Talk:Fuck

Untitled

Also see Talk:History of the word 'fuck'.

Moved this one to Archive 6. — Cirt (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Claim that Charles Rocket was fired for uttering "fuck" on live TV is speculation at best.

• Charles Rocket was fired along with almost the entire cast on March 10, 1981. That was three weeks and two episodes after having uttered the forbidden profanity. The fact that the rest of the cast members were also fired indicates the firing had a lot more to do with ratings and performance than standards violations. Several Wiki entries should be corrected. 00:00, 7 July 2009 User:GregE625

Syntax

The following article may be a useful reference for the Wikipedia article. It discusses syntactic issues for the NP the fuck: Language Log: Fucking shut the fuck up. 124.214.131.55 (talk)

Irish MP

• Time to add a reference to an Irish mp using 'fuck you' in parliament? 02:08, 13 December 2009 User:79.97.151.232

Modern usage in rap music?

• Rap music being singled out as the only genre that uses the word "fuck" is extremely inaccurate, as the word is used in nearly every genre that incorporates vocals. 05:59, 21 February 2010 User:Mkb401

Current Usage

JPW Mallalieu's book "Very Ordinary Seaman" uses the word "flick" routinely to describe the word in seamen's everyday language. In the typeface used this looks very like "fuck" which it is clearly intended to convey. The late Eric Newby got around the censor in a different way in his story of working on a Swedish tall ship "The Last Grain Race" when he stated in a footnote that "fokken" was the Swedish word for a sail.

Fugger and "fuckerey"

I wonder whether the German term "fuckerey," apparently first used in the early 16th century in reference to Jakob Fugger's extreme profiteering and allegedly resultant mass impoverishment (e.g in Tyrol), might be an explanatory addendum or merely is coincidental? Earlier uses are possible, especially since the Fugger family's latinzed version is "Fucker" (e.g., Fucker advenit dedit XLIII denarios dignus - Tax Code, Augsburg, 1367) and given their Europe-wide reach beginning in the mid to late 14th century (Source: Damals, 7, July 2004, pp. 15-23 and pp. 25-29)

Earliest Recording (Song) to use the word "Fuck"

• Note: This is my first attempt to contribute to Wikipedia, so if I've done anything wrong in how I've presented this information, I hope someone with a stronger grasp for formatting will take it from here. Thanks

Lucille Bogan (under the name, Bessie Jackson) recorded two versions of "Shave 'Em Dry" in 1935. The second contains much raunchier lyrics that were intended for late night club acts, and uses the word "Fuck" several times. This song predates the 1938 song, "Ol' Man Mose" and the section in the article detailing early music recordings should be updated to reflect this chronology. Bogan's song also blatantly uses the word "Fuck" while the 1938 song blurs it in the the word "bucket."

Here are the lyrics.

I got nipples on my titties big as the end of my thumb,
I got somethin' 'tween my legs 'll make a dead man come,
Oooh daddy-baby, won't you shave 'em dry, oooh!
Won't you grind me baby, grind me till I cry.

Say I fucked all night and all the night before, baby,
And I feel just like I want to fuck some more,
Ooh, babe, goddamn daddy, grind me honey, shave 'em dry,
And when you hear me yowl baby, want you to shave 'em dry.

I got nipples on my titties big as the end of my thumb,
And daddy you can have 'em any time you want and you can make 'em come.
Oooh daddy, shave 'em dry,
And I can give you some baby, swear it'll make you cry.

I will turn back my mattress and let you oil my springs,
I want you to grind me daddy till the bells do ring,
Ooh daddy, want you to shave 'em dry.
Oh pray God daddy, shave 'em baby, won't you try?

Now fuckin's one thing that'll take me to Hell,
I'll be fuckin' in the studio just to fuck that to leather,
Oooh, daddy, daddy shave 'em dry,
I would fuck you baby, honey I would make you cry.

Now your nuts hangs down like a damn bell-clapper,
And your stick stands up like a steeple,
Your goddamn asshole's open like a church door,
And the crabs walks in like the people,
Oooh baby, won't you shave 'em dry. ...

