Talk:Cunt/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Google search

Doing a Google search for "What defines an English person?" gives a rather unusual result — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.68.7 (talk) 12:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not see why a topical event that will be forgotten in a month should be included under the encyclopaedic definition of this word. I recommend this section be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wearmysocks (talk • contribs) 09:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it needs removing Twobells (talk) 13:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Deleted section, the actual entry was now pulling searches to it compounding the problem.Twobells (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Why delete the section just because it was bringing traffic to the page? See here, it's none of our business if Google's had a slight indexing problem, removing parts of the article is pointless and destructive. People will come to the page and look for information on why it's number 1 in the search anyway, so there's more reason to have the paragraph than to delete it. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) ^Merry_Xmas! 14:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

A forum and a blog does not equate significant coverage, so until some reliable sources indicate this incident is important there's no point in having it in the article. Nev1 (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Added some more sources, the story is all over the web! An official Google employee also confirmed the fact, so I don't know how the sources before weren't reliable. But still, I added some more (so now there's a variety of websites). --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) ^Merry_Xmas! 15:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The issue wasn't whether or not it was true, but whether it is significant. A blog and a forum don't indicate it's important, and a couple of news stories on search optimisation sites don't go much further to be honest. If and when it gets picked up by the mainstream press, there may be an argument to include it. Nev1 (talk) 15:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114783-Google-Vs-The-English Looks like it is starting to get picked up by more reliable/mainstream media. RafikiSykes (talk) 17:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The Escapist is hardly reliable, or noteworthy... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.182.22 (talk) 17:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind being referred to as a cunt, but I suggest that you replace the first occurrence of the word 'person' with the word 'individual' so that Google lowers the ranking of this page when searching for 'english person'. Tomun (talk) 23:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Other uses

user:Wolfkeeper has removed a very long-standing section with the following edit summaries: "is not a dictionary (only one distinct definition per article)", "nothing to discuss rv: already covered at cunt splice and cunt cap + violate WP:NAD". Firsly it is highly inappropriate to refuse to discuss on the Talk page when requested to do so. More importantly, these edit summaries betray a failure to understand the purpose of this article. This is an article about the history of a word. The word is the topic, so the concept of "one distinct definition per article" is quite different from an article about a thing. The history of the word and its evolution is central to the article, and that includes the evolution of its meanings and connotations. It is not an article about the one "definition" of Cunt as "female genitalia". If it were, it would be a redirect to other articles on that subject. If the 'other uses' section had been about wholly different meanings then deletion might have been appropriate, but they are about how the word's primary meaning has generated extensions of usage that retain the original sense as part of the connotation, and which derive from perceived similaries of objects to the shape of the female genitals. They are directly linked therefore to the purpose of the article. WP:NAD does not therefore apply in this case, at least not in any simple sense. We have to adapt our understanding of policy to the specific topic and purpose of each article, not apply it mechanically. In fact the relevant content for this article is not covered in the separate articles, nor should it be confined to them. Paul B (talk) 13:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics#Prithee for background. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. So this has nothing to do with making this article better, but has everything to do with ideological dogma. How sad. Paul B (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it's to do with making the Wikipedia actually work, and not having large overlaps between articles, and to try to not confuse users that may also be future editors as to what is actually appropriate here. This article is not correctly formed, and these parts of it are clearly off-topic and covered elsewhere. If you wish to write articles about words and create content overlaps, Wiktionary is probably where you need to be.- Wolfkeeper 00:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I also note in passing that you do not seem to be trying to write the best encyclopedia articles you can, and I find that very sad.- Wolfkeeper 00:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Cunt splice and cunt cap are both individual idiomatic terms that do not mean the same as cunt in any way. They are simply not the same topic.- Wolfkeeper 00:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Are you going to lay off the personal attacks and realise that the article is about the word and its uses? That's why we have an "Etymology" section right up front. Such articles can properly deal with derived meanings, and thousands do. It was difficult enough keeping the vandals at bay before the article was indefinitely semi-protected, but to have unhelpful criticism coming from within is a distinct {{trout}} to those of use who have spent many hours trying to make it defensible. Rodhullandemu 00:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Such delicate feelings for such a robust article. I don't buy it. Look, per WP:LEAD the topic in wiki articles is defined in the intro, first couple of sentences. This intro says it's about the vulgarity, but the cunt cap and cunt splices are not vulgar, so they are, according to the article itself already off-topic, and the disamb page that is linked at the top already points to them. So you don't need them in the article. Bingo! Shorter, more tightly focussed article.- Wolfkeeper 00:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with an article that is on one vulgarism, but if it's on a knot and a cap as well... big problem, particularly when it says the scope doesn't cover those.- Wolfkeeper 00:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to own this article, but I have put a great deal of effort into turning it from a free-for-all shed into a defensible article. As to the article not being about the word, the lead states "is a vulgarism" (surely implying that it is a word), and then continues to explain "generally referring to the female genitalia" (which explains its principal use) and then in the second paragraph of the lead introduces its derived use as a derogatory term. I don't see why this is a problem. By your analysis, you would have separate articles for each possible use of the word, and would then pick them off, one by one, and have them shuffled off to Wiktionary. That surely cannot be the intended purpose of an encyclopedia, which is to provide both breadth and depth for any particular topic, and also a well-sourced, well-argued and well-written resource for those who are interested enough to get past the capacity for personal offence (for whom we are not writing this work) and the sniggering juveniles. I think your approach is anathema to the purpose of an encyclopedia in providing information in relevant ways, and unduly restrictive; and that isn't a personal attack- it's a fair assessment of your attitude, which isn't new to me. You can argue all you like, but I have yet to see you achieve consensus for any of your proposals; in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I can only assume that you are barking up the wrong tree, or perhaps just barking. Rodhullandemu 01:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't really have time for this, but I have changed vulgarism in the lead (because it's a piss-poor and completely unsourced article for which I've conditionally proposed deletion) and replaced it with wikt:Vulgarism, which is much closer to what we should be doing here. This isn't rocket science, as the guys at NASA continue to insist. It just requires a little thought, and commitment to getting it right. Sadly, it sometimes seems that there's just me when it comes to doing this sort of thing. Rodhullandemu 01:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

That's quite a tirade. Let's see, WP:NPA, WP:OWN, WP:AGF WP:STALK any other behavioural policies you'd like to successfully tick off?- Wolfkeeper 02:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

"It just requires a little thought". That's all. Rodhullandemu 02:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

While we're at it, do you know what a WP:Content fork is?- Wolfkeeper 01:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Please cease edit-warring (reverting against consensus). Follow WP:BRD, and if that doesn't work, then WP:DR. Edit-warring just irritates everyone involved. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Please stop violating the policies of the wikipedia, WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia WP:ISNOT and guidelines such as WP:content fork. All of these things are covered elsewhere. Please stop engaging in pointless bad faith edits of the article. It is clear to me that you know the rules perfectly well, and you are obviously being deliberately disruptive to make a WP:POINT. Your attitude appears to be, well the policies say that.... but.... they don't really mean it. Yes they do. The policies are intended to work together to build an encyclopedia, not a dictionary.- Wolfkeeper 17:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• This is getting disruptive and going nowhere. Further input has been sought here. Rodhullandemu 18:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Hopefully they can explain things to him. This is as misguided as his Wikipedia:Featured article review/Macedonia (terminology)/archive1, and much since. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh huh. You know what? This is the only article I have ever seen in the Wikipedia that even has a derived section. Exactly which bit of WP:MOS is this from again? Oh wait, my bad, Wiktionary:Entry layout explained. Funny that.- Wolfkeeper 20:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

Thepm (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below. As the article is rather long, an explanation that includes diffs would be appreciated.

