Talk:Fuck/Archive 5

Archived to history:
September 26, 2005 [1]

French Translations

• The Quebec French word "tabernacle", meaning the clergical tabernacle, is often used in the same way as "fuck" in English, except in sexual-related usage. It is only used as interjection, noun or adverb. Other Quebecois-french swear words (which are pretty much all of clergical origin) such as "Christ" or "Calice" are much more versatile.

Note that in Quebec French, English swearwords such as Shit and Fuck are considered to be much less vulgar than if used in the same context for an English speaking person. This is also the origin of the stereotype of French people swearing a lot that many English Canadians have. However, the word Tabernacle (pronounced "tabarnak") is considered to be very vulgar, but not more so than Fuck is in English. - 70.24.29.189 03:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The above should be moved from 5.1 International Homophony to 5.2 Similar Words in other languages. It has ceased being a discussion of the word "fuck"'s application in french, and has become an explanation of the word "tabernaque".

Japanese "fakku"

The article claims that the word ファック (fakku) in Japanese is seldom used to describe intercourse, which is false. Rather, sexual intercourse is typically the most common meaning of this word, as it would be unnatural and impossible to use it with the same wide array of meanings in Japanese as it has in English, and most Japanese people understand it as an American slang term for sex. I've changed the article, if anyone wants to dispute then go ahead.

Vandalism

Somebody vandalized the featured article Mercury (planet) to lead to this article. Could somebody get Mercury back to normal?

Screw you, Wikis.

I spent a long time expanding the Hebrew part. Then it tells me it's impossible, since I'm no admin. Well, you got screwed. I'm not doing this again.

Well shit! Had we realised that you were the only person who could work in the "Hebrew part", you'd have had admin status right away! PrometheusX303 13:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey - cut that out! :( --ElKevbo 14:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Would someone with editing capabilities please note that the word fuck has always had a vulgar conentation. Here is an excerpt from http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/fuck.htm.

'Fuck' is an old word, even if it's been an almost taboo term for most of its existence. It was around; it just wasn't used in common speech all that much, let alone written down and saved for posterity. Likely its meaning contributed to its precise origin becoming lost in the mists of time — scholars of old would have been in no hurry to catalogue the growth of this word, and by the time it forced its way into even the most respectable of dictionaries, its parentage was long forgotten.

Bhog

"Bhog" in Marathi, a Sanskritic language, is to "enjoy" or "suffer" as the case may be. Thus a person in sexual union with a woman is said to be "bhog"ing her. Regardless, the word appears to be onomotopoeatic -- a word that mimics the sound made during the act.

Both mistake

"The word "Fuck" is the only word in the English language that can be used to describe both pain, pleasure and discontentment."

Three things are listed to what "fuck" can describe. "Both" only considers two together. (anon)

I think that is just a silly sentence in general and should be re-written entirely.PierceG 18:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC):

Or just deleted. How is that different from any other expletive? Jsnell 18:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the (admittedly much milder) "crap" could be used in a positive way. ;) I think what the sentence is trying to say, is that the action it describes can cover all three feelings ("he fucked me" might mean anything from "he screwed me over", to "he gave me [possisbly good] sex", for instance). This may or may not have something to do with the action it's typically said to describe, i.e sex, which can cause any one of those three things, whereas a lot of other expletives aren't sexually-related ones ("shit" for instance, refers to defecation). Runa27 21:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Shit is a poor example, since "That's the shit!" is used to denote something as being exemplary.

Wikipedia is not censored

so why does the phrase "in code because of its unacceptability," appear under etymology? Say the fucking words, goddamnit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.179.232.3 (talk • contribs) 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow , pay attention to what you read. The word fuck first appeared in code because of its unacceptibility in a poem. BauerPower 20:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Or, to put it a tiny bit more clearly - that sentence was referring to the word being "in code" in the poem, due to its unacceptability. Runa27 21:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A lecture in the word "fuck"

The word "fuck" has approximately one hundred different meanings and functions in the English/US-English language. But if you are within this article of the English page and then click on the link "German", all that you will find is the connotation "ficken" (to fuck, sexual intercourse). But why is this so ? The German and the English language have the same origine, and still the word "Fuck" seems to have a hundred times more meanings than the German translation "ficken" or "Fick". This is a very strange, and the most strange observation that any linguist can make on a single word: having two meanings in one language, but having about one hundred meanings in the most related "sister" language ? Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (15012006)

Once you get beyond the definition and origin of the word, this whole article is nothing more than potty humor, profanity, and just plain "trash talk." More like a challenge as to how many times you can use the word fuck on a page and have it make some semblance of sense. 71.244.163.156 16:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. Description of how the word is used in the American/British/etc. culture (popular or otherwise) and how it is reacted to is necessary for a good article. There's a whole phenomenon surrounding the word, and that has to be described. I'm not saying that you should have an article for each and every swear word, but "fuck" is certainly special in many ways (read the fine article for details :-).

Personally, as a non-native English speaker who has never set his foot on US soil (or indeed any English-speaking region), I found the article informative. Mind you, I have no trouble with the actual usage of the various forms of the word, but I didn't know of e.g. the legal aspects of it. Frankly, the whole idea of prosecuting someone for swearing sounds silly, and that it has been (unsuccessfully) tried so many times for this one particular word is surprising. Also, I recently found out about the "frak"-style systematic euphemism by watching Battlestar Galactica, but had I not done that, it would also have been new information. Not everyone who speaks English knows a lot about American culture, and the "fuck" phenomenon is much more important than e.g. Allyourbase. 82.103.215.147

linguistics

Isn't much of this part taken from the "History of The F' Word" flash movie on multiple sites such as funnyjunk.com ? Does that matter?

To be fair, it is included as an external link (which double as a references section, though it really shoul dbe named as such) The JPS 23:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

FYI...fuck is not a swear word, it is profanity.

Au contraire. It is both. Quote: A profanity (or "swear word", or "curse word", or "foul language") is a word, expression, or other usage which is generally considered insulting, rude or vulgar. Runa27 21:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Problem with trying to find swear words in other languages

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 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! Please don't degrade Wikipedia with this information. Thanks.

Are you saying that japanese do not swear? That is pretty ridiculous.

They do, but not necessarily using words that mean "sex". DenisMoskowitz 23:02, 2005 August 27 (UTC)

The anon is trying to explain that Japanese is a lot more sensitive to expressing deference to hierarchical relationships between members of society. In Japanese, verbs and adjectives have special conjugations that express the hierarchical relationship between the speaker and the listener. And it goes far beyond that. Entirely different verbs are used to express what someone of a higher social status is doing, compared to what the speaker (who is always expected to be humble) is doing. There are also various honorific prefixes used for nouns to show respect to the listener and there even ways of expressing a sentence where you simultanuously express your own humility, your deference to the listener and respect to the third party you're talking about, mostly with just verb conjugations and a few prefixes. There's even a special conjugation to express disrespect to the listener. The end result is that you don't need to call someone a "goat-shagging son of a one-eyed tax lawyer" to get them seriously pissed off, but it's just enough to drop all honorifics and address, for example, your boss like you would address a drinking buddy to get you in serious trouble.