A big sow gets fat from eatin' corn,
And the pig gets fat from suckin',
Reason this whore got like, I am,
Great God I got fat from fuckin',
Whee ... tell 'em about me! Fuck it!

My back is made of whalebone and my cock is made of brass,
And my fuckin's made for workin' men, two dollars round to fit my ass,
Oooh daddy, shave 'em dry.

The full recording can be found here: "Shave 'Em Dry" Lucille Bogan, 1935

The song also appears along with the "clean" version on the album, "Raunchy Business" released by Sony in 1991 on CD. Liner Notes from this album, written by Paul Oliver, speculate that this recording was a familiar standard performed by many different acts. The recording itself was an "unissued test pressing, CBS (M) 63288." Again according to Paul Oliver, as can be read here: Paul Oliver from Screening The Blues: Aspects Of The Blues Tradition (Da Capo Press, 1968)

Why so much about "Catcher in the Rye"?

There is an entire paragraph devoted to the use of the word "fuck" in "The Catcher in the Rye" and it's listed as an early usage, but "Catcher" was published in 1951, twenty-three years after the publication of "Lady Chatterly's Lover". It was not that unusual to be seen in print at that time, I remember a novel I read that was written in the 1940s about war profiteers in Pittsburgh (I cannot recall the title but it was about a WWII veteran who's girlfriend was raped by an ombudsman) that used the word repeatedly. 14:08, 28 June 2011 User:69.155.218.100

More Etymology

I have been deciphering a 'blackletter'-typeset book from 1486 and using N. Bailey's An Universal Etymological ENGLISH DICTIONARY (the 21st edition -- many other editions are available on the internet; I note the fourth edition [VOL. II.?] from MDCCLVI does not have 'fuck' nor does the five-and-twentieth edition from 1790) as a guide for some of the words I don't know (e.g., 'clepit'). On a whim, I looked up 'fuck'.

The book I'm working with is here: http://books.google.com/ebooks/reader?id=CFBGAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&pg=GBS.PT373 Use the slider on the bottom to get to page 340.

A slightly more readable (better scanned?) copy of this definition in the 20th edition 1773 is on page 332 at this URL: http://books.google.com/ebooks/reader?id=q05GAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&pg=GBS.RA2-PT258 Use the slider at the bottom of the page to get to page 332.

the gist is: to FUCK [foutre, F. foutere, Ital. futico, L. of xxxx, Gr. to plant ; but Dr. Th H. derives it from Fuycke, Belg. to thrust or knock; others from Fuchsen, Teut. to beget] Faeminam subagitare.

Interesting that the definition is given in latin.

I am incompetent to add this to the Wiki page and also properly cite the references. I hope it is of benefit to someone who can do that.

Why is the word defined primarily by its vulgarity?

• I don't like how the first sentence in this article basically sums it up as being "vulgar". This makes it look more like a conservative opinion piece than an encyclopedic article. What about:

  "Fuck" is an English word that, in its most literal meaning, refers to the act of sexual intercourse. It is generally considered vulgar, and may be used as an intensive or to negatively characterize anything that can be dismissed, disdained, defiled, or destroyed. 22:20, 11 March 2012‎ User:Youeffoh

• Agree.

  "Fuck" is not considered "vulgar" by all people or in all contexts, only by some people in some contexts. Furthermore, it is a very long-established, standard English word. To say that it is "vulgar" reflects only the prejudice of some readers and such a POV does not belong in an encyclopaedia entry.