Viewpoint by Rodhullandemu

It's not possible to keep it that short, but I'll try. This article is about the word "cunt". As such, it starts with an etymological discussion, continues with historical uses, within and without literary sources (such as would be used as examples in the Oxford English Dictionary). Usage is developed into more modern literary and other cultural uses to illustrate varying attitudes to the word in recent history. The article deals with several oblique, yet obvious, references to the word to indicate both its unacceptability in normal usage yet its acceptability in "non-blatant" usages. All the foregoing indicates that this article is way beyond a mere dictionary definition and is therefore a valid inclusion within an encyclopedia. The particular point of dissent is proposed by only one editor who, it has to be said, has a track record of failing to recruit other editors towards his viewpoint; it boils down to whether, in an article offering an encyclopedic and well-sourced treatment of a word in the English language, whether a section of Derived Uses is appropriate. Consensus so far has been that it is. That leaves whether that section is a content fork. However, we have many, many, articles in which a section is headlined, followed by a {{seealso}} and then a brief discussion relevant to the topic of the current article, but perhaps less important to the linked article. Accordingly, it's not a fork, or a knife, or a spoon, of any type whatsoever. Wikilawyering is all very well, but does not address the needs of our readers, who should not be shuffled off to read other articles when all the information they are likely to require is focussed into one comprehensive article. As for diffs, it's a simple difference of opinion over this section, for which the article's edit history and the above discussion should suffice to explain. Rodhullandemu 22:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: The following was removed by Wolfkeeper as a reply to his comment. Although it makes the flow of discussion more difficult to follow, I replace it here:

On the latter point, this is because I have worked extensively on this article to turn it from an unsourced shed into a viable encyclopedia article, and have resisted vandalism and unsourced and irrelevant additions. Sorry if I'm only doing what I'm supposed to here. Rodhullandemu 23:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm increasingly of the opinion that even WP:3O isn't going to sort this one out; so be it. Best of luck, Thepm, but single-mindedness tends only to be resolved by WP:RFC or WP:ARBCOM. Your opinion, however, would still be welcome. Rodhullandemu 23:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Viewpoint by Wolfkeeper

In the article, there is/was a section called 'derived meanings' which contains several sections: Nautical usage, US military usage, Hot-metal printing and Others.

Of these

• 'Nautical usage' is a content fork of cut splice
• US Military usage is a content fork of garrison cap
• hot metal printing is a completely unreferenced section
• Other is a couple of other terms

None of these sections have any proven, verifiable etymological relationship to 'cunt' in the sense of female anatomy. and None of them are a use of 'cunt' as a derogatory term either, which is how the article is defined and scoped. Additionally, I couldn't even verify the 'hot metal printing' term at all, in any way shape or form. (I actually tried, google etc.)

In short, every single part of this derived meanings section is not verifiably derived from cunt (as opposed to be derived from another similar word- for example 'cut' as in cut splice), nor is it even claiming to be scoped in the article as it is defined in the introduction, nor is there even any mention of such a section in WP:MOS.

So I removed them, as far as I can tell entirely fairly and squarely, but rodhullandemu is edit warring them back in; repeatedly, while claiming that I am owning the article. Which is odd, because he's got about 100x more edits on this article than I do...

If he wants to stick a 'see also' to these articles, that's fine, but having mini off-topic articles is not fine.- Wolfkeeper 23:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion by Thepm

I'm currently reviewing the article and your comments. Under no circumstances should either editor make any changes or additions to the other editors viewpoint. Not even to clarify or respond to a point made there. I plan to respond in detail shortly. Thepm (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request (Disagreement on relevance of 'derived meanings):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Cunt and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

It does seem to me that the article is overly long. For example, there seem to be far too many examples of usage and some of the sections are over-wordy. In an article such as this, it's important to remove any perception that the article is written to be deliberately provocative or salacious. Use of the word 'cunt' should always be encyclopaedic and necessary. Having said that, it's clear that a great deal of very thoughtful and good faith editing has gone into the creation of this article. On balance, I think that the section 'derived usages' could easily be reduced to a list of derived usages, simply noted, carefully referenced and redirected to articles on that particular usage. For example there is currently a paragraph on 'cunt splice' that could be reduced to a bullet point reading "A cunt splice is a type of rope splice used to join two lines in the rigging of ships". That's my opinion. Hope it helps. Once again, many thanks to all involved here for creating a very fine article. What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next. Thepm (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)—Thepm (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

More variations

Maybe this is regional, but I've often heard 'cunt scab' in Southern Ontario. Most people I know consider that to be the most vulgar word of them all.

++In the section "Usage by Meaning" it talks about how it's applied to men and women. I believe that it's generally applied only to women in US English as a derogatory insult but in British English it's usually only applied to men. I don't have any citations for this - but the examples already given in the text seem to back this up. I think this should be referred to in the text. Is there any explanation for this diference in the two cultures I wonder. 109.154.100.168 (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Gay slang

This section of the article directs to the Wiki article on Ball culture as a reference. This is sufficient for sourcing of the information. If you feel it isn't, do not remove the entire section; add a tag saying that you feel the section needs a better source or citation. CouplandForever (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The correct origin of the word cunt

The slang word is derived from a nautical term dating at least to the middle ages. The term cuntline is used to describe the indentation between the strands of twisted rope. Sailors used to(and still do on boats that use rope rigging)place small twine in the cuntline in order to make the rope more even on that portion, it is then wrapped and sealed, this is done primarily on stretches of the rope that are subject to abrasion. Looking at these cuntlines you will notice the high similarity to the the womans groin and crotch line, through long usage it was shortened to cunt.

The term is easily verified in any older book dealing with sailing in the middle ages and later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Didereaux (talk • contribs)

It's not slang and it's not derived from cuntline. It's the other way round. Read the article. Paul B (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any RS references that this is a derived term, or which way the derivation went? It doesn't seem that there are any.- Wolfkeeper 18:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you really be quite this silly and disingenuous? (rhetorical question). Paul B (talk) 12:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected. It is from as far back as the cuneiform...kunta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.147.112 (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The derivation,in all likelihood, refers back to the cuneiform language which is dated back to 3500 B.C. in Ameria. The word cuneiform describes the symbol(s) which were hand struck ...basically a line with a wedge shape on one end. These were put together in a pattern to create a word or idea, not dissimilar to the way a Chinese character symbolizes an idea. Since the cuneiform language predates every other language and was used until the 1st century A.D. when it was finally and totally replaced by Aramaic (which began around 400 B.C. and obviously predates all "modern languages", it would seem that the "wedge" as part of the cuneiform symbol, when translated into the Latin word "cunnus" provides us with the words origin... that being a wedge or wedge shaped object. A pictogram turned into a word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Potsyloonie (talk • contribs) 21:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Another example of false etymology, I'm afraid. There may indeed be a connection, but not in the direction you suggest. The Latin word for "wedge" was cuneus, and the cuneiform script was so named (in the 17th century) because it used wedge-like symbols. Now, it's possible (and it has been suggested before) that the word "cunt" is related to (though not necessarily derived from) the Latin word for wedge, but if so, it is not a reference to the cuneiform script, which got its English name centuries after the word cunt was first used. In other words, your suggestion is akin to suggesting that Cumbria is named after the Cambrian Explosion. Incidentally, cuneiform does not "predate every other language". First, cuneiform is not a language, it's a writing system. It happens to be one of the oldest surviving writing systems, but that doesn't mean that the language first written in it is the oldest language. garik (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC) revised by garik (talk) 03:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, can you explain why my addition to the discussion was removed?

