Talk:Cunt/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Word Cunt

The Word Cunt I first recollect heard in my childhood at secondary school, in the 60s as it was used as a swear word of such vulgarity I never wanted to use the word in public.

This changed in my early working days in a agricultural engineering workshop as a apprentice always getting all the hard dangers dirty jobs to do then a common thing in youth five year low wage of £3.50p then £03.10s 00p a week wage apprenticeships in mid Yorkshire. The annoyance of these jobs did occasionally call items that threw handling hurt me in some way this name. I at that time occasionally went with fully qualified agricultural engineers to farms all over west Yorkshire when a job needed two hands. Farmers are known to never retire and hand over their businesses to their siblings so you got talking to very old farm owners in their 80s.

They was a great breed of people and I learned a lot from the about old farming life in the region of about 1805 onward. One particular 80+ gentleman picked up on my fully skilled work colleague coming out with the C*** word and pulled him up and went on to say do you know where that name you used originated from, he said it has always meant a Cunt, the Old farmer said no its proper term is from a twelve inch peace of leather sheathing with two slits in the top so the farm worker could thread his trouser belt threw it and the lower portion had a another piece of leather sown to it like a dagger scabbard but shaped more rounded than flat so it was shaped the same shape as his 10 inch scythe sharpening stone and slightly barrelled shape round and tapered at both ends so was easy to hold in the hand and was easy to sharpen the scythe blade.

The job of mowing the corn to make into sheaves was a very hard tiring job and these farmers had biceps like these folk nowadays lifting weights. As a blunt scythe was hard to pull threw the crop its blade was often sharpened ever 15/20 minutes to make the job easier so the leather scythe sheath was one of the farmer’s handiest tools along with the scythe stone its self.

The old farmer did not have to tell me that the sheath was Called a Cu** and this is how the female part known today has being christened with the same name. This does not make the use of the name any more pleasant to use but it is a good explanation from where it originated and transformed its meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.245.71 (talk • contribs)

Except it just aint true. Lots of items that looked vaguely vulval were called "cunts" by workers. See the Derived meanings section. The man who told you that was either teasing, or was simply misinformed himself. Paul B (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

This is the most heavily WP:BIASed article I've seen in years on Wikipedia. It leads off with overweening generalizations sourced to an editor named Česky at Wiktionary (!?) and goes downhill from there. (No, the Wiktionary entry doesn't actually support the point being made.)

Cunt is a very powerful curseword... in American English. It is almost benign in many other varieties of the language around the world. This article needs to reflect that. Not a WP:RS granted, but the standard tome for this sort of language (urbandictionary) captures this pretty well: the lead definition at "cunt" starts off with the standard American "...Considered by many to be the most offensive word in the English language" (doing the standard American thing of conveniently forgetting about the actual most offensive word in the English language) aaaand halfway down the page you get "It has almost replaced the word 'mate', often used in Australia to refer to people in a conversation when they can't be bothered trying to remember your name" followed by the defensive "usage example":

Sick Aussie Cunt: Sup cunt?

American feminist: I find that insulting

Sick Aussie Cunt: Piss off

This'll be hard to fix since you've got sources in addition to Wiktionary and (in America) it is a reflexively unpleasant term, but even though "Scholar Germaine Greer" quite probably did say "it is one of the few remaining words in the English language with a genuine power to shock", that's still only true in the US and putting that (unqualified) into the lead of this article and waiting halfway through the page to get to "...caveat...qualifier...the word has an informal use, even being used as a term of endearment" are examples of WP:UNDUE weight and WP:BIAS. The latter is its standard sense for wide swaths of the English-speaking world. Nothing a Londoner'd call her mum, granted, but hardly the nuclear bomb of personal discourse it's currently being presented as. Let's reflect that. — LlywelynII 11:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Baloney. It's still a swear word in all varieties of English. True, it's 'shock' value has dropped dramatically over the past few years as it has become more widespread in public usage - including in America. But that doesn't amoubnt to "bias" in the article is any real sense. The vast majority of the text is not about the past couple of decades. And "scholar Germaine Greer" said those words on a British TV show. Paul B (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It's still considered very offensive by most of the UK. I hear the "f" word every day at work, but I've never heard the "c" word. Deb (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't that offensive, before 21st century anyway. Noteswork (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2014

I want to add the translation for this word "Cunt" in some languages Arunkumaar Punniamurthy (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: we do not generally add translations into articles, there are hundreds of languages/dialects and the list of translations would in many cases be longer than the article. We do however link to articles in other language wikis: see the list to the left. If you create the article in your own language it can then be linked to. thanks IdreamofJeanie (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

List of well-known cunts

Could a new section be added to this page with a list of well-known cunts, e.g. Tony Abbott? 27.252.49.238 (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

See Termagant. Paul B (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Origins of 'Cunt' 6-8000 BC Goddess related

This article is glaringly inept, misleading and lacking. The history of the word is associated with Goddesses and goes back to 6-8,000 BC. http://cherishthecunt.com/2013/02/10/origins-of-the-word-cunt/ It is not difficult to find relevant historical information. Please update/edit the page. I may request that it be opened for editing, otherwise. http://cherishthecunt.com/2013/02/10/origins-of-the-word-cunt/. Lasinger711 (talk) 01:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The only glaring ineptitude is in your comment. The website "cherishthecunt.com" is not a remotely reliable source. The article is not locked, only protected from ip editors. Paul B (talk) 09:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Referring to men as

Referring to men

Frederic Manning's 1929 book The Middle Parts of Fortune, set in World War I, is a vernacular account of the lives of ordinary soldiers and describes regular use of the word by British Tommies. The word is invariably used to describe men:

And now the bastard's wearin' the bes' pair slung round 'is own bloody neck. Wouldn't you've thought the cunt would 'a' give me vingt frong for 'em anyway? What's the cunt want to come down 'ere buggering us about for, 'aven't we done enough bloody work in th' week?