20:32, 17 April 2012‎ User:86.167.19.181

Possible Stylistic Inconsistency

I noticed whenever the articles says "the word fuck," fuck is italicized whereas when it says "The verb "to fuck"," the verb is contained inside quotation marks. I have no formal backing to this complaint - only the a perception of inconsistency.

requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Fuck → Fuck (word) – because 76.120.168.91 (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Why? Oppose if no proper rationale given. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree, unless an actual reason is given this should be closed. Personally, I would be surprised if the word is not the best known use of the term.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 23:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. No sufficient rationale has been provided yet. As it stands, the article on the word should remain primary topic, as it appears that most people are looking for information on that topic, as oppose to anything else listed on Fuck (disambiguation). Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Speedy close No rationale given.Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 13:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Superfluous disambiguation. ^walk victor falk ^talk 00:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Maybe move it to The F Word

Regarding appropriate citation of first known usage of the term 'Fuck'

@User:Til Eulenspiegel: You reverted my tags. What exactly are you meaning by "any literate person"? Every article needs to be verifiable. Each one is stand-alone. And I challenge this. Am I missing something? meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

By "any literate person" I meant anyone who is able to read and understand English. I didn't specify "English" in the edit summary, because I figured that would be obvious, this being the English language wikipedia. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I was missing something. My blunder here - I retract my request in whole. Skimming the page, I hadn't seen attribution for my first contention in section 2.1 and was totally blind to the in-text attribution for the second contention (no idea how I missed that). Not trying to be difficult or edit war with you. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Request

I DO NOT THINK THE BEGINNING OF THIS ARTICLE SHOULD SAY FUCK IS PROFANITY AND REFERS TO SEXUAL INTERCOURSE BECAUSE THE WORD 'FUCK' HAS ALOT OF HISTORY AND MANY DEFINITIONS AND USES. THE FACT THAT THIS ARTICLE IS STATING THAT FUCK HAS ONE SINGLE DEFINITION IS FALSE, EVEN SAYING THE WORD 'FUCK' FAVORS CERTAIN DEFINITIONS MORE THAN OTHERS IS ALSO FALSE.

And i recommend whoever rewrites this (so they should) should actually research the word 'fuck' because there is history and information on this word all over the internet.

all these uses are from www.dictionary.reference.com

verb(used with object) to have sexual intercourse with. Slang. to treat unfairly or harshly.

verb(used without object) to have sexual intercourse. Slang. to meddle (usually followed by around or with).

Interjection Slang. (used to express anger, disgust, peremptory rejection, etc., often followed by a pronoun, as you or it. )

noun an act of sexual intercourse. a partner in sexual intercourse. Slang. a person, especially one who is annoying or contemptible. the fuck, Slang. (used as an intensifier, especially with WH-questions, to express annoyance, impatience, etc.)

Verb phrases fuck around, Slang. to behave in a frivolous or meddlesome way. to engage in promiscuous sex. fuck off, Slang. to shirk one's duty; malinger. go away: used as an exclamation of impatience. to waste time. fuck up, Slang. to bungle or botch; ruin. to act stupidly or carelessly; cause trouble; mess up.

Idioms give a fuck, Slang. to care; be concerned (usually used in the negative): When it comes to politics, I really don't give a fuck. Caliburn101 (talk) 06:37, 28 December 2013‎3 (UTC)

Please don't shout (write in all caps). The two opening sentences cover most of these meanings. If you can come up with more all-encompassing text, please suggest it here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Caliburn10, from the definitions you listed above, it's clear that this Wikipedia article begins with the two primary definitions of the term fuck and that there's nothing wrong with that. Wikipedia articles should not begin with a vague definition, such as "[So and so] has various definitions." Not when the topic can easily be defined. See WP:MOSBEGIN, especially the First sentence part of it; it states "If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist." Alternative definitions should generally come after the most common definition, and all of the extensive detail about definitions should be addressed lower in the article (not in the WP:Lead); this article does that. And if one wants to bring up WP:Neutral, keep in mind that Wikipedia bases WP:Neutral on WP:Due weight.