I posted earlier that Brute Splicers from BioShock 2 say the word "cunt". I thought it was a worthy addition, as it's not really a word seen in video games often. If it's not okay, fine, but give me a good reason.

I think another editor may not have though it relevant; however, the threshold for inclusion is some sort of relevance, and increasingly, as the word has become to be used in various media, that threshold has become higher as it becomes less and less surprising and shocking to some. This example would need a reliable source to have commented on its use to qualify for inclusion. Rodhullandemu 22:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me. I was over-hasty in removing it: I forgot that there was already a 'usage in video games' section, so your suggestion was indeed credible & relevant. But yeah, ideally there'd be some source (a review in a sizeable video game magazine perhaps?) that mentions this usage. Hadrian89 (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I had a reliable source up but it was deleted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCIIT16vwQ0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiHw-qHcyLA

This is Brute dialogue taken from the game. You'll hear the word a few times in the videos. I thought it was interesting, and it's honestly the first time I've hard the word in a video game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.103.64.110 (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Usage as synonym

More and more people start using "americunt" as a strong verbal abuse. --91.62.155.142 (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This would need a reliable source to show that its usage is widespread, e.g. a dictionary (not urbandictionary.com). Rodhullandemu 21:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

How many people have called Sarah Palin a cunt? Probably many thousands. Slavecunt would fit too. Strausszek (talk) 05:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Red Dead Redemption

Someone should add it was also used in the video game Red Dead Redemption a few times under the video game section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.86.162 (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Notable usage in video games is already covered; however, once the word has been so used, the case to mention later uses becomes increasingly weak and non-notable unless it creates a media or other reaction that is substantially more significant than previously. See WP:INDISCRIMINATE for the limits of inclusion here; we do not list each and every mention. Rodhullandemu 02:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Earliest Use in a Song?

It says that the first song on a major label to use the word was Sid Vicious's "My Way" in 1978. However, earlier that month the Dead Boys had released "We Have Come for Your Children". The final song on the album, "Ain't It Fun," contains the line, " Ain't it fun when you tell her she's just a cunt." Should this be mentioned in the article?

I guess one should check Frank Zappa/Mothers and early punk bands like MC5 or The Seeds for this too, if a first is required.

Cunny vs. cunt

Mightn't 'cunny' be mentioned somewhere as a term which could be used in a better class of gutter? Varlaam (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussed in "Usage: pre-20th century". Rodhullandemu 21:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Duh. I did do a quick string search, but I must have mistyped the string.

I guess I need to spend more time with this whole topic.

More familiarity with the subject under discussion! A thorough scientific investigation!

Varlaam (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

MAKING THE INTRODUCTION MORE CLEAR.

in the introduction it says things about britain, new zealand and australia as having a positive thing on cunt, but some people might not understand, so at the end put 'e.g (funny cunt)'

80.1.189.205 (talk) 23:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Cunt Origin

The vast amount of verbage written on the origin of the word "cunt" would be be unnescessary if only someone had consulted an English dictionary from the 1920s-1930s-1940s period. Because of so called humour about my surname during the later 1930s my brother and I looked up the word in our school dictionary. Here is what was read. "Cunt:- Agricultural tool used by reapers of the wheat. An open top sheath worn on the belt for holding the round sharpening stone used in sharpening or pricking the edge a scythe". In short,a sheath for a pricking stone. Our agricultural ancestors would be aware of the connotation between the sheath and the round stone.

D. Caunt Mr.

Never heard of it, but if you have a specific reference it might be added the derived meanings section. It's far more likely that that this usage is like 'cuntline', 'cunt cap' and 'cunt splice' - a 'dirty' slang term for some bit of equipment used by sniggering lads in the fields, derived from the primary meaning. Paul B (talk) 07:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm putting in this here because it relates to the etymology of the word and I don't wish to create yet another section. My point: the article gives Dutch "kut" (vulgar for vagina) as a cognate - which indeed it is - but a closer cognate in Dutch is "kont", which is familiar Southern Dutch for backside or behind. I note also that the Spanish and French cognates - "coño" and "con" respectively - are not mentioned and it seems to me at least that Hindi "chut" is cognate. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I was born and bred in Lincolnshire ( UK ) and always understood CUNT to mean a leather sheath which held the cigar shaped sharpening stone used by a farmworker when working with SYTHE, which was used in the old days to cut corn, more recently to cut down the reeds in a ditch. The said sheeth was attached to the worker's belt and was so designed that the sharpening stone could easily be withdrawn for use and then replaced. It was only my teen years that I found that cunt had a sexual meaning.

Do we really need this page

This page really does not seem necassary. Is there any way we can add a restriction or warning about the language used (athough in context) in this page? Nathanl1192 (talk) 17:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

New posts go at the bottom. Will respond in a minute. (to look at the article.)Talktome^(Intelati) 17:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. First, Wikipedia is not censored, second, the article is properly sourced. Third, I didn't know what it was until I read the article, and I'm sure most people do not either.Talktome^(Intelati) 17:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I feel that is the point. People find this and learn new inappropriate words. In the UK, this is considered very over the top and vulgar. I understand your point though. Nathanl1192 (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

My first point stands.--Talktome^(Intelati) 17:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Learn new words? Do you really believe there is anyone over the age 6 who does not know this word? Paul B (talk) 12:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The really interesting point is that for hundreds of years, this and similar words were transmitted and learnt by most people despite being banned from writing, print and civilized talk. Strausszek (talk) 05:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not a native English speaker, and believe me I didn't know this word until I read this article. I think there should be a kind of warning, anybody can read this. Thanks for reading. --NicolasSatragno (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't believe you, no. Your sole edit is to this page and your English appears to be perfect. Why, as a non-native speaker, would you be shocked by the word? It's only "shocking" to people who recognise its usage and connotations. Since all all languages have a word (or a few) for female genitalia I can see no reason why anyone be outraged to discover there is an English one. Paul B (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• At least you are now better-informed about the real world. The article isn't prurient in any way and consists largely of a discussion about the etymology and usage of a word in common, and literary, usage for over 400 years. Doubtless, there are similar words in your own language, whatever it may be. However, every article also includes underneath its text, a disclaimer as to censorship. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 00:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A warning would be hard to implement; by the time someone's found their way to read the warning, they are already at the article. It's a bit like saying "don't think of an elephant". Wikipedia isn't censored; I am sure there are words that I could learn from browsing your native language Wikipedia. pablo 00:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Slang terms for men