Whilst normally derogatory in English-speaking countries, the word has an informal use, even being used as a term of endearment. Like the word fuck, use between youths is not uncommon, as exemplified by its use in the film Trainspotting, where it is an integral part of the common language of the principal characters.

Above is WP:OR

I am preserving the above here as it is WP:OR. --Lightbreather (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The OED places uses by Manning and Welsh (Trainspotting) under its use #3 - "As a term of abuse for a man." Lightbreather (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Using Wiktionary as a source

This: "It is widely considered to be vulgar."

I'm not experienced with using Wiktionary as a source, but it doesn't look right to me. For instance, where did the author "Česky" come from? Lightbreather (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, though I don't dispute the statement, the source doesn't seem to support it. It does support that it's considered a vulgarism, but not necessarily how widely. Lightbreather (talk) 01:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits, change to 'derogatory' and such

I've got a few problems with Lightbreather's edits, and here are my points. Lightbreather is one of the people who was apart of the 'cunt' thing when one other editor hurled it out and it was attempted to be redacted but that didn't work so it was just really on tension for these people. But the thing is, Lightbreather, in those edits, established that she saw it as a prerogative word and that it's use should be banned on Wikipedia. I believe that the edits of him/her (don't really know your gender) is a WP:COI due to their established viewpoint of what had happened with them. The other problem with the edit is:

• You radically changed the definition to especially 'pejorative' term, linking it to that but then calling it deragatory. I don't think the source establishes that, maybe you could take a screenshot for me?
• You replaced Cunt is also used as a derogatory epithet referring to people of either sex. This usage to Use of the word as a pejorative which is original research unless you have a source to cite that. Tutelary (talk) 23:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

While I appreciate your concern, I believe you may have reacted too quickly. First of all, there is no conflict of interest. WP:COI says, "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia to promote your own interests, including your business or financial interests, or those of your external relationships, such as with family, friends or employers." I am editing this article to improve it, not promote my interests - or the interests of anyone else. Second, I didn't radically change the definition. I changed it, to be sure, but based on the language used in the Oxford English Dictionary - which I also cited.[1] And that takes cares of your concern about original research.

In fact, as it stands right now, there is a bit of OR already in the article. And what I replaced - what you have restored - includes some OR: "is a word for the female genitalia, particularly the vulva...." The OED, which I hope is a better source than Wiktionary, doesn't say "especially" or "particularly" the vulva. It's first definition is simple: The female genitals.

From the OED: cunt, n. coarse slang in later use.1. The female genitals; the vulva or vagina. 2. A woman as a source of sexual gratification; a promiscuous woman; a slut. Also as a general term of abuse for a woman. 3. As a term of abuse for a man.

Also, compare "term of abuse" to pejorative.

Having addressed your concerns, I hope you will restore the edits. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Then we WP:STICKTOSOURCES and use 'term of abuse for a man' or 'slang', but it does not have the words 'term of abuse for a man and woman' in any effect in them. We don't get to make up more stronger words to put in the article if that's what it's citing. There is nothing in that source that describes it as slang or pergative. It's original research to describe it as slang or a prerogative word due to the source not having that effect. Tutelary (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Please, step back and take a breath. I have absolutely stuck with the source, as I've shown above. Also, when you write "prerogative" (which I haven't used) are you referring to the word "derogatory" or "pejorative" (whicj I have used)? Pejorative is another way to say "derogatory term," or "term of abuse." Lightbreather (talk) 00:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

We could nip this right now if you replaced the word 'pejorative' with 'term of abuse' as it's directly from the source itself, and we shouldn't be engaging in original research by equating derogatory term = term of abuse. That's not the same, similar, but not the same. The issue of 'prerogative' was of Google Chrome's spell check. Oh, and add back in 'vulgarism' as it's used as a disambiguation page and you broke it by removing it. Tutelary (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I can agree to those changes, though the reasons you give aren't very strong ones. We don't copy everything our sources write verbatim, unless we're quoting, of course. But at any rate, I can do that if it will end this dispute. Lightbreather (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@Tutelary: Please take care not to make personal attacks. Your edit summary here where you wrote "you of all people" was uncivil and not grounded in policy. There is no conflict of interest here. I'm restoring the changes as I find them to be well-sourced (better than using Wiktionary as a source for certain). gobonobo ^{+ c} 00:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

