Talk:Cunt

Archives
Archive to Dec 2006 Archive to Oct 2007 Archive to Oct 2009

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.

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)

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)

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)