Also, remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. I signed your username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I did go ahead and combine the first two sentences in this way, though. Flyer22 (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Sentence Enhancer

The definition of enhance is: To make greater, as in value, beauty, or effectiveness; augment.Djsteve321 (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Please provide some sort of scholarly source that discusses "sentence enhancers". Seems like a rarely used or made up term to me. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/enhance Djsteve321 (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much (rolling eyes). You can assume everyone here has at least a basic English vocabulary. What scholarly source discusses sentence enhancers? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see why this CAN'T be included? Have you given a reason for that? Djsteve321 (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Because right now, "sentence enhancer" is a term you've made up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

False. I did not make up the term, it is a very commonly used expression. Djsteve321 (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

And for the third time, where are the reliable sources that use this "very commonly used expression". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

It's used in this Wikipedia article: Sailor Mouth. Checkingfax (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Dialogue from a cartoon isn't exactly an encyclopedic source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

But does show it as an expression. Now you are simply arguing to argue. Djsteve321 (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

If that's the primary source, I kind of get the feeling we're being trolled here, asking to perpetuate some kind of in-joke. Kindly read WP:RS and stop wasting our time. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this race, but I've noticed the back and forth here. Two things strike me:

• The phrase brings up a whole lot of Ghits for an expression that "doesn't exist"... until you notice that they are all either directly used in reference to a SpongeBob episode where they discover curse words. If this establishes the phrase as vernacular language used to explain the topic, we should start loading up other articles with "jinkies", "jenk" and "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious".
• This kind of discussion is commonly reserved for whether to call particular actions/actors "terrorism", "freedom fighters", "defense forces", etc. This back and forth is, IMNSHO, remarkably pointless. There are precious few words or phrases that cannot be easily replaced with equally valid words or concise phrases ("quality" comes to mind). Those defending the phrase do not show any interest in preserving a particular meaning or conveying a particular message. Rather, they seem to be invested in keeping a peculiar phrase from a delightfully absurd kids' show in the article.

I invite reasoned discussion as to the meaning any feel would be lost without this particular phrase. Otherwise, catch a clue: Patrick is meant to sound like a moron. If your goal is to sound like a moron, you've found a functional template for use throughout your life. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Fuck peer review, again

1. Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties
2. Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1

I've listed the article Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties for peer review.

Help with furthering along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

COMIC CONTENT. Use it as you wish or.... not

http://www.logix.cz/michal/humornik/fuck.xp Michaelgossett (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Italicize

At the very beginning of the article, is Fuck supposed to be underlined? MadisonGrundtvig (talk | contribs) 17:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

No, it's supposed to be italicized. If it's underlined for you, check your browser settings and Wikipedia preferences. Rivertorch (talk) 07:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh shoot. I'm sorry. I made a typo. I actually meant to say "is fuck supposed to be italicized?" So why is it italicized? It's not a title of a media is it? MadisonGrundtvig (talk | contribs) 19:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK, no italicization is supposed to be there. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Dsimic, I saw this edit by you. And I see what you stated above. But given WP:WORDSASWORDS, how is it that italics are not supposed to be there? The italics were removed before, by Philip Cross, but I reverted. I had a similar discussion with editors last year about this type of thing, and there was no WP:Consensus on the matter. I, for example, was in the camp that believes that italics should not be there, while Dicklyon believes that italics should be there. Flyer22 (talk) 04:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see your point. Got it corrected; basically, MOS:WORDSASWORDS directs to "use italics when writing about words as words", while MOS:BOLDTITLE says that "if the title of the page is normally italicized [...] then its first mention should be both bold and italic text".

Thank you for pointing that out – I guess there's always at least one more MOS rule to be learned. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

LOL, no problem, Dsimic. And thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 04:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Possibility of being acronym for: Fornication Under Common Knowledge

I remember seeing the term 'Fornication Under Common Knowledge' used in a record book of local crimes, which was on display in the late 1980s at a small museum in Newlyn Cornwall. Unfortunately some 25 years on, I no longer know details of the book such as date and origin. It may be a late term (could easily be as new as 19th century) but its use in law may warrant investigation if anyone is willing to dig into old parish records on common law crime. The museum is no longer there. I recall a woman was fined for the act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.133.112 (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Our article already explains about how these kinds of false etymologies were invented as "backronyms", but this is exactly the same sort of hearsay that crops up every few decades or so, and this is the last place in the world where we'd actually be able to do anything with such hearsay or waste time on it, if you really think about it. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Page deletion

I think this page should be deleted; because it contains heavy crude language.JordanL462 (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)