That was referring to the possible WP:COI that Lightbreather faces, not anything against the editor in question. Note WP:BRD as well. Bold, revert, discussion. You don't get to revert again. In the event of a dispute, the status quo remains. Tutelary (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Please review WP:BRD Tutelary. It does not give you the right to endlessly revert multiple editors. The consensus I'm seeing here is to retain the new language. Also, the version you are edit warring to retain uses Wiktionary as a source. Unfortunately, Wiktionary is not a reliable source for our purposes here. The OED is a much better source. gobonobo ^{+ c} 00:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, as for your claim that I think the use of "cunt" "should be banned on Wikipedia." That is absolutely false, and I would kindly ask you if read that rumor anywhere else that you please nip it in the bud. I have said it more than once, but here's an instance that I could find: Insisting on using a word after your colleague has told you, more than once, that he/she finds it offensive is a personal attack. It's as simple as that, folks. This isn't about censorship - I'm not saying we should remove the word 'cunt' from Wikipedia - it's about observing workplace conduct policies.[2] (scroll down) Lightbreather (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

My memory is a bit foggy about it, mainly because I wasn't involved, but there were editors who were calling for an all out ban on it and I sort of just assumed--since you were so vocal about it that you were in charge of that march; since it was hailed at you directly. That comment you just linked probably escaped me because it was on Drmie's talk page, not on a noticeboard. Tutelary (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I copied it to Drmies talk page from a noticeboard. All I'm asking, if it's personal, take it to my talk page. Edit summaries and article talk pages are supposed to be about content. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Whether it's Lightbreather's addition here or Gobonobo's restoration of Lightbreather's addition here, why should we have "a derogatory term for women and men" (meaning the inclusion of "men") in the first sentence? The term cunt especially refers to the female genitalia and women; while men are also sometimes referred by the term cunt, WP:Reliable sources (the preponderance of them included) show that the term is especially reserved for women. WP:Due weight should be given to that usage first and then go into other usages of the term, such as it referring to men. And on that note, why replace "Cunt is also used as a derogatory epithet referring to people of either sex. This usage is relatively recent, dating from the late nineteenth century." with "Use of the word as a pejorative is relatively recent, dating from the late nineteenth century."? The Usage: pre-twentieth century section clearly shows that the term had become obscene before the late 19th century. Flyer22 (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

That (dating) actually caught my eye, too. I just hadn't had a chance to check with given and related sources. Its use as a pejorative for female genitalia and women certainly seems to pre-date its use as a pejorative for men. In fact, it seems to have first been about the anatomical feature, then about women, and later about men - though the dates aren't clear to me. Lightbreather (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

And, yes, I know that obscene is not necessarily the same thing as pejorative. Flyer22 (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather Although I agree with you in that Eric's comment was rude and probably a personal attack,(although not a sexist attack on your gender, as he made the exact same comment to me [3]) I greatly disagree with your general statement that repeating a statement turns it into a personal attack. A great many things are offensive to some Depictions of Muhammad for example, and changing the standard to "I am offended therefore you have attacked" is a very quick road to censorship, regardless of your protestation to the contrary.Gaijin42 (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with you about repeating something after you've been told that it's offensive. I explained this elsewhere but am too tired to find the diff now. Briefly, if you called me a "widget" (directly or indirectly) and I said that was offensive, it would be hard for me to back up, but there are some words/phrases that one can reasonably expect to be found offensive in mixed company. And insisting on using them in that context/situation is offensive - a personal attack - plain and simple. Lightbreather (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree here. With your widget example, if I responded by saying "what's the matter widget? Can't take being a widget?" or even if I just repeatedly referred to you as widget, that would be PA however if I responded by going "If you don't like it sod off" and proceeded to talk about widgets that may be inconsiderate, it may be offensive but it's not a personal attack. To be a personal attack it has to be used to cause harm to you, not just used and incidentally causing harm to you. SPACKlick (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Well in your example, context/setting matters. If you said that to me on your talk page, you're probably right. Or if you said it on the "widget" talk. Same with "cunt," "dick," and so on. You expect those words to be on those pages. But even though we're volunteers, Wikipedia is a workplace. We're all working here. When editors repeatedly choose to use those words in inappropriate places, they contribute to a hostile work environment. However, if you or Gaijin want to discuss personal attacks, I suggest you start a new section at WT:PA. I only copied the snippet above because another editor incorrectly stated that I want to ban "cunt" on WP. That is simply untrue. Lightbreather (talk) 01:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there is any evidence that the word was used as a "pejorative for female genitalia". I'm not even sure what that means. It started as the normal word for female genitalia, and was later seen as a vulgarism. Like "prick" and "dick" it can be used as a pejorative for a person, but (also like those words) is its not pejorative for the actual genitalia. Paul B (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Archiving

This talk page seems to have a lot of old clutter, going back to 2010. Any objections to setting up automatic archiving to archive any threads with no contribution for the last 3 months? It might also be sensible to rename the old archives to better suit the templates {{Talk archive navigation}} and {{Talk header}}, i.e "Archive 1" rather than "Archive1", etc. --Boson (talk) 10:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oh, ha, sure, Boson--I saw this right after I manually archived this. Please set up whatever you like and apply proper templates for usual navigation. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done as of 2014-09-13T14:33:27. (added later) --Boson (talk)

Many articles have talk pages with content dating back to the Dawn of Wikipedia. That's usually because there's not much traffic on those pages. Ideally all content should be visible. The only reason for archiving is not the age of the comments, but the length of the talk page, making it unwieldy. Paul B (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

T.S. Eliot quote missing

In my humble opinion a reference to the literary usage of the work in The Waste Land - the Mrs Potter washed her cunt …refrain - is missing in the Modern Literature session. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.186.144.232 (talk • contribs) 03:27, November 23, 2014‎

Hmmm...

