. Maxdibe (talk) 11:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

What they do in the Italian Wikipedia is absolutely irrelevant. This is the English Wikipedia, and has its own guidelines and policies, including WP:NOTCENSORED (which says: Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so). --Angelo (talk) 11:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so I read WP:Profanity and it says: Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. There is an alternative to describe how italian language make blasphemies (it.wiki is an example). As I said before, Wiki (in this case) should explain how a bestemmia is constructed (again, WP:Profanity says: Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission) and not what it is (being offensive is not.). Now I don't know what's right and what's wrong... Maxdibe (talk) 13:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I changed the voice using adjective as WP:Profanity says I can do. Deleted the Germano Mosconi reference on "how pronounce the sentences" because he is not an italian teacher and is not teaching anything. Citation needed on "In regions where these interjections are widely used, a positive acknowledgment from the audience is given to linguistic skills such as rhyming and creativity in describing a scene or a short story". It's simply generalizing: not all the people in the audience gives a positive acknowledgment to someone who makes rhymes in profanity. Maxdibe (talk) 11:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED is a policy, WP:Profanity is a guideline. I guess the Vatican and Berlusconi didn't help the italians' sense of Freedom of Speech. Sum (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I accept this edit (kind of) even if I spent some time writing my reasons for editing this page, getting the only answer "policy is better than guidelines". So I don't understand why creating a guideline (saying Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission, being offensive is not) if a policy seems to be more important and to cancel this guideline. (and, what an improper "Vatican" and "Berlusconi" comment) Maxdibe (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If the comparison may help you, the order of precedence is similar to having a constitution (the core pillars of wikipedia), the laws (policies), and town ordinances (guidelines). In wikipedia, guidelines are kind of proposals that may be promoted to policies if reach enough consensus. ( Btw, do you still have a Constitution in Italy? ) Sum (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Although you're offensive, and obviously the press feed your ears enough (because we need a recycle bin in our parliament, that's true, and also a killer for our little italian version of Nixon), Wikipedia can just add a spoiler, and use it for this, so that people can't complain.

If i do it, someone probably undo my changes, because i'm only an ip and i don't wanna register (boring and not useful at all), i'm just suggesting it, see ya, personally, i don't get offended, but wikipedia is an encyclopedy and must be equally good in every state.

A spoiler doesn't change the meaning of a page, does it? 79.52.212.212 (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to see that the page naturally evolved in something similar to what I was suggesting nearly 4 years ago. This was not about freedom of speech, the Vatican or Berlusconi, it was about what an encyclopedia should contain a and how the content should be written. Maxdibe (talk) 13:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

'Sto cazzo and 'Sti cazzi

Their meaning in the article is inverted.

'sto cazzo = my arse, I don't give a damn or wow. 82.53.22.152 (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I just fixed that. 220.210.178.168 (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Blasphemies and dialects

Dio boia is mainly used in Tuscany while "Dio can" (phonetically, d̪ìɔ kàŋ. A typical dialect form for "Dio cane") is peculiar of Veneto. There were lot of edit reverts about dialect forms. Please, do not insert blasphemies related to a specific geographic area in the main list. Try to expand the topic after the sentence quoted up here.

Since it's hard to find encyclopedic sources about the topic, i suggest a criteria to know if a blasphemy is well used or not. Try to type it in google and read the number of results.

For example, "dio luamaro" (classifiable as "borderline" in an hypotetical scale of use because it's a dialect form) returns "About 12.000 results". "Dio cane", one of the most common blasphemies, returns "About 372.000 results" (using hl=it as search parameter). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.189.65 (talk) 12:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed "dio lupo" from the main list (only 4.200 results, and it's clearly a regional presidium) --151.51.35.206 (talk) 09:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Mediterranean insult

What about these typically southerly insults to one's mother, sister, wife or girlfriend? I expected to find some of these here, too. Don't we all remember the Materazzi-Zidane quarrel in the 2006 FIFA World Cup? Steinbach (talk) 11:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If you can collect material, open a new section. You're welcome.--13:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.41.187.240 (talk)

"Ciolla"

"Ciola" means dick in apulian, not in calabrese. In Calabria and in Sicily it's used the word "minchia". I'm calabrese so i think to know it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.33.25.139 (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

True, im italian and its right. --212.91.36.179 (talk) 07:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced content

This article is a magnet for unsourced trash and experience with other articles has shown that the only way to reduce the number of unconstructive edits is to ensure that the article conforms to Wikipedia's quality standards, which it most certainly does not at present. "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed". This is the English-language Wikipedia and most of our readers can only verify foreign language content if it is reliably sourced. Please also bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, which means that the article should consist of flowing prose in encyclopedic style, with a few examples: not lists of phrases without explanation or context. I will start removing unsourced material roughly in the following order:

• more than (say) half a dozen unsourced examples of each category of profanity
• unsourced list items with no explanatory comments
• anything else without a source

I won't do this all at once, so there is plenty of time for you to provide a source for your favourite profanity. You can also look through the deletions and resurrect anything with cosmic significance by providing a reliable source for it. Edit summaries will link to this talk section. --Mirokado (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I cleaned up this page lot of times before, and i agree with you about the plague of unsourced edits affecting this page. But it's very difficult to collect "reliable sources" about this topic. The Accademia della Crusca for example, will never provide rules on use of profanities (expecially the blaspheme ones), and maybe, something like the Urban_Dictionary might not be considered as a reliable source. I think that google hits method could be a good resource for this reason: if i'm interest to collect informations about most commonly used profanities, with google, i can find how much a particular expression is used on the internet, and also compare this number to an hypotetical average. Assuming that if an expression is commonly used on internet (and is not a MEME or something related to the web universe) is common also in written language or speech, most of entries in this page match these requirements.