As for the article, if you want to list translations, do it at the Wiktionary article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and we're not in the business of providing translations of either words or concepts that isn't immidiately relevant to the article. And as you can see above, cursing and explicit very seldom translate properly to other languages, not even ones that are very closely related. "Fuck" is no exception. If you're hellbent on keeping an article about a word that isn't actually an encyclopedic concept, then at least stick to English.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

This page is a *bit* too long

And contains about 75% 97% deadwood (including the reference to Deadwood). I'm going to start cutting it back, and perhaps if anyone else who has this on their watchlist could do the same?
brenneman^(t)(c) 13:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok... the more I look at this article the worse it is. Was this ever good, is there a previous version that can be used as a template or something? I'd like to just take to it with a torch and saw, but I'd like to hear input. Oh, and um, fuck yeah... or something.
brenneman^(t)(c) 14:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Aaron, it's not just you. Most of it is anecdotal trivia or simply irrelevant to an encyclopedic article. If it were up to me, I would have this deleted and replaced with just a link to Wiktionary. I don't give a rat's ass about the explicit nature of the word, it's the fact that it's a dictionary definition just like "damn", "jump" or "grasp" that bothers me. I know it's never going to be deleted, though, because people seem to think that any dicdef that is somehow more (in)famous than other dicdefs should have an encyclopedic article about it's usage. That this results in nothing but bloated etymologies and a lot of "in Punjabi fisher tradition is most complex and interesting"-factoids seems to go by unnoticed. If this thing is going to be kept the following things need to go simply because they're completely obvious policy violations:

• Every single translation - if you want to list translations, do it at Wiktionary
• All of the trivia - listing 50 different spelling variants isn't encyclopedic, not even remotely

And right now the article isn't just a dicdef because of the word (not concept) it describes, but because it's actually organized like a dicdef with sections called "verb", "interjection", "past participle", etc. I'd say that your 97% estimate is pretty much right on the money, Aaron. Please clean it up and try to discourage people from adding the most obvious trivia.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, plus how on earth is a picture of someone sticking their middle finger up at all relevant? "The phrases "Fuck off!" or "Fuck you!" can also be gestured, by giving someone the finger." - this is totally stupid and I would consider untrue, I don't know of any other article that has a picture of something that is only vaguely related. I dare say it was only added because the uploader thought it would be funny, plus it is a fucking crap picture. Martin 16:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The translations are raising controversy. Since it's a big section, how do people feel about putting them into a seperate article? It'll make the main article more manageable (and easier to spot vandalism)The JPS 23:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The translations are not encyclopedic. Moving them to a separate article doesn't change the fact that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. And I've already explained that curse words simply aren't directly translatable because they're culturally specific. If you want to pursue this further, take it to the English Wiktionary and see what they think. We are not in the business of keeping unsubstantial material just because people add it here without knowing or reading WP:NOT.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Moving the translations to another article is fine with me - then we can VfD the "List of Translations of Fuck" article and remove the link once it succeeds. DenisMoskowitz 15:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Official votes should be kept out of any reasonable decision. We don't need AfD-permisison to delete obviously unencyclopedic trivia of questionable factual accuracy. And considering that AfD is more concerned with keeping content, no matter the accuracy or relevance, it would probably be voted to be kept "to prevent deletionism" or because "it's useful" or some other completely irrelevant reasoning.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I sympathize entirely, but I see two options - option one, we take turns deleting the section as people who quietly disagree with us take turns adding it back. Option two, we take smaller, less controversial steps toward getting rid of the section and get rid of it slowly. DenisMoskowitz 01:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

We needn't bow to the will of the odd IP that comes along from time to time and adds useless stuff that they won't defend on the talk page. Just delete the section and if people bring arguments for keeping it we'll discuss it and otherwise we'll keep it gone. --fvw* 01:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

(Moving back left) Was really bold. I now hand the axe to whomever wants to continue the purge.
brenneman^(t)(c) 02:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I have removed the following:

The following anecdote appears in one of Niall Ferguson's absorbing studies of the British Empire. On the eve of independence for the colony of South Yemen, the last British governor hosted a dinner party attended by Denis Healey, then the minister for defense. Over the final sundown cocktail, as the flag was about to be lowered over the capital of Aden, the governor turned to Healey and said, "You know, Minister, I believe that in the long view of history, the British Empire will be remembered only for two things." What, Healey was interested to know, were these imperishable aspects? "The game of soccer. And the expression 'fuck off.'"

It appears in Hitchens C. A Very, Very Dirty Word: The British Empire's second-greatest gift to the world. Slate, July 6 2004. Ref.—encephalon 03:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Notable fuck bands

I am going to delete this entire section unless there is much opposition, it is totally usless, thousands of notable bands use the word "fuck", are we really going to add them all to this list? Martin 09:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I know I'm late with this comment, but I just noticed this section today. I think it might be worthwhile to make note of bands with the word "fuck" in their name, since such a thing is much more rare, and also because when a band uses the word in their name, it's virtually a conscious decision to never be played on Top 40 radio. Clusterfuck is the only band name I can think of off the top of my head, but I know there's at least a few others. - Ugliness Man 17:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

More notable is the San Francisco band Fuck, who made a minor splash on the indie circuit in the late nineties. Not notable enough to be included here, though. You could make a case for a disambiguation for them -- they'd be in the top half of the hundred million shitty, er, fucking indie bands that are included here for no reason. Fnarf999 07:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

There is also the Wisconsin punk band, The Crucificks. Fork me 22:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

And what do they have to do with the topic at hand? - Ugliness Man 14:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I just chopped out this entry:

It is believed that the first rock song to have the word fuck is The Doors' song "The End" on ::their self-titled 1967 album "The Doors". The line containing the word is "Mother, I want to fuck you". Jim ::Morrison screams out the last two words so that they can't be heard clearly. Another early example of the use of fuck is John ::Lennon's 1970 song "Working Class Hero" in the lines:

They hurt you at home and they hit you at school

They hate you if you're clever and they despise a fool

'Til you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules

The Beatles also seem to have used the word in the song Revolution 9 in the line "join the fucking navy."

Jim Morrison does not say the word 'fuck' on the first Doors album, though he implies it. The claim that this was the first use in a rock song has no source. There's nothing significant in John Lennon and the Beatles' use of the word, since it had been used plenty of times before.Thinginblack 19:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Second Fake Etymologies Paragraph

I think the author of the second paragraph of the fake etymologies section might be confusing a made-up backstory to the word f*ck with what I think is the true origin of the British two-fingered sign for f*ck off. That story goes that a common tactic towards prisoners in the hundred years' war was to cut off their index and middle fingers so they could no longer fire bows, and the English bowmen used to wave their fingers at the French to show that they did have these finger, and so would be shooting arrows at them. Unless someone can correct me, I will delete this paragraph. Rich 00:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

(Ref: http://www.snopes.com/language/apocryph/pluckyew.htm)

I would have to agree with what appears to be the prevalent opinion here - this article is unencyclopedic. If I wanted to be amused, I would use uncyclopedia. I use wikipedia for research and information.