[4] and [5] have the line as "They wash their feet in soda water". However, [6] annotates the line, saying

This passage is a derivation of an Australian military cadence in vogue during WWI. The original version Eliot cites in his correspondence with Pound reads:

Oh, the moon shone bright on Mrs. Porter
And on her daughter

They washed their cunts with soda water

and linking to [7] and [8]. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2014

"for on" sounds awkward; "for" or "on" can stand alone in this situation.66.74.176.59 (talk) 09:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Already done -Fixed in this edit. From next, please suggest your changes in 'change X to Y' format, and if necessary provide reliable sources that support the changes you want to be made. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Christopher Pyne, Australian Politician

Christopher Pyne has extraordinarily used the word "cunt" in the Australian Parliament, and appears to like to use the word to refer to some of his colleagues. Despite this being in new asrticles in print media and on the web it perhaps isn't worthy enough for the article. Just mentioning it in case Mr Pyne keeps being cunty and using the word "cunt" (at which point the proper references would need to be looked up and cited etc) 14.200.208.126 (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Amusing indeed [9], and a perfect example of the fact that it's commonly used of men in Australia. The female Speaker never assumes he's referring to her. Paul B (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Slang?

I'm not sure that cunt 'is slang for female genitalia'. The opening sentence is cited to the OED, but I don't have access through the paywall, and I wonder if this is part of the OED definition. From our own article on slang, "Its use implies that the user is familiar with whatever is referred to, or with a group of people who are familiar with it and use the term." This is correct for slang words which have subculture associations, such as foxy, LOL and unfriending. Cunt does not replace any "well-known conventional synonym" - it is the oldest word in the book for the object specified. It is not 'liminal language' - I would say that everybody in the English speaking world is quite clear to what it refers, even though they would rather use one of the well-known synonyms themselves.

I would suggest that it 'is a vulgarism for female genitalia'. Vulgar is used and linked in the very next sentence, so that will need to be adjusted or removed, I think. Before I make a change, do others have the same feeling about 'slang', can anyone confirm the OED's view, and has anyone got a better suggestion? --Nigelj (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I see no problem in describing the word as slang in modern English: it gives (roughly) this meaning in the first three dictionaries of English slang that I have just consulted, and my copy of Chamber's Dictionary describes it as "taboo slang". --Boson (talk) 09:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's not slang at all. That's plain false. It's an old long-established word that has existed for centuries. The term 'slang' was introduced in September 2014 in this edit. Paul B (talk) 10:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree it's not slang. Don't like the word vulgarism much either to be honest A vulgarism is an expression or usage considered non-standard or characteristic of uneducated speech or writing. That doesn't seem to fit Cunt. Why not just "Cunt is a term for..."

I would say it's non-standard in "educated speech or writing", so I see no problem with vulgarism. Paul B (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You've moved the standard there. Is cunt a standard term for Vagina? Certainly pretty common. Does the use of cunt characterise the writing or speech as uneducated? Certainly used by plenty of educated people. Doesn't fit vulgarism. Note:In colloquial or lexical English, "vulgarism" or "vulgarity" may be synonymous with profanity or obscenity, but a linguistic or literary vulgarism encompasses a broader category The word has not come as importation into standard English from the classless commoner, or certainly not recently enough to be worth referring to.SPACKlick (talk) 13:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Cunt is not another term for "vagina", which is a more specific thing. The fact that it's common is beside the point. Many vulgarisms are common. Lots of vulagar words are used by educated people - when they want to sound vulgar. But that's not what the definition of vulgarism you quote means. It means it is not standardly used in polite discourse, which it isn't. Paul B (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry yes, shouldn't have used Vagina, did mean female genitalia. I fully disagree with your definition of vulgarism in linguistics. A vulgarism would be something like "Can I axe you a question?", It is an example of an uneducated use of the language. Cunt is standard English, it's just also Taboo. The preface of Bache's Vulgarisms and other errors of speech may make the point clearer. SPACKlick (talk)

A brief comment: Why can't a very long established word be slang? Garik (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Slang is non-standard usage associated with groups, attitudes or identities. Cunt is not associated with any particular one of the above. SPACKlick (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Though there is sufficient agreement in sources to call it slang, in view of the vague - and different - definitions of slang, perhaps we could agree on "informal term". There may also be different definitions (genitalia, vulva, vagina) in contemporary English. --Boson (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

do we need an Adjective at all? SPACKlick (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you quite mean "adjective" (there's no adjective in "slang term" or "vulgarism"), but I agree that it might be worth sidestepping the issue by just saying "term". A problem with the above discussion is that "slang" isn't a terribly well defined concept. While slang very often is associated with groups, attitudes, or identities, it's not clear to me that this is a necessary condition (and Dumas and Lighter, 1978, didn't seem to think it was either). So yes, let's just avoid using the word here. Garik (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Purely pedantic aside. In the nounphrase "Informal Term", informal is an adjective. In the NP "Slang Term", Slang is an adjective. in Vulgarism Vulgar is an adjective and the suffix -ism relates (in this context) to phrases having that property. In all three cases there is an element appropriately identified as adjectival and appropriately called an adjective.SPACKlick (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