I see that Category:Slang terms for men has been reverted out without explanation. I think it's untrue to say that this term is never applied to men. The lede says, "the Macquarie Dictionary of Australian English defines it as "a despicable man". When used as a slang term with a positive qualifier (good, funny, clever, etc.) in countries such as Great Britain, New Zealand and Australia, it conveys a positive sense of the object or person to which it refers.[4]". I think this categorisation is at least as important to highlight as the much more disparaging application to women. Since it is a red link, shall we create the category, or remove Category:Slang terms for women? I think the current situation is untenable. --Nigelj (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no point in adding a non-existent category. By all means create the category. I'm sure it can be filled usefully. However, I'm not sure that this word should belong in it. Yes, you can call a man a "cunt", at least in Commonwealth English. But it's an insult, not a slang term for a man. In British/Commonwealth English you can call both a man and a woman a "prick" or a "dick" too. Basically, it's the same insult - it means they are nothing more than the "lower" or "gross" aspects of human identity. Both male and female genitals serve to make the same point. I don't think it can be normally said to express a "positive sense of the object or person to which it refers" except for the fact that it can be adapted to imply that a person is a basic human being; especially in Australian English it has come to have the connotation that you are saying that a person is a regular guy, not a "ponce" or smart-alec. It means you are normal. This is an interesting evolution. Part of the problem for Wikipedia is that it is difficult to source all this properly. If you can find useful sources, it would be good to have a section on these usages. Paul B (talk) 21:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The above paragraph is not correct. In British English, 'cunt' is almost never applied to women, rather almost exclusively men, and things. It is sometimes used in a non-insulting way for a man. "He's a lucky cunt" may be insulting or not, depending on tone, and usually is not. I have an example of it's use for things - an electrician, whose meaning was "These items are inadequate for the purpose for which they have been ostensibly designed" which he rendered as a beautifully accurate "Fucking wank, these cunts". Prick and dick are not applied in the UK to women either. The use of 'cunt' to refer to a woman is wholly an American usage. I'd like to see that clearer in the article, otherwise British English readers will be led into import a false usage into the UK English language.--T. 07:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't be absurd. You cannot import 'false usage'! Slang usage is constantly mobile, and in the modern blogging and Facebooking world it easily migrates between nations. There no true or false usage only usage. We cannot base edits on your unsupported assertions. I simply disagee with what you say based on my own experience of British English. However, it's not difficult to find evidence that you are wrong. Your assertion that "Prick and dick are not applied in the UK to women" is easily disproved by a google search [1] [2]. Your claim that cunt is "almost never" applied to women is also easily disproved [3] Paul B (talk) 10:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence I know, but I never heard women referred to as "cunts" until I moved to The United States. In Australia it was only ever something you called a man. I think the dictionary definitions back this up. No one's saying it isn't used this way in America.70.189.213.230 (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, in some parts of the Commonwealth (notably Glasgow) it's frequently used as an equivalent to "bloke" or "guy", without any insulting connotations (I may be wrong, but this use may extend to women too). However, as you say, finding good sources is tricky, and there's no point adding a non-existent category. garik (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I created the category and re-added it here, plus to a good handful of other existing articles. I couldn't believe that WP had one gender covered in this respect and not the other. --Nigelj (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's not uncommon. Things only exist if people create them. Paul B (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize that, in Britain, cunt is "almost never applied to women, rather almost exclusively men, and things", or that "the use of 'cunt' to refer to a woman is wholly an American usage". I have a problem with both claims because I was born in England and lived there for many decades, and I have spent many years in the USA.

Frankly, the claims are, in my opinion, entirely incorrect. As others have said or hinted, the word has at least three usages:

1. the name of a body part or, by extension, an alternative word for a particular female person
2. a term for a person, regardless of gender, who is in some way superior but nevertheless for some reason despised by the speaker
3. a term of rough endearment of the person to whom the speech may be directed, in the same way as you might cheerfully address somebody as "an old bastard" (to give but one example).

In my experience there is little, if any, difference between the US and British usage of the word to identify or describe a woman, either as in 1 or 2 above. The word twat might be used differently in the US and Britain, but I have never found cunt to be so. It seems to me that these kinds of words are not only subject to well-intentioned but wholly mislead censorship, but also such spurious claims about their origin and usage that don't aid debate but merely prolong futility and a pointless dispute JH49S (talk) 07:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I was born and lived in England for 35 years (Yorkshire and then various parts of the country: north-east, London and south-west) and I can confirm that cunt in England is usually heard as a strong, coarse insult by a man to a man, meaning "very unpleasant person". I suppose the usage mainly comes from it being a "taboo" word (as with milder terms like twat, knob, tit, plonker, arsehole etc which also refer to taboo body parts and are also used as insults). I don't think I've ever heard a woman say it or it be used of a woman and in my opinion the American usage which - as I understand it - deliberately degrades a woman by referring to her using her sexual organs - is never used. Orlando098 (talk) 09:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that some of us have very different experiences with the way that "cunt" is used, and I don't find them difficult to accept on a one-by-one basis. But it is troubling to see a less-broad usage of such words as this is represented as the correct one. My experience is exactly as I described in my comment of 18 January, in both the US and UK. I certainly recall a woman who worked in a large UK company in the 1970's being referred to by men and women alike as "The Cunt" which had little to do with a body part but everything to do with usage #2 in my list above, but I have also heard it used as a term of endearment of another woman (no names, no packdrill).

I believe that the broadest experience of use should be the one referred to here. That has nothing to do with my own experience being represented more than anybody else's. It's that we should follow the concept that the broader usage proves that our own experiences are often limited. FWIW, my own is similar to Orlando098's, albeit for a longer period, military service, and present residency in the USA, so I cannot comment on Antipodean usage.

So, I agree with Paul Barlow. And you don't even need my own experiences, because the Google searches that he posted are still valid. JH49S (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that I understand your usage #1. By "an alternative word for a particular female person", do you mean some kind of nickname for one person? If so, I've never heard that. Your example from the 1970s is firmly #2, I think. What we do not have here is a sexual use, meaning that the woman spoken is nothing more than her sexual organ. Such a use would be highly degrading, and I believe that some people are claiming, based perhaps on Merriam-Webster, that that is the normal US usage. I'm not sure that's true. Usage #2, to my ear, can be applied to either gender, meaning that the person has no redeeming qualities, that they are nasty, unpleasant, selfish, manipulative etc. There's nothing sexual about any of that. I think #2 and #3 are the two usages that actually exist, apart from the literal meaning in #1, which is obviously gender-specific but is purely anatomical and without any degrading overtones. --Nigelj (talk) 11:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

- A belated response is better than none, I suppose.

Usage#1: Where one identified female is referred to as a cunt. Not primarily a nickname (although I suppose it might evolve into one). I was trying to describe the word when used to identify one of a group of women in a way that might originate in the nature of that woman - but not a pejorative usage as in #2. It's used to indicate that a particular female is more attractive or accessible sexually than any other in the same group of females, for whatever reason applies in the individual case. Some might regard it as highly degrading to themselves or another, but others might not. I'm sure there are those who, right or wrong, relish such a connection with themselves and are able to use it to what they perceive as their advantage.

My whole point, though, being that the claims that "'cunt' is almost never applied to women" or is "wholly an American usage" are mistaken. The problem only arises when there's an restriction placed on one usage because it's not in one person's experience, even though it is in others'. JH49S (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales

Is Jimmy Wales's photo at the top of this page for a reason? There is no entry about him on here, does he know his photo is at the top of the Wiki Cunt page? Did he delete the entry about him? Is he a Wiki Cunt for asking for donations??? I dont get it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.214.95 (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2010

His photo is not at the top of the page, but the donations request just appears on any page you might look at arbitrarily. Paul B (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Other uses: "good cunt"

In the section about "other uses" it says it can be used with a positive qualifier in British English, and it listed good, funny, clever etc. I took out "good" and someone reinstated it and I have taken it out again. I agree someone might say in a very slangy and informal (and "popular") register of speech, "he's a clever cunt" or "he's a funny cunt" (though I wouldn't say it would usually be entirely "positive" and approving, more a sense of e.g. being "too clever by half" or something. At least in my experience you are not going to refer to a person as a cunt if your meaning is completely neutral or positive/respectful). However I can't imagine any sense in which someone would refer to a person as "a good cunt", it just doesn't sound natural. Orlando098 (talk) 09:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Argument from incredulity? Finding good online text references isn't easy, but it's certainly common usage in New Zealand speech (albeit in the "slangy and informal register of speech"), and I'm sure Irvine Welsh's (Scottish) writing has plenty of example too. Five minutes with Mr Google finds some example in forums: https://www.skateboard.com.au/forum/read.cfm?forum=10&thread=63438&p=2 http://www.gotgames.com.au/forums/teams-seeking-players-346/converge-seeking-2-a-94773/index3.html https://www.skateboard.com.au/forum/read.cfm?forum=11&thread=63892 http://www.circusclub.co.uk/forums/archive/index.php/t-19511.html http://www.bimmersport.co.nz/forums/index.php?showtopic=12129&pid=133155&mode=threaded&start= http://www.rotahavik.co.nz/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=9616&view=next Snori (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Photo needed?