Middle finger photo

Where did it go? Zach (Sound Off) 03:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• I removed it as unencyclopedic quite a while ago, as part of a general "trim the fat" from what continues to be a really terrible article. It wasn't even a good photo of a middle finger. - brenneman^(t)(c) 06:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Caribbean "gibberish"

The article leaves out a very popular variation on the word "fuck" used extensively in the English speaking Caribbean, most notably Jamaica. This is the use of the noun "fuckery" which translates best to the English word "gibberish", or the term "unacceptable behaviour". In a sentence such as "He is talking pure fuckery!!", this can be translated to "He is talking pure gibberish!!"; while "At the party they kept up a lot of fuckery" could be translated as "At the party they displayed unacceptable behaviour".

Logan3d 06:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good approximate translation would be "bullshit", or something? 惑乱 分からん 10:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Major Volatility

This page on Fuck seems to be experiencing some major volatility, with large swaths of information being deleted and then replaced. Do we have any final vision as to how this should go? Maybe most of the extraneous information could be moved over to history of fuck? --Cyde 07:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Creation of "History of Fuck"

The new page History of fuck has been created, but already somebody wants to merge right back in from whence it came. Here are my reasons why this is a bad idea: This article SHOULD NOT be merged into the article on fuck. The article on fuck needs to be concise and talk only about the etymology of the word. The section history of fuck is for all of those other interesting random tidbits on the word that were taken off the fuck page because they made it lose conciseness. --Cyde 08:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

It's generally considered bad form to spin off a new article to hold things that were removed from another article. It's not simply that the main article was bloated, but that the material in question is, well, bad. Not to mention that the title doesn't appear to conform to MoS. - brenneman^(t)(c) 09:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I am going to revert back to this revision soon, since then the article seems to have declined, and then we should afd the History of fuck article. Martin 23:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Fuck it, I'm not even going to afd the history article, no one has the right to just split an article without asking, I'll delete it tomorrow unless anyone other than Cyde has any objections. Martin 00:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't just split the article without reason, people were already fighting over what content belonged in the main article and I resolved the dispute by separating out the history from the basic "need to know" info.

I am neutral about whether it should be split, but the article title 'History of fuck' is atrocious! This is the sort of thing that is giving WP a bad name amongst academics, etc. It should surely be 'The history of the word "fuck"', if anything, or perhaps, 'Etymology of the word "fuck"' (if that's what it's about, I haven't looked). 'History of fuck' sounds like a band name, or the title of some sort of alternative website or blog. C'mon, if this topic deserves the inordinate amount of time and energy spending on it that it has (which I doubt) then at least try and give it some sort of sheen of respectability. Graham 01:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, choose a better article title name and move "history of fuck" to it. I like the etymology one. It doesn't seem an appropriate response to just delete the whole thing though - there's some good information in there. --Cyde 17:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

journalistic prudence

I have deleted the following part, because it is simply wrong. Here is the original Washington Post article [2]

The Washington Times, in a show of journalistic prudence, reported that the Vice President "urged Mr. Leahy to perform an anatomical sexual impossibility."

--84.155.66.215 22:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Fuck O'Clock?

The article mentions many other uses of the the word( such as Go Fuck Yourself ), so why not Fuck O'Clock? For Fuck's Sake? Fuck Knows? Motherfucker? Fuckity?

German etymology

I have deleted an edit that expanded on the etymology. If these assertions are correct, please provide references. Thanks. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 20:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

As far as it is accepted, synonymous German ficken may or may not be related. It would point to a common Germanic origin.

It is extremely accepted. German uses 'Fick' mir!, Wir gefickt sind!, Ich will dich ficken, Liebling, etc., in exactly the same way as does English, attesting an analogous usage so compelling that only convergent evolution could otherwise explain it.

Nuttyskin 01:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

say what it means!

While everyone probably knows what fuck means I think that articles about specific words should start by a dictionary definition, rather than postponing discussion of its meaning to the "early usage" section. Why not add some line at the top, to specify that this is slightly vulgar when used as a verb, that it is also used as an expletive, etc, etc.

Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary.-- Max ( ☏ | ✒ )

Why the fuck are you linking to a policy page that you didn't even read? Dudewhiterussian 05:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Etymological influence upon usage

The 19 April 2004 "Language Log" blog entry, written by linguist Mark Liebermann, discusses why some verbs "take completive up" (e.g., "polish up", "finish up") while others do not (we don't usually find "complete up").

What's going on here? Is it just a random fact about verbs that some of them can take completive up and some of them can't?

No, there are clearly some things that separate the two lists. Etymological source is somewhat predictive (verbs of germanic origin tend to work, verbs of romance or latinate origin tend not to), and so is sound structure (short verbs tend to work, long verbs tend not to). In some cases where these (correlated) properties aren't predictive, another relevant question seems to be whether the verb in question was in general use in 14th century English.

Here is information about Polish swear words (including "fuck") - Swear words in Polish language.

Hmmm. Fuck goes back to Middle English, we can be fairly sure, and the first printed citation (as this article says) was sometime before 1500. Moreover, two commonly preferred etymologies link the word to German ficken and Common Germanic fuk–, yes? All of which would explain why we can say "fuck up", of which "screw up" is a bowlderization, I bet. Anville 11:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

All over

This article is all over the place...very frustrating. Oh well, fuck it.

Fake etymologies is WP:POV and should be renamed

I think that a more correct way to describe it is "Less commonly accepted etymologies" since there is no absolute proof that these etymologies are fake. Nor indeed is there absolute proof that any of the suggested etymologies is true. Whilst common belief currently is that it is based on the German word "Fricken" meaning "To strike", but this was not actually used in German until after "Fuck" was used in English. Therefore, actually all of the "Etymologies" listed on this page as being the "true" reason can be described as bacronyms.

I have never heard or used the word "Fricken" before, neither do the German Wikipedia or Duden list this word. Where do you have this from? Cattleyard 19:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, let's get this straight - like it or not, "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge" really WAS a way to describe rape right up until about 40 years ago. That is not a myth or a bacronym at all. It was also used as a way to justify statutory rape when in fact consent was given but the person was underage. Now, whether or not that is the real derivation of FUCK is disputable. But it really was a legal term.

No, it wasn't. Fuck means carnal knowledge alright, but whether lawful or unlawful cannot be inferred from fuck itself; besides which, legal terms are notoriously useless at actually describing what they mean, hence the range of frankly idiotic interpretations given sodomy in American jurisprudence (from fellatio to masturbation, from bestiality to kissing somewhere other than the head).

Nuttyskin 01:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The article describes things as "fake" when there is no proof that they are fake, and describes things as "true" when there is no proof that they are true. This is very POV. What we should be doing is going over more common and less common theories as to what it is based on. This is the WP:NPOV to go about it. Indeed, the "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge" theory as far as I know is the MOST widely believed theory. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the methods used by historical linguists and etymologists are rooted in more than two centuries of scientific methodology. While it is true that certain etymologies are subject to debate, the etymology of the word "fuck" is not disputed by anyone who is trained and knowledgeable in the subject. Nohat 07:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Any assertion that "for unlawful carnal knowledge" was ever a real legal term is going to need some documentary proof. I for one simply don't believe it was ever so used. It has no meaning beyond the false etymology one.Fnarf999 04:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Dravidian languages

This looks like original research to me. I removed it from the article.