A further pedantic aside! Actually, I'd say "slang" is the first part of a compound noun in "slang term", just as "London" is in "London bus". Admittedly, the distinction between that and an adjectivised noun isn't always straightforward to draw in cases like this, but a nice test is to see whether you can use it as a predicate with a modifier (for example, I don't think either *"this term is rather slang" or *"that bus is somewhat London" really works). The word "vulgarism" is certainly derived from an adjective, but that's neither here nor there. Deciding to avoid adjectives would not lead to avoiding nouns like vulgarism. In any case, I'd somehow completely missed that "informal term" was under discussion, and "informal" certainly is an adjective. In short: sorry for beginning this whole pedantic tangent unnecessarily. Garik (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC) edited by Garik (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

We don't need an adjective but, for that matter, we could say it is a term for a part of the human anatomy. The point is to provide a reasonably precise definition in the first sentence. If a term is not standard, formal English, it is sensible to indicate this immediately, as most dictionaries do, especialy since this article is really about the word, rather than the concept, which is, itself, unusual; we do not, after all, have an article on "arse" or "prick". --Boson (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Reading through a couple of dozen dictionaries (not all WP:RS) vulgar would seem to be the most appropriate adjective. Slang and vulgarism are innacurate, informal is uninformative in this context. I have no objections to "vulgar term" or even, as is used in some dictionaries markedly or highly vulgar. [[User:|SPACKlick]] (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The term cunt is not simply "a term for a part of the human anatomy." It is usually meant as a vulgarism, especially in the United States or other western parts of the world, and it is usually meant as an insult toward women; all of that should be made clear in the WP:Lead sentence. The same way that we currently do for the term bitch. Therefore, I reverted SPACKlick's removal of "vulgarism." The difference between bitch and cunt regarding their gender use is that bitch has become more gender-neutral than cunt has in recent decades. I reiterate that, these days, the term cunt is more of an insult toward women than a name for their genitalia, and it does not refer to men nearly as much as it refers to women; various WP:Reliable dictionaries and other WP:Reliable sources are clear on that gender issue. And I was clear about that before: Talk:Cunt/Archive 5#Recent edits, change to 'derogatory' and such. But since that previous discussion, we have the WP:Lead sentence giving men the same WP:Weight as women for the initial sentence. Flyer22 (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Since SPACKlick distinguishes between vulgarism and vulgar, I went with "vulgar term" as a compromise. Followup edit here. Flyer22 (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

And here. Flyer22 (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for weighing in. I'm very happy with how it's turned out. I wasn't personally aware of the second meaning of vulgarism, although according to Wiktionary, the first meaning does still exist. Better to be safe and avoid ambiguity in a first sentence, though. Re some of the points Flyer22 raised, We really have three definitions in the first sentence - (a) anatomical, (b) insult to females, (c) insult to males. It has been made clear here in the past that (b) has a very specially bad status in US American English, but as the article has matured, it is also clear that this special connotation is really not found in most other English variants - UK, Ireland, Aus, NZ etc. While it should certainly be covered, I'm glad that you don't feel it necessary to get the US case right into first sentence. Thanks again. --Nigelj (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The WP:Lead sentence now looks like this. What I am stating about the term cunt especially referring to women is that it is what the WP:Reliable sources usually state about the term, as seen here, here and here. One can respond to that by commenting: "Oh, those are American-English sources." But these sources do not usually restrict the "especially a woman" or "used as a disparaging term for a woman" terminology to the United States. I would need WP:Reliable sources that specifically state or otherwise show that "this special connotation is really not found in most other English variants" for me to believe that it isn't, and sources about the term's use in non-English and/or non-western cultures would also be helpful. Either way, the term cunt especially refers to females by referring both to female genitalia and to the female person as a whole. But, yes, I am not going to try to push the "especially female" aspect for the WP:Lead sentence. I'd rather not waste time debating that in the case of opposition. Flyer22 (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I realise that many Americans seem to have trouble really believing this, but I think most Brits would tell you that in England "cunt" is very rarely used of women. As normally applied to men,it is a – usually more offensive – alternative to "bastard" or "arsehole" and often refers to particular sorts of unpleasant or reprehensible behaviour, especially petty abuse of power. For examples of its normal use, see a novel by a British author set in Britain, "The Cuckoo's Calling" by Robert Galbraith (J.K. Rowling), where the word is used several times, always in reference to a man:

• The (male) private detective hero receives a threatening letter using the words "You think I won't fucking hurt you but your wrong you cunt ..."
• A policeman, talking of two other policemen, says "He's all right, he loves himself, but you'll be better off with him than Carver; he's a cunt ..."
• The (male) protagonist, referring to himself, says "You fat cunt. . . . You knackered old dinosaur."
• The (male) protagonist refers to his ex-fiancée's intended husband as "an outstanding cunt".
• A potential witness says "I was all set to tell the pigs what a cunt he is".