Do you feel we should put a photo of a cunt to better illustrate what a cunt is? If so, I have several I would be happy to provide. Olyus (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously, and consensus seems to be that the article is about the word, not the body part, and thus a picture of the latter is unnecessary. Rodhullandemu 18:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The only possible reason I see a photo is not included is because the word is considered by some people to be obscene. If this was any other article, it would have a photo of the subject matter. The meaning of cunt is, aside from cultural baggage, at its essence "vagina". I will confess I was not completely concerned about the lack of photo when I first posted, but I think as a point of principle and not giving in to prudish interests, the article needs a graphic description of the subject at hand. Olyus (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No, Olyus, this article is about a word "Cunt!" and you can not have a picture of a word. This is not about female reproductive organs. If we had an article about "Bastard!" would we have to illustrate it with famous bastards? IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

There are many comparable examples. We don't have a picture of an African in the article on the word Nigger, for obvious reasons. We don't have a picture of people having sex in the article Fuck. These are both about the word, its history and its connotations. Paul B (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree the word cunt can have other meaning, but it also means vagina and all the other means derive from that. I can see no reason what so ever not to have a phtot of a black person used for the article on Nigger. I see bastard is maybe problematic because it is a sociological phenomenum and hard to illustrate graphically, but people have sex for fucking seems quite possible and reasonable. To put it another way, why wouldn'y we put a photo of the subject matter in this article or the other articles mentioned?Olyus (talk) 12:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

as said earlier, the subject matter os this article is not "vagina", or "female reproductive system" or even "sex". this article is about a swear word, nothing more. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

A swear word whose principal meaning derives from a physical object and which still means that physical object. Saying "this is an article about a word" is irrelevant.Olyus (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No it is not. You are just repeating yourself. An image of female genitals would add nothing. Another image relvant to usage or history might be valuable. Paul B (talk) 09:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Given that the word derives from female genitalia, and given that one of its meanings is still female genitalia, I can not imagine how displaying female genitalia would not be relevant. I suspect the only reason you even consider not adding a picture of the subject at hand and the origin of this word, is that you don't wish to appear purient. "Cunt (pronounced /ˈkʌnt/) is a vulgarism, primarily referring to the female genitalia,[1] specifically the vulva, and including the cleft of Venus." Given the previously quoted line is the how the article opens, are you seriously suggesting this isn't an article, at least in part, about the physically existing female genitalia, aside from its other usages?Olyus (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is not an article about "physically existing female genitalia", whatever that bizarre phrase is supposed to mean. It does not discuss their form, function, biological characteristics. It is not about them. End of story. Paul B (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It obviously is. As quoted before, and ignored by you, "Cunt (pronounced /ˈkʌnt/) is a vulgarism, primarily referring to the female genitalia,[1] specifically the vulva, and including the cleft of Venus." You may to focus on it's meanings, as an insult or term of endearment, but are you seriously denying that if I were to say "you've got a nice cunt" you wouldn't understand that was a vulgar means to refer to female genitalia? If you answer yes, then you acknowledge that this article does refer to a physical object and thus there should be a picture. To say that an article about cunts is not about vaginas is just bizarre. Are you seriously making this argument or are you just uncomfortable with pictures of female genitalia? Olyus (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right that the word can refer to vaginas as well as people. However, you're missing the point that the article is about the word, not what the word refers to. You say that, "To say that an article about cunts is not about vaginas is just bizarre." But this article is not about cunts, and so not about vaginas either. It is about the word cunt—a sequence of phonemes or letters with several meanings. There is a significant difference between a word and what the word refers to. garik (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It refers to vulvas as well as people. Bloody is never going to have a picture of its literal meaning even though people still understand what a bloody battle or a bloody hand is. If people want the literal meaning there are clear links in all cases. And yes, people have already tried to illustrate this article with pictures of various people they didn't like too. It's fine without a picture; we have no prudish problems with pictures as the literal articles will show, but having another one here would not help anyone's linguistic research. As for people who look up rude words just to see what will happen, they're only one more click away from finding out just how beautifully uncensored Wikipedia is. --Nigelj (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Adrianw1455, 6 April 2011

In the references to the BBC guidelines for offensive language is incorrect

It should be http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/page/guidance-language-full Adrianw1455 (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

vulgarism v factual term

Based upon the article and the ensuing discussions I question why the word cunt is listed as a vulgarism rather then the Anglo-Saxon word for vagina. 'It was, however, also used before 1230, having been brought over by the Anglo-Saxons, originally not an obscenity but rather a factual name for the vulva or vagina.' Queyntessa (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It is currently a vugarism. It was not up to the late medieval period. Paul B (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Both Webster's New World English Dictionary and The Australian Oxford English Dictionary second edition state cunt as a noun in the first instance and as slang or a vulgarism secondly.

The Australian Oxford English Dictionary second edition definition for cunt: cunt n. coarse colloq. 1. the female genitals 2.offens. an unpleasant or stupid person

I personally have heard the word cunt used by many individuals from various demographics and nationalities use the word as a factual term rather then a vulgarism - on the other hand I have only ever heard faggot used as slang, however the word faggot is treated firstly as a unit of measure and secondly as a pejorative. I would like to see more consistency in the handling of words. In my experience many individuals that consider cunt to be vulgar also consider vagina vulgar; are we to reduce all anatomical words for genitalia to simply genitals? Queyntessa (talk) 05:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Vagina has a specific meaning referring to a very clearly defined body-part. "Cunt" is much vaguer, so it does not have a technical or medical meaning that makes it neutral when used in that context. It is a "vulgarism" simply because it is used that way. There may be no good reason why "cunt" is rude and "pussy" is not. But that's true of all words. The word "nigger" is not inherently ruder or more offensive than "negro". It just is because it's used that way. Paul B (talk) 11:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

cunt (kunt) noun the vulva or vagina http://www.yourdictionary.com/cunt

Is the Webster's New World English Dictionary definition then considered non-specific? "Cunt" is not only and always used as a vulgarism in current speech and that is my point; the original meaning is commonly used in day to day language. By your statement above many words would have to be completely reclassified back to being purely a vulgarism as the original meanings are not used in day to day language. Also keep in mind the common usage of "vagina", "The word vagina is quite often used colloquially to refer to the vulva or female genitals generally" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagina; and the same is true of "cunt" although as you have pointed out "they have a specific meaning referring to a clearly defined body-part". Example; "2005 Mark Latham The Latham Diaries 113 She floored them by pointing out, ‘Listen, you blokes, I have had more rubber up my cunt than you’ve got on those tyres.’ Rose for PM." http://andc.anu.edu.au/australian-words/lambert-additions-corrections/second Queyntessa (talk) 04:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