<<

Connection with Dravidian languages?

The Sanskrit language is derived from Indo-European. This raises another interesting debate about where the root pug could have originated. In the course of time Sanskrit and the Dravidian language Tamil have taken many words from each other. In Tamil pugu means "go inside", and pugudhal is a verb which literally means "to get inside". Medieval Dravidian kings as early as 800 AD had trade relations with the Greeks, which could substantiate the cross-continental version. The trade relations are evident from the epigraphs and coinages of ancient Tamils as affirmed by Archeological Survey of India at http://asi.nic.in/ . Also an extensive Research theory for Greek roots in Tamil is found http://www.datanumeric.com/dravidian/index.html . However, this linguistic derivation would need one of these things:-

The root pug travelled from Sanskrit to Tamil, not the other way.

The root pug travelled very early from ancestral Dravidian to common Indo-European.

The root pug travelled very early from common Indo-European to ancestral Dravidian.

The root pug came from a common ancestor of common Indo-European and ancestral Dravidian: see Nostratic.

The new controversial theory that the Indo-European languages originated in India.

Coincidence.

>>

Yahussain 04:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Yahussain, why the ---- would it be reasonable to assume that a basic word like fuck reached English through a Dravidian language? How many Dravidian derived words are there in English at all(?)--I suspect very few and those that there are, of quite recent origin steming from the British imperial period in India.

Monty Python

I removed a couple of Monty Python attributions that i believe were wrong.

glauber 00:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

fuck

fuck means cojeme, in spanish

   - Good for you.

Cojer in Castilian Spanish means to catch, but in South American Spanish means to fuck. Thus a perfectly innocent phrase in Castilian, Quiero cojer el bus (I want to catch the bus) is frequently met with the ironic rejoinder, Por el caño? (Up the exhaust?)

Nuttyskin 01:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

vfd

Done in haste out of shock. reverted to pre vandalized state.

Mikereichold 21:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Edward VII quote

I removed this statement: In 1900, Albert Edward, Prince of Wales said, "Fuck it, I've taken a bullet" when he was shot while standing on a Brussels railway platform. I'm fairly sure it's bogus and was unable to verify on Google. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 17:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

A question of appropriateness

I don't have anything against the word "fuck," in fact it's often quite useful (and perhaps even appropriate). However, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Any particular reason we need an entire article on it? I mean, it's used in some rather, ahem, interesting ways, but seriously. Wiktionary anyone? - JustinWick 04:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that the word has enough cultural significance that it merits an entry in Wikipedia as well as Wiktionary. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 05:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

In that case, we should get some non-dictionary content in here... this looks like a bloated version of an OED entry (and not even as good) - JustinWick 08:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Cockney Rhyming Slang

Should the cockney Rhyming Slang 'Donald Duck' be added? Gretnagod 03:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, no, it is non-notable and unencyclopedic trivia. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

But cockney rhyming slang is used throughout the Anglo-Saxon world, particularly Australia. And, considering you admit is is solely your opinion, don't you admit you were a bit hasty in reverting the edit? Gretnagod 03:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

In fact, if you really want an adminship, surely you should try to culture other members as your current addiction to reverting as many edits, as quicky as possible, doesn't seem to be doing you any favours. Gretnagod 03:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I see the trolls are in a bit early tonight.  :) Monkeyman 03:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

What I am really getting at is that I think a decent Cockney Rhyming slang debate needs to be considered, that's all. Gretnagod 01:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

What encyclopedia have you ever read that has a whole section dedicated to the word Fuck or conotations or ryhmes thereof? It's pretty simple, it's a slang word used for one thing in the 21st century...slang. Slang != Encylcopedia. -Moocats 18:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

True, but then again how many encyclopedias have you read that have a section on things as obscure as quotes from cartoons that are only used once, ie Can't sleep, clown will eat me? Gretnagod 21:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

...it's probably worth noting that that article is up for deletion. We're dealing with the line of what's encyclopedic and what's not here. I tend to agree with Ch'marr (below) -- even if Cockney rhyming slang is sufficiently notable to have an article to itself (as I beleive that it is), that doesn't mean that every other article that could possibly contain a reference to Cockney rhyming slang has to do so. If that were Wikipedia-wide policy, articles would become clogged with barely-relevant information. Hbackman 01:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Can't sleep, clown will eat me -- Agreed. Hbackman 04:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

For one, I'm Australian, and I've never heard that particular rhyming slang. -- Ch'marr 23:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I would also point to Cockney rhyming slang - surely if it is accepted as an entry then any other article that relates to that entry should have something in it saying so? Gretnagod 21:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to be the case with the other entries. For example Britney Spears is mentioned in the Cockney rhyming slang article, but there's no mention of it on the Britney Spears page. Ie, notability is not necessarily communititve. -- Ch'marr 21:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Strange Reference

There is a video on the internet called "History of the F--- Word". It's quite accurate.

No it is not. The imfamous pre-www F-Word audio piece, and the flash movie that someone made to go with it (complete with erroneous attribution to Monty Python) is a humour piece. While it does make some sound observations, it is far from historically accurate. Fuck is a centries-old word, of which the origins are not known with any certainty. —StationaryTraveller 01:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Normal usage in modern world

In the gay world the word fuck seems to be the normal way to describe anal intercourse and intercourse with another guy. The act of fucking and being fucked, just seems normal. Could be in the straight world too *shrugs* — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayKeaton (talk • contribs)

I have to say I'm not quite sure what you're after here... I think that fucking is normal regardless of sexual orientation, as is referring to intercourse by using the word "fucking..." Hbackman 23:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

He means, unlike in straight sex, gay sex differentiates. If a straight guy says "I fucked this girl" it means they had sex, but if a gay guy says "I fucked this guy" it means he topped - ie, he was the penetrator in anal sex, and not the penetratee. Conversely, "I was fucked by this guy" means that you were the penetratee, whereas a girl could say "I fucked this guy" while being the penetratee. Joey 18:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguity

"The etymology of fuck has given rise to a great deal of speculation, which should be regarded skeptically." So is it the etymology itself which we should regard skeptically or the subsequent speculation? It is unclear from context which reading was intended. - IstvanWolf 22:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"Usage of Fuck"

A few things I need to clarify about the "Usage of Fuck" bit:

1) This is not "based on" anything from any George Carlin album I've listened to, any George Carlin HBO Special I've watched, or any part of any George Carlin book I've read. Now, granted, there is one HBO Special I haven't seen, but I have listened to the album version of that special. Carlin talks about words and language in general, "swear words" in particular, and the word "fuck" specifically. These points are not in debate. However, this "Usage of Fuck" bit appears to be purely modelled after educational records and grammar lessons, and the word "fuck" happens to be the subject. Many comedians, authors, public speakers, etc have discussed and dissected the word, and portions of the routine in question is no doubt based on some of those works, however I cannot find anything from Carlin's body of work which it resembles. It does, however, closely resembles a Bowser and Blue routine called "The Use of the Word 'Fuck' in Canada", but I'm pretty sure the Bowser and Blue piece was written after this bit.