Also see the citations already in the article: The Dictionary of Contemporary Slang has the following:

"1b: a woman or women in general ... most commonly heard in the USA" "2. A very unpleasant person ... This usage, which is more noticeable in British and Australian English than American. ... in practice the word is usually applied to men. "

The Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang (as quoted in An Encyclopedia of Swearing: The Social History of Oaths, Profanity, Foul Language, and Ethnic Slurs in the English-Speaking World" ) has "a despicable, contemptible or foolish man".

--Boson (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, during the big cunt debate, partly referenced in the Talk:Cunt/Archive 5#Recent edits, change to 'derogatory' and such discussion I pointed to above and significantly documented in recent, now-archived discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention, it was made clear that cunt can refer to men or usually refers to men in Britain. Bitch, like I also noted above, can refer to men. And I've already seen what the Cunt article states because of editors' efforts to make it less female-focused. But like I noted above, what I am stating about the term cunt especially referring to women is that it is what the WP:Reliable sources usually state about the term. I'm not interested in debating this matter any further. Flyer22 (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Purely Stylistically I'm not overkeen on the "derogatory term for females and males" First off, "men and women" reads better, second off it also can refer to those who consider themselves agendered so why not use the collective "people"? I don't see an advantage to the current phrasing which reads very poorly. SPACKlick (talk) 13:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

"Men and women" not only leaves out boys and girls, when it comes to what man and woman usually mean, it puts the male aspect first, when the sources usually don't put the male aspect first. And as for agender, the vast majority of people do not identify as genderqueer, and we therefore should not give WP:Undue weight to the genderqueer aspect for this topic; we should be following what the WP:Reliable sources state, which is why the article specifies sex and gender throughout. Flyer22 (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

This is why I didn't suggest "men and women" but people. The word applies to all genders of humans, the standard term used by english speakers for this group is "People". I stand by what I said that "females and males" reads really badly and like it is trying to say something it isn't saying and you've said nothing that assuages that feeling. SPACKlick (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit to add Actually do we even need the word "people".

1. Cunt /ˈkʌnt/ is a vulgar term for female genitalia, and is used as a term of disparagement for females and males.
2. Cunt /ˈkʌnt/ is a vulgar term for female genitalia, and is used as a term of disparagement for people.
3. Cunt /ˈkʌnt/ is a vulgar term for female genitalia, and is used as a term of disparagement.
4. Cunt /ˈkʌnt/ is a vulgar term for female genitalia, and is used as a term of disparagement for men and women.
5. Cunt /ˈkʌnt/ is a vulgar term for female genitalia, and is used as a pejorative.

My preference Order there is 3,2,5,4,1. SPACKlick (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your issue with the initial sentence, other than people are used to stating "males and females" or "men and women" instead of vice versa, and that you want the lead sentence to be inclusive of all genders when sources on the topic are quite clear that the term is usually gender-specific and does not refer to any of the WP:Neologisms at the Genderqueer article. But to compromise with you again on the WP:Lead sentence, I will go with option 3. You already know that I don't want "men" being placed before "women" as though they have equal weight in this regard. And you know that I want the WP:Lead sentence to be inclusive of people who are not typically considered adults, such as underage teenage girls. Stating "people" seems too much like it is sidestepping the fact that sources show that the term usually refers to women. So I choose option 3. The rest of the lead addresses the gender-specific aspects. I would also go with option 5, but, as you can see with this aforementioned edit, there is an editor who objects to simply stating "pejorative" for the WP:Lead sentence. Flyer22 (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

My issue is that it's non-standard English and so reads like it's trying to say something more than it is. I'd object to "males and females" as much as "females and males". The term is not usually gendered everywhere. In the UK it's even gendered with a the standard insult swing with more use against males. Only US sources target it at women, only Aus sources from what I can see refer to it being gendered towards men. I can see why some people would read "men and women" as excluding sub-adults and so it's possible ambiguous. I don't agree and the international sources don't agree that the weight is as divergent as you make out. If the lead highlights the use of the term against women it would be americentric. I think 3 is the closest we'll come to agreement. SPACKlick (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Whether the term cunt "is not usually gendered everywhere" does not matter when it comes to the WP:Due weight policy. That policy makes it clear that we should give most of our weight to what the vast majority of sources state and that minority views or minority aspects should not be given the same weight as majority views or majority aspects. The vast majority of sources make it clear that the term cunt is usually gendered, whether it's toward women or men. And, on Wikipedia, I am always for going with the most common definition of a term first because of what the WP:Due weight policy makes clear. Furthermore, since every single one of the genderqueer identities is a gender identity, including "non-gendered," every single one of them can be argued to be a gender. Your assertion that "Only US sources target it at women" cannot be proven. As for the rest of what you have stated in your "20:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)" post, I agree to disagree...except for agreeing on going with option 3. Flyer22 (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I specifically like the slightly... awkward? No, slightly arresting structure of the existing first sentence. The lede should summarise the article, and I think we can see from the discussion above that there is some tension, and there are issues, worldwide, about the application of this word as an insult to men and to women, boys and girls, and so on. I think the first sentence's slightly unusual use of "for females and males" points to all this in a very satisfactory way. The actual issues start to be uncovered in the next paragraph, and the process continues through the rest of the text. Swapping the words back to their habitual order ('males and females') would deaden the effect of drawing the reader in to this complex world. Adding more embellishment (e.g. 'females as well as males') would not really be informative. It's very good just as it is, IMHO. --Nigelj (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cunt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080505235747/http://www.wired.com:80/gaming/gamingreviews/news/2007/03/FF_160_rockstar/?currentPage=all to http://www.wired.com/gaming/gamingreviews/news/2007/03/FF_160_rockstar?currentPage=all