No, Vagina and Vulva are both clearly defined medical terms. "Cunt" refers to the whole of the pudenda and vagina. The fact that one character in a a novel is using is as a synonym for 'vagina' does not alter the fact that another may use it for the vulva or mons veneris. Even the dictionary indicates that fact. The point is that "cunt" has become a vulgarism, and more generally a swear word. The fact that people use it to refer to their own bodies does not stop it being a vulgarism, any more than the fact that a bloke refers to his "cock" changes the fact. There are many other words with a similar history, which used to be just ordinary words, but later became seen as vulgarisms: shit and arsehole, for example. Oddly, the original Anglo-Saxonism for penis, yard, did not go the same way. It got totally replaced by the Latin and lost entirely its link to the body. Such are the quirks of language history. Paul B (talk) 13:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Or you don't want to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.6.139.204 (talk • contribs)

Who doesn't want to know what? Paul B (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Sterne

I have removed the following sourced passage because it appears to be simply wrong:

The original version of the eighteenth century novel A Sentimental Journey Through France and Italy (1768) by Laurence Sterne uses the term as the last word of the last line: "So that when I stretch’d out my hand I caught hold of the fille de chambre’s cunt". The censorship of the word in later editions created a minor literary mystery, to the uninitiated, as to exactly what Yorick, the hero of the novel, grabbed in this final scene.<refH. Montgomery Hyde (1964) A History of Pornography: 12/ref>

I've looked at the literature on this, which is pretty clear that the last line is and always was "when I stretch'd out my hand I caught hold of the fille de chambre's". There is no full-stop (period) at the end of the line, which is followed by "End of vol II". Later editions added dots ("when I stretch'd out my hand I caught hold of the fille de chambre's..."). The title of the chapter is "The Case of Delicacy". "Case" was one of the slang terms for female genitalia at the time, so it has sometimes been suggested that either the word "case" or the word "end" is intended to suggest what he might have touched. Alternatively it has the innocent reading of "hand" ("I stretch'd out my hand I caught hold of the fille de chambre's.") This ambiguity is typical of Sterne and is characteristic of the way he uses type and layout. It is wildly improbable that the he would publish the novel with "cunt" as the last word, or that modern editors would not have remarked upon it if he had! Montgomery Hyde's book is not about Sterne, so if he does say this he appears to have his information garbled. Paul B (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary link

The first link in the article text is a link to the wiktionary definition for vulgarism instead of the wikipedia article for vulgarism. Could someone who has access change this. I realize this is not very important, but it breaks a rule that I learned reading xkcd: If you click on the first link in the text of an article that is not in parentheses and repeat the process you will always end up in the article for philosophy. While hardly critical for the purposes of this encyclopedia this behavior is neat and deserves preservation when possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.106.97.96 (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I've changed it, because I think links should be within Wikipedia main articles unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. I tried your game arbitrarily with the article David Garrick (play). I got to "Philosophy" after 30-odd clicks. Now I'd better go do something useful with my time. Paul B (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I get there in 13 clicks from this article now. Astonishingly the tool at http://ryanelmquist.com/cgi-bin/xkcdwiki gets stuck at Glossary_of_contract_bridge_terms#communication! --Nigelj (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Feminist Perspectives

The sentence “Despite criticisms, there is a movement within feminists that seeks to reclaim cunt not only as acceptable, but as an honorific. . .” really ought to read “Despite criticisms, there is a movement among feminists. . .” The movement is not taking place inside of the feminists themselves. Also acceptable, though in my mind somewhat awkward, would be “Despite criticisms, there is a movement within feminism. . .”

Yes, someone probably just made a bad edit at some point.Paul B (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 December 2011

The phrase - the Compact Oxford English Dictionary defines cunt as "an unpleasant or stupid person" - gives rise to the wholly amusing to some fact that a search for 'What defines an english person' in google.com gives the wiki page 'Cunt' as the first answer. Could that sentence be reworded to change this offensive result? Maybe by replacing the word defines by 'has' would suffice? Sadly, using alternatives like 'describes' or 'has the definition' would probably leave the window open for the offensive 'gag' to be repeated!! Thanks.

Kev&deb (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Not working in my Google, although the search does bring up enough blog posts to suggest that it did previously. Actually it does, if you don't include the quotation marks. I think this is possibly more an issue for Google though, and the way they rank stuff. pablo 22:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)edited pablo 22:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• As a quick note, this is definitely Google's search algorithm giving an unexpected result for an unusual search phrase, rather than anything more malign. It's almost certainly not a googlebomb; the exact phrase "defines an english person" only appears a couple of times in Google's database, both referring to the result. If it were deliberate googlebombing, you'd find hundreds of links using the phrase or a variant. Shimgray | talk | 15:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

closing this, see here pablo 19:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 December 2011

When googling "what defines an english person" this page is the top result. I suggest changing "an unpleasant or stupid person" to "someone unpleasant or stupid" or something along those lines. 62.31.243.219 (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

closing this, see here pablo 19:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 December 2011

Please change the following paragraph,

" cunt is defined in the Compact Oxford English Dictionary as as "an unpleasant or stupid person"

to

"cunt is described in the Compact Oxford English Dictionary as as "an unpleasant or stupid person"

This is because google rates this page at the top of the result when you search for "what defines an english person". This is completely unacceptable.

Jae118 (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done - let's see what happens. pablo 18:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Rewording doesn't seem to work. The google search has been reported since at least 4th December (see traffic for a demonstration!) and during that time we've had two attempts at minor rewording, plus a drastic attempt this morning. I've just reverted the last one - it was well-meaning, but didn't work; Google's cache had updated to include the "mortal" version, but was still returning it as the top hit. (Is there some kind of legacy keyword effect involved, perhaps? "Recent versions of this page matched...")

I'm at a bit of a loss. We can probably prevent this being a prominent search result, but I don't think we can do it without treating the article as an exercise in constrained writing, avoiding any use of "English", "person", and "defin*"/"describ*", all of which are fairly key to discussing the nuances of a word used in English to describe people! Thoughts, anyone? Shimgray | talk | 19:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

To quickly expand on this, I can confirm that it's only Google - Bing and Yahoo both return pages talking about the anomaly, and our search system returns a mixed bag of articles but not this one. Shimgray | talk | 19:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

...and it seems to be a known bug. (I counted a half-dozen threads on their support forum, but this was the first one which identified it as such.) Shimgray | talk | 22:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Leave it alone. It's none of our business, just a slightly amusing quirk of google's system. We can't be expected to rewrite articles to take account of such things. Paul B (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

^This. There is absolutely no need for us to care about how Google indexes pages; it's quite simply not our problem - nor our business. If anyone really objects, they should contact Google.  Chzz  ►  09:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

James Naughtie and spoonerisms

Spoonerisms are not always deliberate, of course. Stalwart BBC Radio 4 anchor James Naughtie had notable difficulty when introducing Jeremy Hunt, the Culture secretary in December 2010. I feel some mention of this unintentional yet inescapable use of the word may be in keeping with the general tone of the article. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/06/james-naughtie-today-jeremy-hunt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.30.67 (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Towns with similar place names

The article mentions at least two towns with "gropecunt lane" and I know Shrewsbury has a Grope Lane (believed to have the same etymology). Does anyone know of other towns with similar streets? (79.190.69.142 (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC))

British use of the word

It might be worth noting that in (parts of) Britain, the word is in such common use that it is no longer considered so offensive. It is also very much in vogue among London-dwelling 20-somethings. Stuff White Brits Like, a spin-off of Stuff White People Like, lists "cunt":