2) On the other hand, because Carlin has discussed the word at great length, it has commonly been mis-attributed to him on various peer-to-peer networks and services. Any Carlin fans who were frequent users of Napster when it was new (and free, and actually useful) likely came across a handful of copies of a file called "George Carlin - Usage of Fuck.mp3".

In summary, can we please have Carlin's name mentioned in this only by virtue of the fact that some nitwits on the internet don't know what the hell they're talking about? He had nothing to do with it, and it's not based on his work. - Ugliness Man 14:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The link that I cited claimed that it was originally a short routine by Carlin that was expanded. I have to say that it sounds familiar. There are, however, many other assertions. There's one that it was Lenny Bruce (probably just on the basis of the profanity). The majority of assertions are that it was Monty Python (possible if it was one of their touring items from the 80s, but doubtful) or Carlin (it's close to Calin's style from 7 words, and certainly he did a LOT of standup that I've never heard over the years). There's even a long list of lyrics sites that claim the text is from an "unknown" Adam Sandler album.... Still, I've cited what I consider to be the most reasonable seeming source. What's yours? I think it's a mistake to assume that just because you've listened to his HBO specials and read his books that you're aware of the full body of his work over the course of decades. Then again, a lot of cruft is associated with Carlin that he never said. -Harmil 16:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

He has stated on his website that there are many things floating around the internet that are attributed to him that he had nothing to do with. He goes on to state that if the material being attributed to him does not appear on one of his albums, in one of the HBO Specials, or in one of his books, then it's not him. In reverse, this means that being familiar with all his recorded and printed material can say with at least a bit of authority whether or not the "Usage of Fuck" routine is - even loosely - based on something that is genuinely his. Unless you can cite a specific section of a specific book, or a specific track of a specific album, the claim that this piece was based on anything by him is mostly baseless. It would be like giving Weird Al some sort of credit for a Bob Rivers parody, based simply on the fact that Al is best known for parody. The onus is not on me to "prove" that it's not based on a Carlin work, since proving such a negative would involve nothing less than me quoting all of his work and noting the absense. The onus is on someone making that claim to point to the genuine Carlin work it is supposedly based on, rather than a vague reference to his general themes. - Ugliness Man 16:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

First off, remember that this is not an adversarial process. I'm not putting the onus on you to prove anything so much as cite your sources. If you can cite a quote from his site that says that a routine of his was not the basis for this, then fine, but you put text in the article which specifically says that neither Python nor Carlin were the original source, and I'm saying that we don't know that for sure. It seems that you agree, but feel there's strong reason to believe that at least Carlin may not have been the source. Ok, fair. Still, the text that you added to the page and the citation given don't agree with your statements here. Let's just clear that up, and get something short (since it's an external link entry) into the article that accurately reflects what we know, not what be believe. -Harmil 18:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Now you're talking in circles. Out of 18 albums, 13 HBO Specials and 4 books, I'm supposd to "cite a source" that something wasn't said in any of these 35 items? You claim this isn't adversarial, but we appear to have reached a paradox. The phrase "Elementary, my dear Watson" never appeared in any of the original Sherlock Holmes books. The only "source" I could really cite would be the complete bibliography of all of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Holmes books. Someone may be able to prove that something is contained within a body of work like that, but how does one "prove" that something isn't contained within it? You want a source? First, check the trivia section on the George Carlin article. Read the first item. Second, the quote from Carlin's official site to which that item is referring: "Here's a rule of thumb, folks: Nothing you see on the Internet is mine unless it came from one of my albums, books, HBO shows, or appeared on my website." Therefore if someone says that something didn't come from him, and someone else says that it did come from him, the second person is the one who should be required to "cite a source". If that isn't enough for you, I don't think anything will be. - Ugliness Man 22:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

John Cena

I just wanted to mention that I support the removal of the John Cena mention... then again, I'm biased because I can't stand pro wrestling. However, if it is really considered noteworthy, it might be better as a mention in the articles for minced oath or euphemism rather than here. - Ugliness Man 11:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

delete

This article should be removed. It is a vile use of the internet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.4.203.75 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 20 April 2006.

Wikipedia is not censored. Hbackman 06:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Strongly agree with you, Hbackman! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 21:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, I like that comment :-D Don't use the Net that way... Medico80 11:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Fuck Truck

You say "please don't be so hostile". I'm sorry if I sound hostile. I think Wikipedia is a potentially valuable resource that is being trivialized in almost every corner by the addition of garbage. NOT: "you are garbage", but "fuck truck" is garbage.

It's interesting that you would use the word "consensus" when in fact the result of the vote was "no consensus". This is a fundamental problem with Wikipedia, in that the only people who CARE about articles are those who are passionately attached to trivia, so articles stand when no rational person could possibly believe in them. It's TRIVIA.

There's no possible way that this bus service is notable in any way, shape or form; most students of the institutions involved have never heard of it, let alone the wider audience. Be that as it may. The article was allowed to stand, stupidly. But the connection to the phrase "fuck truck" has NO CURRENCY with anyone. The discussion made it clear that even among Wellesley students, almost none of them use the term. And Wikipedia is not for Wellesley students. Nor is it a repository for funny stuff that was in Rolling Stone.

The phrase "fuck truck" illuminates NOTHING about the word "fuck". It's not even the primary usage of the phrase! Admittedly, it's barely in the top twenty of things that are wrong with this article, but it is profoundly exemplary of those problems. Its inclusion is in reference only to the sniggering, would-be-transgressive trivial remarks. It doesn't illuminate any cultural trend; it doesn't say anything about college life; it doesn't say anything about the growth of language. It doesn't resonate, period. The redirect to the Senate Bus remains in place. But putting it here? It's funny. If you go to Wellesley. Period.

I'm not anti-"fuck" (or anti-fuck for that matter); I've used the word in conversation more times than you've had hot dinners. I've even giggled over "fuck truck" a few times -- though not in reference to anything taking place in Cambridge or Somerville. I just want this article -- and Wikipedia -- to not suck so hard. Every day I look things up -- important things -- and they're not here. Why isn't the energy being directed there instead of jokes in "fuck"? Because this is the very definition of sophomoric. "Fuck" is giggles, and an exaggerated sense of freedom. "Fuck truck" is the kind of thing that belongs on Urban Dictionary or I Love Bacon or some such college-humor site.