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2016

Does it not seem likely that "CUNT" was originally an acronym for "Carnal-Urinary-Natal-Tract" Dean Bennett dean@nexicom.net 98.124.25.220 (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Gaijin42 (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Placename

What exactly is a "placename" as used in the lead? Is that like a nickname?

A placename is the name of a place. SPACKlick (talk) 12:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Request to add to the "Cunt" page under popular music

On their 1981 album "Ghost in the Machine, the Police used cunt in their song, "Rehumanize Yourself" as a slightly stronger form of "jerk" or "git". It appears in the third verse:

'Billy's joined the National Front/He always was a little runt/He's got his hand in the air with the other cunts/You've got to humanize yourself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.207.206.172 (talk) 2013-11-01T03:24:24(UTC)

No mention of Kunt and the gang, update needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.118.179 (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

by definition Cunt and why

Cunt is not a word that has any meaning with woman in general. like fuck is a flexible word, can be any part of a sentence, used as a felling, a action, a way of saying I am tight like a cunt, not loose like a pussy. this shit gone to far. some words can be multi purpose and that's it. shit piss cock fuck cunt ass dick pussy dildo, you get the picture. the list can go on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.94.188 (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I would surmise that this is intended to mean that cunt can be used as an interjection, intensifier, or expletive attributive with expressive rather than propositional meaning. If true, this would probably be worthy of mention, but would need a reliable source.

Green's Dictionary of Slang does give some additional uses (which I am not personally familiar with), such as

• "I don't care a cunt" (as a synonym for damn as in "give a damn")
• "What's keeping the cunt [referring to a train]?" (any thing, object or place)
• "Where the fucking hell am I to get the girl lodgings in this cunting place?"

--Boson (talk) 10:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Cunt: 5. Examples of Use - 5.7 Film - Proposal to add another example of the use of the word "cunt" in Film

The following is a proposed addition to the article on "Cunt" of an example of its usage in Film. As the subject/headline indicates, I am proposing an additional example under point 5 (Table of Contents) - Examples of Use - specifically 5.7 regarding usage in Film:

In the Exorcist (1973), the possessed Regan MacNeil (Linda Blair) begins talking like director Burke Dennings (Jack MacGowran) whose recent unexplained death at the foot of the stairs outside her window is being investigated by police. Chris MacNeil (Ellen Burstyn), the mother of Regan and an actress in a film directed by Burke begins interacting with Burke's voice, asking, "Burke, is that you?" to which Burke, replies, "Yes." Chris then asks, "Is my daughter (Regan) there? Again, the voice of Burke replies "Yes". And then Chris asks, "Is she alright?" and the voice of Burke replies, "Oh, she's being her cunting self!" [1] Appsguy2 (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree there is a notable use in the excorcist but the above quotes do not appear in that film. It is used in "Cunting Hun! Bloody damn butchering Nazi pig!", "Do you know what she did, your cunting daughter?" and "Specifically, Mrs. MacNeil, she advised me to "keep my fingers away from her goddamned cunt." SPACKlick (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

If that's a notable use, surely we can find a secondary source discussing it. Huon (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, there is [10], but the problem is that The Exorcist (film) has this quote as one of the "additions and changes" of the 2000 version Snori (talk) 05:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Cunt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150722023824/https://gawker.com:80/do-you-live-in-a-bitch-or-a-fuck-state-american-cu-1718259899 to http://gawker.com/do-you-live-in-a-bitch-or-a-fuck-state-american-cu-1718259899
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080317055448/http://www.yalereviewofbooks.com:80/archive/spring02/review15.shtml.htm to http://www.yalereviewofbooks.com/archive/spring02/review15.shtml.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111007154124/http://bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/0/550684df5d1e6da9802576930054b16d?OpenDocument&ExpandSection=1 to http://bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/0/550684df5d1e6da9802576930054b16d?OpenDocument&ExpandSection=1#_Section1
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ozmusic-central.com.au/oztabs/uvw/wilson_kevinbloody/Caring%20Understanding%20Nineties%20Type.txt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140408213656/http://www.carlenecarterfanclub.com/press-group-299.html to http://www.carlenecarterfanclub.com/press-group-299.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080608032031/http://www.transdiffusion.org:80/emc/tvheroes/haldaneduncan/chic_murray_remembered.php to http://www.transdiffusion.org/emc/tvheroes/haldaneduncan/chic_murray_remembered.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Defining "cunt" as an alternative word for "female genitalia" in the lead sentence

As seen here and here, PapiDimmi and Carbon Caryatid altered the "female genitalia" aspect of the lead. I objected with this edit, stating, "The links were fine before. See WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:EGG. Furthermore, 'cunt' refers to the vulva or vagina, although it's usually noted as an alternative name for vulva in dictionary sources."