"From Shakespeare’s ‘country matters’ to every second word Malcolm Tucker pronounces, the word ‘cunt’ is deeply embedded in white British culture. While using it as a descriptor of female genitalia is frowned upon, it is entirely acceptable to use this word as an insult for people in a variety of circumstances. Between friends (usually male), it is a jocular moniker. ... Aimed at a Tory politician, it is deadly serious, as demonstrated by Jarvis Cocker’s ... (Cunts Are Still) Running the World. ... Brits call someone a cunt on pretty much a daily basis. ... Perhaps the apotheosis of this word is its use in Withnail and I, when Withnail exclaims ‘Monty, you terrible cunt.’ This particular phrase is particularly in vogue as a term of endearment among close friends."[4]

This seems to be a humour site – I doubt it meets Wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The parts of Britain are the gutter everywhere else it is still considered objectionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.53.71 (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 January 2012

Add Dexter to list of Showtime series that commonly use the word

86.182.22.156 (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The argot

I placed a {{Dubious}} template in the Generally section for two reasons:

1. The truth of the statement itself is in question, and
2. I found no mention of "argot", nor any concept connected with that word, in the inline source referenced.

If no one can find a reliable source that supports this claim, it shall be removed soon. – p i e (Climax!)  03:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The word "argot" is not an issue. We don't have to use the exact words of sources. Thje problem is that "GUSWORLD", whatever that may be, is not likely to be a reliable source. Paul B (talk) 10:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I mentioned "argot" because it was a part of the claim and it is a notable (linked) concept. There was no mention of any such concept on that page, by that name or otherwise, which is the point I made in No. 2 above. As a notable part of the claim, the word/concept is most definitely an issue. But why squabble when we seem to essentially agree? I suggest we wait a few more days for further possible input, and then take any necessary action. You can go ahead and remove it now if you like, and you will get no argument from me. – p i e (Climax!)  17:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I removed the dubious claims from the article, and, from the end of the Generally section, here they are:

• Use of the word is also documented as part of the argot of some sections of society,<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.gusworld.com.au/nrc/thesis/ch-5.htm | title = "HE'S AN UGLY CUNT, ISN'T HE?": cunt | accessdate = 2008-05-05}}</ref>(Template:Dubious|The argot|date=April 2012) and in recent years attempts have been made to mitigate its connotations by promoting positive uses.(Template:Citation needed|reason=This is highly dubious and requires a reliable source!|date=April 2012)

If better, more reliable sources are found that support these claims, only then should they be returned to the article. – p i e (Climax!)  21:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 June 2012

Please change the search word flags as when typed "English person" in to Google, this is the top result. Totally disgusted by the editing on this page. About 3,590,000,000 results (0.16 seconds)

Web

Images Videos News

More Dublin

Change location

Search Options The web Pages from Ireland More search tools Search Results Cunt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunt Reflecting different national usages, cunt is described as "an unpleasant or stupid person" in the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, whereas Merriam-Webster ... Alternative names for the British - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_names_for_the_British 2 Alternative names for English; 3 Alternative names for Scottish ... in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, commonly denotes a person of British heritage ...

"Define An English Person" C-Word Easter Egg or Google F-Bomb ...

searchenginewatch.com/.../Define-An-English-Person-C-Word-Easter... 14 Dec 2011 – Go to Google. Type in "define an English person". Belly laugh. For "Define An English Person," Google Suggests The C-Word

searchengineland.com/for-define-an-english-person-google...

by Danny Sullivan - in 1,309,737 Google+ circles

22 Dec 2011 – I've seen some weird Google results in my time, but this one is pretty strange. Search for "define an english person" or some related queries, ...

62.40.46.68 (talk) 19:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

well there is nothing to be done about the way that Google ranks their results - unless you maybe want to contact them directly. Your disgust is your own. pablo 21:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

THIS IS OFFENSIVE

AND SHOULD BE REMOVED — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.103.194 (talk) 00:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

If this is regarding the Google search result, this is not something Wikipedia can control. Google is the one to be complaining to. Alternatively, this is an encyclopedia covering many topics, and while accepted this word is vulgar, it is still a noteworthy topic handled in a mature way. [stwalkerster|talk] 00:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Use in Film

No mention of 1975 One flew over the cuckoo's nest, "That nurse is some kind of cunt'.

So what? We do not record every use of the word any more than any other word. How long would an article on the word "cheese" be if we if we did that? Paul B (talk) 23:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

And how about "Shaun of the dead" for use of cunt as an affectionate term for your friends? "Can I get any of you cunts a drink?". It isn't always used to be offensive.184.66.143.224 (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Persian translation

The article mentions Kun in persian as used for cunt. this is wrong. Kun means anal orifice. Kos is used for cunt... --helohe (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Should the article address urban legends?

There is a meme going around that the origin is related to an Oriental goddess named "Kunda," "Cunda," or "Kunti." I've seen this three times in the last two days. As far as I can tell,it has no basis in reality, although there is a Hindi human religious figure - not a goddess - named "Kunti." Should this sort of thing be addressed in the article?

I've seen it twice today. It seems to be coming from New Paganism mythology to reclaim the word from the vulgar and give it respect. I can not find any basis for that derivation of the word from scholarly sources. What would be a reliable source for mythology of New Wicca? 97.85.168.22 (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Any academic article, I suppose. But there is no such derivation, of course. Mindy Dirt (talk) 02:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

So a scholar of comparative religions that is publishing about the rise of the New Paganism? Maybe a scholar of feminism? Well it's a starting place. Yes, and of course it would have to be presented as recent narrative, not ancient myths. 97.85.168.22 (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 March 2013

Under Spoonerisms and acronyms, add a new second paragraph, as follows: A variation is: "What's the difference between a band of pygmies and a girls' track team?" - "The band of pygmies is a bunch of cunning runts..." 76.93.186.167 (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done: No rationale or references have been provided for this request. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 April 2013

In section 4.2.3 Other uses, it states:

'The word "cunty" is also known, although used rarely: a line from Hanif Kureishi's My Beautiful Laundrette is the definition of England by a Pakistani immigrant as "eating hot buttered toast with cunty fingers,"...'

The film is not My Beautiful Laundrette, it is Sammy and Rosie Get Laid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.202.201 (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

What was the justification for removing the reference to Sexy Beast script which uses the phrase "like a cunt"?

At 01:38, 16 January 2013 nearly 2,500 words were edited from the 'Cunt' page. The reason referred to is "unsourced commentary".

One of the edits included the removal of a reference to the film Sexy Beast which uses 'cunt' in its script. This is not an opinion. This is an encyclopedic fact with a clear reference and has potential research interest either directly in relation to the film, as an example of the use of the word in cinema within that era, and as an unusual simile.

Whilst some editors may feel that the use of 'cunt' in film scripts is becoming so wholesale that repeated citation of every use over-labours the point, is not "notable" or adds no value, this should not a reason to remove facts from an encyclopedia. That would show subjective bias over an objective forum.