So: keep your fucking fuck truck. But know that Wikipedia is just a little tiny bit stupider because of it. I'm not hostile, and I'm not mad. I'm just disappointed.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fnarf999 (talk • contribs) 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, obviously I disagree. As a graduate of one of the insitututions served by the fuck truck I can tell you that it is a well known piece of collegiate lore. Beyond that, the term meets a conventional guideline for notability because if its inclusion in a national publication. I completely agree with you that the fuck truck is trivial, but it does seem that notability has been established (something can be notable and trivial -- see wikipedia's extensive coverage of soap operas for example). Moreover, if you read the article in question, you will see that it directly responds to your argument that the "fuck truck" says nothing about college life. In fact, it says quite a bit about the experience of attending a single-sex institution such as Wellesley this day in age -- the stereotypes, the inconvenience of co-ed socializing, etc. That said, if you really think the Wellesley College Senate Bus is so non notable, why don't you nominate it for deletion? Interestingstuffadder 06:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I won't nominate it because such a nomination has no chance of success. The vast portion of the population that has never heard of it and would regard its inclusion in an encyclopedia will never even see the controversy, and the only ones who care are partisans of the article. But it cheapens Wikipedia. How many other college shuttles are there in the world? Thousands? I know the University of Washington here in Seattle has one. I'm sure it has a funny nickname too -- I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear that it's "fuck truck". Should it be in the encyclopedia? No. But my experience has been it's almost impossible to get garbage articles out of Wikipedia because a significant percentage of Wikipedia editors prefer garbage. But more to the point of "fuck truck" -- you can't be serious. The tragedy of Wellesley students' difficulty in procuring sex partners is possibly a matter of concern and interest, and belongs in an article about Wellesley. It doesn't belong in an article about "fuck". The Rolling Stone article confers a VERY small amount of notoriety onto Wellesley, but none on the word "fuck". This article is an abomination; it's one of the worst articles on Wikipedia. It's at least 50% garbage, and "fuck truck" is part of that 50%. Tragic. Fnarf999 15:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

What exactly does wikipedia lose by erring on the side of inclusiveness? Interestingstuffadder 22:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

In this case, credibility. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Popular usage

Firstly, this section seems like it should be "Usage in Popular Culture", not "Popular Usage". Be that as it may - both movie titles that were used as examples of using the word "fuck" in the title do NOT actually USE the word in the title! The titles are "S.F.W." which STANDS for "So Fucking What," and "Totally F***ed Up". If anything these titles speak as a testament to the fact that even in art the word is frequently censored due to it's explicity. Can anyone cite a film that uses the UNCENSORED word in the title? Pacian 20:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't there some concert film (by the Beastie Boys, perhaps?) recently released that was called something like Fucking Awesome, I Filmed That!? Hbackman 04:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

There is indeed. Hbackman 04:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I gotta say, I can't sleep at the moment, and this page is very funny late night humor.

sorry!

That deletion was an accident, my browser seems to have a problem with really long text boxes. :( INVERTED 21:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Nomination

This nomination is ridiculous. Fuck is a well established and long running article on Wikipedia. An IP Vandal should not be able to stop that. --Alphachimp ^talk 03:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Use of images

I removed the image, shown at left, from the lead-in section of the article. I don't think that it adds anything to the content of the article, although it is contextually important. If someone wanted to write a section (or maybe there already is on some article..) on the use of hand signs to represent terms such as "fuck you", it would be appropriate. If anyone has any objections to this removal, please voice them here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wes! (talk • contribs)

I also have removed the image to the right. While the picture was placed in the popular usage section and contained a useful caption ("in the United States, a middle finger symbolizes the word fuck"), the image has countless artifacts and irregularities. I'm still not convinced that showing a picture of a hand gesture is appropriate without fully explaining the use of hand gestures. A link to the finger is more in line with the article's needs. Wes! &#149; ^T_c 18:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

About time to archive?

This page is getting rather long.PierceG 21:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Shaun Ryder and Channel 4

I'm not sure how to add a citation to the article, but the bit about Shaun Ryder being banned from appearing live on Channel 4 is in the Channel 4 Compliance Manual:

http://www.channel4.com/corporate/4producers/resources/documents/ComplianceManual.pdf (From: http://www.channel4.com/corporate/4producers/resources/resources-guidelines.html )

It's on page 108 (appendix 6, section 3.8):

Please note that the Channel 4 Board has undertaken to the ITC that Shaun Ryder will not appear live on Channel 4.

FredOrAlive 12:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Carlin Confusion

This has been dealt with before on a handful of articles, but people are still having trouble with the concept...

More popularly published is his famous "Filthy Words" routine, better known as "Seven Words You Can Never Say On Television."

No. Just to be clear, I'll say it again... No. People keep wanting to claim that either Carlin has performed only one routine on the subject, and it keeps getting referred to by several names, or that he's responsible for every routine on the subject. Please allow me to offer a basic history lesson. The routine called "Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television" was on the 1972 album Class Clown. Incidentally, the title of that track links to the Seven dirty words article, which is something that anyone keeping an eye on this article should also check out. A different routine, dealing with the same subject matter, called "Filthy Words", appeared on his 1973 album Occupation: Foole. It was the "Filthy Words" routine which got played on WBAI and led to a legal kerfuffle. A lot of this article is already a mess, and I don't know what would be the best way to edit that particular paragraph, except to suggest that someone with better editing skills give it a complete overhaul. The following details might help... Variations on the three comments mentioned in the paragraph, which I will refer to as "make fuck, not kill", "Sheriff" and "fuck the ump", appeared on the two albums mentioned, as well as his first two HBO specials, 1977's George Carlin at USC, and 1978's George Carlin: Again!. Here's a breakdown on which comment actually appeared in which routine:

• Seven Words... contained "Sherriff".
• Filthy Words contained "fuck the ump".
• Both HBO specials contained "make fuck not kill" and "Sherriff".

I wonder, would there be some way for me to provide a transcription of the three routines for the sake of clarity and verification, without violating copyright? The Occupation: Foole routine is already transcribed in the Text of the FCC v. Pacifica Foundation decision, so I would only need to be transcribing the other two. - Ugliness Man 12:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

First rock song

Really? ’67? That seems kind of late to me…

Wiki Wikardo 08:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Level of vandalism

There is WAY too much vandalism on this article. --User: Arniep

Yes, but it reveals the extent of a typical vandal's vocabulary. PrometheusX303 02:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Dutch Connection

Ave.

It is also a possibility that the word "Fuck" in its connotation to sex comes from the dutch word "fokken", which means to breed with animals. This in turn is derived from the sanskrit word which means "to grow" (Farm)

The Dutch connection is plausible, but unproven, the Sanskrit connection seems more unlikely, I might be wrong, but I think a Sanskrit cognate would look like "puj". Which Sanskrit word are you talking about, and where did you read it? 惑乱 分からん 16:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"Fuck" means...

Fornication under control of the king.

It is an era when the Englsih population hit the bottom. Therefore King ordered prostitutes and other prisoners to be fornicated and the offsprings be raised in Englsih society. So..that all you get what I mean. 155.185.114.230 09:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, please don't be so "liberal" with spaces and capital letters, it made your comment quite unappealing and weirdly formatted.