I don't think that deleting something that is written and maintained from a long period (with the Consensus) will be a good solution. Maybe a partial protection would help better.82.61.86.104 (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Restore the page

this page has been vandalized by a section blanking attack and i cannot revert the vandalism due to the filtering system. Please restore the old Mirokado version and ask if possible, a partial protection of the page. 95.252.246.223 (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I have undone that edit, which removed referenced material, without prejudice to the discussion already taking place above. --Mirokado (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Minced oaths sources

Source of "bioparco" can be located here. Bioparco it's not a pretty old minced oath, it was born a couple of years ago due to a popular radio talk show in wich the frontman of Elio e le storie tese created a fake minced oaths' chart. Two of those minced oaths spread around very quickly: "bioparco", minced oath for "dio porco" and "orto mio", for "orco dio".11:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.9.46.46 (talk)

Content removed

Since Mirokado's version, lot of content has been arbitrarily removed as unsourced. A big part of that content matched the wikipedia search engine criteria. In the next week i'll provide a selective restore of those entries and i'm inviting people who want provide some help in restoring, to do so. Massive deletions as the one that occurred in last weeks should be discussed in this talk page before.95.252.244.184 (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. The removal was clearly not arbitrary. It comes a month after I tagged the article and one section in particular. The documentation for {{citation needed}} (a commonly used template closely related to those used here) says "most editors are willing to wait about a month to see whether a citation can be provided." No new citations were forthcoming. The removed content leaves sourced content in place.

Unless it is very damaging we normally tag existing uncited content and leave it for a while in case other editors can provide the necessary references. This is a concession. No editor should ever add content to Wikipedia without a reliable source at hand which is why uncited additions are often reverted immediately. There are (at least) two reasons for reverting immediately:

• since the editor should have the sources to hand it is easy to add them straight away, perhaps more difficult for the same editor to add them later and of course it wastes a lot of someone else's time to try to find a suitable reference from scratch.
• content is replicated automatically by third parties all over the world. The replication of unsourced content is not only in itself a disservice to the world, but it poisons any subsequent attempts to find a reliable source for the information. You will clearly understand this given your emphasis on using search results.

Whatever our respective opinions of the material we are discussing, we are all going to agree that it is contentious and some of it grossly offensive (to some if not all). The more contentious material is, the better the sources must be. Offensive material must not only be extremely well sourced (basically a direct quote with impeccable source is required) but its inclusion must be necessary to illustrate the surrounding context which itself must be well sourced. Thus for grossly offensive phrases you need a direct quote and surrounding context which makes quoting that phrase essential. "People say this too" is not good enough.

Ironically, the more difficult it is to find sources for material, the better the sources must be. A couple of days ago I spent an hour or so trying to find a reliable source for information which is "probably" correct. When I could not find a source (in this case unreliable sources were consistently inconsistent with what might or might not be a reliable source) I decided not to add the information. Of course I will carry on looking and perhaps I will add it later.

WP:VERIFY is quite clear in what is says. Something like "you must provide reliable sources, unless of course you cannot find any" would be pointless.

All this means that high quality content is required for this article. If it is provided, the article will be something we can all be proud of.

It is not necessary to provide inline references for statements which are obvious (such as "a dog is an animal") but in such cases it is clear that anyone can find dozens of reliable sources in a few seconds. While I accept that some at least of the phrases added to this article may be obvious to a native Italian speaker, they are not at all obvious to most of our readers and we already agree that finding sources is difficult. "I heard this while I was on holiday" or whatever is simply not good enough for Wikipedia. Neither is "Trust me, I know what I'm doing".

You can bookmark a previous version of the article to work on previous content conveniently. I have never edited as an IP but I imagine there are difficulties in preparing demanding content. If you wish, I can create a sandbox page in my user space in which you can work undisturbed on high quality content for this article. Just ask on my talk page and I will respond. --Mirokado (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your fast reply. We can continue our discussion on your talk page. I agree with you and I think that a sandbox could be a good idea in order to restore some content with appropriate references and sources. 79.23.46.62 (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I (if noone else) will continue to remove unsourced additions to this article (taking its current state as baseline) as I have been doing when necessary for the past few months. --Mirokado (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Finocchio - Meaning?

The articles advises that this a pejorative for a homosexual, corresponding to the usual English one. However, in the novel The Godfather, Mario Puzo has Vito Corleone deride Johnny Fontane as a “Hollywood finocchio.” Although I’m sure that Corleone could have used quite a few choice Italian pejoratives to fling at his errant godson, this hardly seems appropriate for the skirt-chasing Fontane.

On another site, it indicates the word is related to an aromatic bulbous plant with a connotation of being offensive. I gather that a meaning of “weak exhibitionist jerk” might be more in line as to what Corleone intended to imply. Is the connotation of calling a man a homosexual certain? HistoryBuff14 (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is (I'm from Italy), but in a very derogatory way it can be used to address an heterosexual man just to show one's contempt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.225.199.93 (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing

Today I tagged a number of unsourced items and statements with {{cn}}. If these are not sourced in a reasonable time, say a week, more or less, I will remove them. Unsourced items added in future may be removed without tagging or warning. A list such as this need particularly careful attention to sourcing, precisely because of the temptation to add things that "everyone knows" and also because meanings of what are, after all, slang or informal phrases may not be as consistent or invariable as some editors might thing. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Assassin's Creed

The games that play in Italy are full of guards using Italian profanity. Provided reliable sources, should the "in literature" section title be changed to "in media" or something, or should a new section be created? PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 19:10, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

you could create a section titled "in other media" Olimpia709 (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)