Despite that explanation, PapiDimmi then added "vagina" in place of "female genitalia," despite the fact that I just stated that "cunt refers to the vulva or vagina, although it's usually noted as an alternative name for vulva in dictionary sources." His explanation is the following: "Female genitalia" [redirects to] to "sex organ," and "cunt" does not refer to any sex organ, thus the link is wrong & misleading."

No, I don't think that the link is misleading. The Sex organ article is about both male and female sex organs. For why "Female genitalia" does not link to the Vulva or Vagina article, or the Female reproductive system article, see the following discussion Talk:Sex organ#Female genitalia redirect: Permalink here. If PapiDimmi or others feel that "female genitalia" should be specified in the lead of the Cunt article, then "vulva or vagina" should be in place of "vagina." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

If “cunt” refers to vagina or vulva, should the lead sentence not contain the word and link “vagina” and/or “vulva,” rather than a link to an article which describes both male and female sex organs?

MOS:EGG says that misleading links shouldn’t be used; readers shouldn’t click on a link which leads to something other than what they expected. Female genitalia leads to sex organ, not an article about female genitalia.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 04:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

How could readers not expect to find information about the female genitalia on a page called Sex organ? Not everything needs its own page. See WP:No page. Female genitalia redirects to the Sex organ article because it can refer to the vulva or vagina, and because the Female reproductive system article is currently solely about humans. Furthermore, "genitalia" more commonly refers to the external sex organs, rather than the internal sex organs, which is mentioned in the Sex organ article. As for adding "vulva or vagina," I already suggested that above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

That's better. By the way, you were only reverting a WP:Dummy edit with this revert. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

By the way, you were only reverting a WP:Dummy edit with this revert. And that’s worth mentioning because…?
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 04:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Because it was unnecessary to revert, and you perhaps thought you were reverting actual content. No one reverted your dummy edit. Now if you don't mind, I have other things to attend to. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Because it was unnecessary to revert. You made an edit that caused inconsistency, and I reverted it. Just because it’s a dummy edit doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be reverted. Sure, I could’ve let it be, but I was going to edit the page anyway. I don’t understand why this is such a big deal to you. Did I, somehow, offend you by reverting your dummy edit? This is, like, the most pointless argument I have ever been in.

… and you perhaps thought you were reverting actual content. No, I was not.

No one reverted your dummy edit. Because I made an actual edit.

Now if you don't mind, I have other things to attend to. http://i.imgur.com/rZqZPIy.png
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 05:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

No, that edit was not necessary to revert in the least. It was not any more inconsistent than the dummy edit you made. When people unnecessarily revert dummy edits, it is either because they are reverting for the heck of it, mainly to annoy the other editor (after all, I did get an annoying ping that you had reverted me) or because they thought they were reverting actual content. I've been on Wikipedia long enough to know this. I mentioned the matter as a side note; you felt the need to debate it. If you want to continue debating it, feel free, but I won't be responding. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Why are you responding? I thought that you had “other things to attend to.”

Anyway, headings shouldn’t be followed by empty space, and I fixed that in my dummy edit. I was not trying to annoy me, but I assume that you’re trying to annoy me.

By the way, getting an edit conflict every time I try to respond to you is extremely irritating.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 05:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Cunt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150722023824/https://gawker.com/do-you-live-in-a-bitch-or-a-fuck-state-american-cu-1718259899 to http://gawker.com/do-you-live-in-a-bitch-or-a-fuck-state-american-cu-1718259899
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111230070108/http://themodernword.com/joyce/joyce_paper_conley.html to http://www.themodernword.com/joyce/joyce_paper_conley.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.yalereviewofbooks.com/archive/spring02/review15.shtml.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090129192011/http://whitlamdismissal.com/speeches/00-05-24_politicians-humour-debate.shtml to http://whitlamdismissal.com/speeches/00-05-24_politicians-humour-debate.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.transdiffusion.org/emc/tvheroes/haldaneduncan/chic_murray_remembered.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Feminist perspective

In the 1970s she had "championed" use of the word for the female genitalia, thinking it "shouldn't be abusive"; she rejected the "proper" word vagina, a Latin name meaning "sword-sheath" originally applied by male anatomists to all muscle coverings – not just because it refers only to the internal canal but also because of the implication that the female body is "simply a receptacle for a weapon".[18]

What she means is vagina synovialis, the correct terminology for the synovial sheath; it is still the correct term (cf. wikipedia-article; if that's no acceptable source in wikipedia, every single medical dictionary on "vagina synovialis"), and also applied by female anatomists and medics of all paths. Please wikilink to synovial sheath. --217.224.158.25 (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

A useful medical term - thank you for pointing that out - now added. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 10:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cunt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090521075426/http://www.asa.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/1EAEACA7-8322-4C86-AAC2-4261551F57FE/0/ASA_Delete_Expletives_Dec_2000.pdf to http://www.asa.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/1EAEACA7-8322-4C86-AAC2-4261551F57FE/0/ASA_Delete_Expletives_Dec_2000.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)