Second, this incorrect origin of the word is already covered in the "False etymologies" section of the article. Like about a dozen other stories that might seem reasonable on the surface, it's just simply not where the word actually comes from. - Ugliness Man 11:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please fix

The date 2002 needs to be changed to 2003 in the reference to Kerry and his interview with Rolling Stone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.238.65 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --ElKevbo 16:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} only works when the article isn't semi-protected or the user isn't an ip. Mak (talk) 06:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

you are all wrong the word originates from norse/norman law of primogeniture (the first son inherits)under feudal law a writ was issued to allow a nobleman to have sex with a woman this writ came from his liege lord which eventually lead to the ultimate lord which was the king. christianity forbade premartial sex.In olde english (a mixture of scandanavian,german,latin and norman french to name but a few)this writ was known to the common people as fornication under council of king.basically so the conquering norman lords could "breed out" the native britons and saxons possibly the first ethnic cleansing. p.s. before william the conquer invaded england in 1066 he was known as william the bastard lucky he won huh?

For about the zillionth time, that is one of the many false etymologies. It makes for an interesting story, and has bits and pieces of fact interwoven, but it's not the origin of the word. Please read the actual article before perpetuating these urban myths, and if you do choose to continue discussing the article here, please sign your comments. - Ugliness Man 12:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

New wikipedia link

Hey, for the 2.5.1 German section, you may want to link to the wikipedia article on the town of Fucking, Austria Fucking, Austria —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.62.94.182 (talk • contribs) 19 July 2006 (UTC)

A good way to get banned

Change every instance of "Fuck" to "F***" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.23.170.130 (talk • contribs) 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Rise of modern usage

I just removed some unnecessary elaboration on Vonnegut's novel "The Big Space Fuck", as it is unrelated to the topic and at best would require its own entry. What I left is as follows:

"The first short story to include fuck in its title was probably Kurt Vonnegut's "The Big Space Fuck", originally published in 1972. Exhibiting Vonnegut's characteristic blend of pessimism and humor, this story tells of a polluted and overpopulated Earth. On midnight, 4 July 1989, the United States fires the Arthur C. Clarke, a missile whose warhead contains eight hundred pounds of freeze-dried semen, aiming at the Andromeda Galaxy."

I left the brief plot outline as it appears to offer some justification of the title, though I wonder if that itself is necessary?--Pseudosocrates 19:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This article should be deleted

I do not see the point in this article. Think about it ... what logical person comes onto Wikipedia to look up the word 'Fuck'? I mean really? Ok ok so your probley wondering how I got to this page? Well I wanted to see if Wikipedia actually did have an article on this (I guess that's how most people discovered it) and they did. But who is really going to spend 10 minutes reading this whole article on the meaning and origins of the word fuck? More than half of the edits to this article are Vandels (even if they are Wikipedia Users). Do we REALLY need this article? User:Decimal10^{Talk to me!} 06:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Clearly a lot of people look at this article, and have worked on it, as you can tell by the fact that it has had a peer review, people have tried to get it featured, and it's been cited as a source for a media outlet. It's a popular word with strong associations, making it a logical word to have an article on. If we didn't have one, one would soon be created. Mak (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Fuck is one of the most curious, controversial, interesting and arguably important words in English and somewhat of a cultural icon. There is no way this article is ever going to be deleted. Yes, we do need this article. mstroeck 21:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Another possible origin?

I had read a long time ago that "fuck" was based on "fock", a Medieval-era farming word meaning "to plow". This seems like a very logical explanation, as it isn't hard to imagine farmers using it as a humourous and/or coarse euphemism for sex.

Unfortunately, I no longer remember where I read it, as it was well over a decade ago. (Maybe Playboy?) Anyway, has anyone else heard of this explanation? Coyotewrw 20:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

addition of fword.mp3

How about this?

fword.mp3

Heh. oTHErONE 06:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Video Games

Since this page documents the earliest uses of "fuck" in rock records, TV shows and in movies, why not discuss its gradual acceptance in video games? (From appearing in in-game songs in "Crazy Taxi", to being used throughout game dialogue like in "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas"?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejk81 (talk • contribs) 13:10, July 29, 2006 (UTC)

Got any good sources discussing this topic? --ElKevbo 18:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Just the games themselves... Emile 19:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you'd need more than that to discuss "its gradual acceptance in video games." It sounds interesting and I'd love to see you (or anyone else) add something to the article if there are good sources from which we can add information! --ElKevbo 19:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll go ahead and create a section on its earliest uses, and others can contribute more detailed information with the necessary references if they can.Emile 20:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It's done. Additional contributions are welcome, particularly if anyone knows of other examples of the word in a video game that I haven't cited.Emile 21:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

In the spirit of collegiality, I'll let it sit out there a few days to see if anyone else has anything else to add. But the whole thing looks like a mess of original research to me... --ElKevbo 21:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is a need to remove these references right away. Millions and millions of people have played those games, any inaccuracies would very probably soon be discussed here. mstroeck 21:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, it's all verifiable fact, I'm not spouting personal theories. If anything I wrote is false, I'd like for it to be corrected. But I think the topic itself has its place in the article. Emile 00:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Technically, Crazy Taxi is NOT the first game to use the F-word. There is some rather strong language in the 1998 PC RPG Fallout 2, including the liberal use of 'fuck'. Not sure on Fallout 1. Also, long before San Andreas' heavy use of the word it was also very present in Rockstar's other game, Manhunt- though I doubt that really broke the barrier like SA did (Manhunt sold quite poorly.) 72.49.248.114 01:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)dethtoll

What about Leisure Suit Larry? Surely you must be able to find examples from the 80's? 惑乱 分からん 00:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I edited the article because the video game section was completely wrong. Not wanting to criticise too much, but claiming Craxy Taxi was the first game to use "fuck" is not only several years off the mark (at least) it shows no attempt at any sort of research. 210.84.63.222 09:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Norwegian term (fokk)

This term is also used in French for the same use: a sail; but it's written in another way, Foc. I din't know if it would be good to add it in the "Interlingual homophony" section.

Loanword from Dutch, it seems. I think French borrowed a lot of their maritime vocabulary from Germanic anyway (specifically Dutch and Low Saxon. 惑乱 分からん 16:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What did Cheney say?

"In June 2004, US Vice President Dick Cheney told Senator Patrick Leahy to either "fuck off" or "go fuck yourself" ..." Why is it not known what he exactly said? Medico80 11:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I remember clearly that he said "Go fuck yourself." 72.49.248.114 01:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)dethtoll

Forget Cheney man, now W. is the potty mouth according to a leaked video on his thoughts of Israel and Palestine.

Pronunciation

Should there be a pronunciation next to the word? How does one pronounce this "fuck"? Bcem2 22:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC) ( :

Swedish

I would like to make it clear that fuck in Swedsih doesn't have the same meaning as in English. It can only be used as an interjection, or in the expression 'Fuck you"'. 217.211.209.236 20:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

What? The modern word is a loanword. When it's used as a verb/adjective, it usually corresponds to senses like "fucked up". 惑乱 分からん 22:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

fuck man

Meaningless invective

Could someone add that "fuck" is also a meaningless invective in many cases. Someone who returns to their car and finds a tire slashed might yell "fuck!" and simply calling it an interjection is not sufficient.