Could someone explain why the reference was removed? El srettiws (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is a reason. Do we list every film in which someone says "fuck" in the article fuck? Or do we list every film in which someone eats cheese in the article cheese? Of course not. We have to restrict ourselves to notable or informative examples, otherwise the page would become unreadable. Will there be an element of subjectivity in such decisions. Of course. Paul B (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You're not comparing like for like, and it is not about whether it appeared in 'a film' necessarily; it appeared in that film, in that context, at that time. If the word "fuck" is used in an unusual context, or at an unusual period of history, or by an unexpected person, or to define a variation to its wider meaning then it can rightly be regarded as a point of encyclopedic interest. Similarly if "cheese", as a simile or as a food, or whatever, were used in the same manner it would also potentially be noteworthy. So to answer your point, a film reference would be relevant if it helped explain the subjects etymology. I think this argument is obvious frankly and refutes your position. Can anyone offer a credible reason? El srettiws (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Now you are getting into quite different territory - WP:OR. How do we know what the connotations of the word are in the phrase "sweating like a cunt"? I hear people say things like that all the time. At one level I know what they mean, but in another sense I don't think I could properly explain its meaning, even to myself. The written explanation was, as the deleting editor said, unsourced commentary. This is always problematic, as it's very difficult to draw a line between what's apparently 'obvious' and what's speculation. Paul B (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, if you had had the opportunity to read the section before it was censored, your uncertainty would be less pronounced. The edited section read: "An example in modern film script evoking 'cunt' as a simile of crude excess ..." The film script is not ambiguous and the context and connotation is very clear, unlike the contexts in which you claim to routinely hear such phrases as "like a cunt" which leave you ambivalent. There is no speculation and no equivocation; it is a simile of crude excess. The character's shirt is sticking to him (the context is qualified), because he is "sweating like a cunt". The film Sexy Beast is the published source in this example. The evolution of the words meaning from simply a vulgar synonym for the vagina to a simile of excess is real, it happened in 2000, and it happened in Sexy Beast. That is not subjective, that is not speculation, that is encyclopedic fact. I would urge that the reference and edited material is reinstated forthwith. Thank you. El srettiws (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, that was very grandiose. I very much doubt any new usage "happened" in Sexy Beast. And I do have an opportunity to read what was deleted because deletions are still in the edit history, hence the fact that I can quote the phrase referred to. Yes obviously it just means "sweating profusely", with the word "cunt" adding the implication of vulgarity. In that sense it's near-identical to "sweating like fuck" or "sweating like shit" (both of which are even more nonsensical in one sense, but also intelligible). To say that this is the "evolution of the word's meaning" is to miss the fact that it is only one possible choice of 'vulgarity' with the identical function, and the fact that it is part of a network of modern usages of this particular word, the connotations of which are rather difficult to pin down. Paul B (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Frankly I don’t understand the point you are trying to make regarding connotations as the phrase imports a clear understanding of crude excess. I agree though that there is “a network of modern usages of this particular word”. Of course, which is why they should be expressed in Wikipedia, even if some of them may seem 'obvious'. My argument is that Sexy Beast sets a cultural precedent for the use of the word cunt as a simile for crude excess within that “network”. If anyone interested in the word ‘cunt’ needed an example, they can look into Wikipedia and find one. Like I said, the reference stands up to debate and improves the article. Its case for inclusion is clear. El srettiws (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

In versions of the film edited for television the word is dubbed with the word scent.[67]

this is an untrue USA specific generalisation, it may be true of us network television. The BBC etc. show the unedited version as alluded to in the rest of the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.11.45 (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

No doubt, but it does not alter the fact that versions editied for television are so dubbed. The fact that the unedited original has also been shown on TV doesn't affect the validity of the statement. Paul B (talk) 10:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

If i was to write "black people are thieves" would this be allowed to stand? i could cite one instance of a black person being convicted in court of theft and using your logic it would be true.

The correction is "Some television stations broadcast an edited version in which the word is dubbed with the word scent.[67]". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.11.45 (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

THat's a preposterous analogy. In the first instance the statement is meaningless since it's also true that white people (and others) are theives, so the statement has no content unless it is understood as a generalisation. The cited statement doed have content. The word "versions" does not imply all versions, but it is not meaningless as it is distinctive to TV versions (though possibly not exclusive to them). Paul B (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Exact denotation of the word

In my opinion the lead sentence is misleading insofar as it implies that "vulva" is part of the female anatomy. In fact "vulva" is no more part of the female anatomy than "phallus" is part of the male anatomy. You won't hear gynecologists, for example, referring to the "vulva". The two words "cunt" and "vulva" are equivalent, the one vulgar, the other not—but neither refers to a particular sexual or reproductive organ, they are general terms for a woman's...nether regions, for want of a better periphrasis. Courbet's L'Origine du monde could be described as the painting of a "cunt" or vulva—meaning the whole kit and caboodle in its external aspect. That's why I have changed the lead sentence to read "Cunt is a word for the female genitalia..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prohairesius (talk • contribs)

What unutterable tosh. I very much doubt that either 'nether' or 'hinder' regions are terms much used by the medical profession. Courbet's painting is more a depiction of pubic hair than anything else. Paul B (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

No it isn't "unutterable tosh," mate. The vulva refers to the external aspect of the female genitalia. It is not a medical term. For the reason you give, I agree that Courbet's painting isn't the best example to cite in support of my point. The many prehistoric vulvas we find from the Upper Paleolithic might help make my point clearer. Here are images of a few such:

http://www.uf.uni-erlangen.de/publikationen/zuechner/chauvet/chauvetvergleich.jpg

I don't have a problem with the treatment of the word "cunt" on the page, any ordinary reader would probably find it more than helpful and informative. But I still maintain that it is misleading to identify it "specifically with the vulva" because both are vague, unscientific terms, which are not associated with those parts of the female genitalia that are scientifically defined, e.g. the vagina, inner and outer labia, clitoris, etc.

I know there is an article on "vulva". I think it is fundamentally misconceived insofar as it attempts to define the term precisely and elevate it to something like a term of science. The plumbing in front is connected with that inside; to treat the former in isolation is a mistake.

I'm done with this distasteful business, I'll only repeat that it is folly to try to anatomically specify what "cunt" is, and the same pretty much applies to "vulva", you are dealing here with antiquated words, slang, vulgar and ill-defined. It's vain to approach the subject otherwise than by way of linguistics, its Indo-European history in general and in particular the story of how the word has acquired secondary connotations in English. What the word primarily refers to now we all know well enough—a generalized (vulgar) term for human female genitals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prohairesius (talk • contribs)

The word "vulva" is probably too inclusive to have much value medically, sure, but I fail to see the relevance of that fact. It's the proper term, and it is indeed part of human anatomy, just as the "torso" and the "head", are, for example - for other inclusive terms. So what's the problem? 'Cunt' and 'vulva' are not equivalent, because as everyone knows the former is also used to refer to the vagina. Just type "up her cunt" or "in her cunt" into google and you can find many many such examples of this usage. The term "vulva" is not 'antiquated', because it is still in use. It is not 'slang' and it is not 'vulgar'. It is ill-defined only to the same extent that "head" is ill defined. I don't know what point you are trying to make about the art works. Yes, we know that female genitalia have been depicted in art for quite a long time. Is this relevant to the content of the article? p.s., you should sign posts with four tildes. Paul B (talk) 11:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Kotze and Kutte

The German word "Kotze" translates to "vomit" not prostitute and "kutte" would be a cape so a bit unlikely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎194.74.68.5 (talk • contribs)

Images

Why are there no images in this article? 86.56.71.208 (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Of what? this article is NOT about the female sex organs, is about a reference to them being used as a swear word IdreamofJeanie (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, what was so awful about them that they inspired such a term of abuse? =P
More seriously, it's a legitimate point, especially since this is part of WP:ANATOMY. Just reread the NOTCENSORED banner at the top of the page and then calmly direct him to the discussion above. — LlywelynII 10:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)