Anime picture

I believe the picture of the word fuck being used in a japanese cartoon is useless and should be deleted. -Kevin

Boondock Saints

I would propose that the examples in the article's introduction be shortened to use the more efficient example from the movie

Rocco: Fucking... What the fuck. Who the fuck fucked this fucking... How did you two fucking fucks... [shouts]

Rocco: fuck!

Connor: Well, that certainly illustrates the diversity of the word.

I didn't say it would be the best choice, just that it's a good representation.

Citation: Duffy, Troy (1999). The Boondock Saints.

Bloodrayne

The video game, Bloodrayne, used the word "fuck" verbally (voice acting) and text (subtitles) during a couple of cutscenes. This game was released way before Grand Theft Auto Vice City or San Andreas, so it should be mentioned.

F-bomb

A recent edit removed the reference to the term "f-bomb" on the basis that "most people" don't say it. I'm not sure if what "most people" say should be a criteria of whether or not something is noteworthy. I hear it quite often on CBC Radio, any time the subject of censorship and such comes up in an interview, especially on Brave New Waves (a show where they're allowed to play songs with swear words, uncensored). Then again, since CBC is Canadian, I wouldn't be surprised if it "doesn't count", since we all know that only American media matters. - Ugliness Man 18:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It should be there under "minced versions" or something but should not have first-paragraph precedence.24.165.210.213 07:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Monty Python Video Link

The link to the flash movie is inappropriate for encyclopedic inclusion. Although it provides examples of "proper" slang usage of fuck in the English language, it is riddled with inaccuracies. Most notable is their claim at the beginning of the film that fuck comes from the German "frichen." As our article here at wiki claims, and as a German dictionary will quickly illucidate, the correct word is "fichen," if there is a connection to the German at all. I have deleted the link, as it doesn't provide justifiable cultural or acadmic content to our work.

The article is about the correct etymology (as far as it is known), as well as the phenomena surrounding the word. The fact that there are countless incorrect or questionable etymologies is worth mention. Linking to this item is not the same as claiming that it's accurate, it's simply a bit of satire, related to the word, that has become popular, and is therefore worth a mention. I squeezed the link under the sound file from which it originated (which has been part of the article for a long time). And by the way, it's not Monty Python. - Ugliness Man 00:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised that the study of insects enters into this discussion at all. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

STFU :P - Ugliness Man 00:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The German term "Schuhe ficken" is wrong

I am from Germany and I had to laugh about the German term "Schuhe ficken". There is no such term. The right term is "Schuhe wichsen" for polishing shoes. "Wichsen" is in German a word for masturbation. I think the right term in English is "to jerk off".

Family Guy usage

Reportedly an uncensored use of the word occurred in initial broadcasts of the 2006-07 season premiere of Family Guy on Fox. The story goes that a dubbing error resulted in a use of the word being left unbleeped by mistake in East Coast broadcasts but this was corrected in time for the West Coast broadcast. I read about this on a few newsgroups but obviously there needs to be a more reputable source before adding this to the article. Anyone see any media coverage of this? 23skidoo 13:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I read somewhere that the episode went uncensored in Canada and that is where these clips of Family Guy came from. I saw the episode in Florida and it did not say "fuck" when I saw it live so I doubt the East Coast theory. Gdo01 18:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It is on the episode Petarded, where Brian uses the word twice. I have the dvd box set on which it is uncensored, although it should be said that the box set is rated MA15+ (restricted to 15 yrs or older unless accompanied by an adult) in Australia, unlike the other dvd box sets of the series being rated M15+ (recommended 15 yrs or older). I am not sure whether or not it was censored or not on the TV broadcast of the episode, however as Family Guy is shown at 10:30pm on free-to-air tv, it was most likely uncensored. Spec ops commando 08:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Contextual Usage

The "contextual usage" section of the article seems utterly useless to me, and has the feel of a giddy immature "Dude! We can say 'fuck' on the Wiki!" piece to me. I think it should be taken out. Comments? - Corporal Tunnel 19:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, to me that section (as well as several other parts of the article) sound like that woefully incorrect "History of the F-Word" video. I've gone ahead and removed ones that are variations (fuck, fuck you, fuck yourself) or are just stupid (fuck the fucking fuckers). Motherfucker and Uncle Fucka are already mentioned in See Also, so I've removed them as well. I'd like to see for fuck's sake, fuckhead, and fucktard go as well, but I don't have an idea as to how widespread they are so I've left them. The fact that an Australian Premier is quoted as using fuckwit was enough to tip the balance toward its inclusion, but only just. Fuck off and fuck up, I think, are both widespread and distinct enough to warrant mention somewhere, if not here. Strad 17:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

cleanup tag

Cleanup tag added for:

1. Poor quality, in general, of prose. The article devolves into little more than an accumulation of lists toward the end.
2. Weasel word language in explanations.
3. Inconsistent formatting of sub-sections.

- Davodd 20:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The Finnish Equivalent to Fuck

In the finnish language, the word "vittu" is teh equivalent to the word fuck. It can be used to refer to the female sexual organ, it can be used to descirbe somebody/something and it pretty much has all the properties as the word fuck. The largest difference is that "vittu" can't be used to refer to sexual intercourse. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ardzu (talk • contribs) .

Sanskrit and Etymology

I am not a linguist, nor do I have verifiable sources to support my opinion. However, it is my opinion that Fuck is likely to be cognate with the Sanskrit Bhogam and related words, using the following rules Bh -> f, g -> k, final m droppped. Bhogam is a more "refined" word than fuck, and means bliss or ecstacy, either sexual or religious. However, derivative words such as sambhogam (vaginal sex), swayambhogam (masturbation) are, for practical purposes, exclusively sexual. Bhogam also has other cognates which refer to kingship and kingly power, and commanding. So, in addition to the pleasure and sexual aspect of the word, there is also the power/submission aspect which is present in the word fuck as well. Of course this could be a false cognate instead of a genuine one. However, it is perhaps a rather clear false cognate to Indian speakers. I am hoping that someone is able to write this up in a way that I cannot, without it being original research. If not, well, that's the way it goes. 24.91.136.214 11:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Spanish translation totally wrong!!!

Hi there.

Reading this article, I notice that the guy who edited the Spanish part comes definitely from somewhere in Latinamerica (or learned South American Spanish). This is of course fine, but there are some things to take into account.

• First of all, the word is misspelled. It is written "coger", not "cojer". Somehow most of southamericans misspell a lot of words. This is one of them.
• Second, the word "coger" in Spain means just "take" (take something, take the bus, etc) or "grab" (grab something). It has never the meaning of "fuck". Only in South America this words means "fuck".

IMO, it might be more convenient to modify the article as follows:

In Spanish, the closest translation would be "follar" or "joder". Both of them have the meaning of having sex, and "¡Joder!" as a single word can be also used as an exclamation (like "Fuck!") to show almost everything (surprise, annoy, admiration, etc).

However, in Latinamerican Countries there are other words which are more appropriate: "coger", "cachar" (Peru), "chingar" (Mexico).

My two cents!