Talk:Spanish profanity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Languages (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of standardized, informative and easy-to-use resources about languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

COJO and ORTO re the Montreal Olympics[edit]

There was a gaffe I remember well re the Montreal Olympics; the French acronyms for the Olympic Radio-Television Organization and the Organizing Committee of the Olympic Games = comité des organisateurs des jeux olympiques (organizateurs? not sure of the spelling) and organization radio-television olympique = COJO and ORTO, were featured on billboards in Latin America and had to be changed as they had become the butt of many jokes; it was a bit of a national embarrassment in fact, with various columnists taken jabs at the news item; embarrassing also because of Quebec's own passion for correct use of their own Latinate tongue vs the bastard speech of les maudits anglos; a division which was at fever pitch in Canada at the time because of Quebec's new anti-English language laws.... I don't have a cite for this - CanWest destroyed all its archives when taken over by Izzy Asper in 1993, and the CBC Archives might have files on this, but I have neither the time nor inclination to search for them. Cojo I guess is a former of coger, though I recall seeing that in print as cojer; in Argentina and Uruguay in particular I remember being the cases mentioned, maybe similar in Brazilian Portuguese too, for "I fuck" and "asshole/anus".....on huge billboards all over Latin America.. Skookum1 (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

can you provide references? -No.Altenmann >t 15:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I can, if I could physically access newspaper archives at Canadian universities (I live in Asia now). CanWestGlobal destroyed all of its archives when Izzy Asper took over in 1993; CBC archives don't go that far back. The Globe & Mail's online archive, accessible by university students and staff, may have something; I have a wiki-membership to newspapers.com or whatever it's called, it may have something. "I'm not making this up", it's factual and historical for certain. Your "can you provide references? No" is very presumptive and AGF.Skookum1 (talk) 06:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually "No." was my stupid choice of my signature. Changed. Apologies. Anyway, I conclude you cannot provide references and I have to believe your word. With all possiblie AGF, this is not how wikipedia works. -M.Altenmann >t 16:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Removal of enormous unreferenced text[edit]

There are 2-3 references removed as well. I think these references are part of original research, such as comparison which other languages or other marginally relevant notes. If you think they are important you can restore them. But the wholesale restoration of huge removed text unreferenced for YEARS is inadmissible. -No.Altenmann >t 15:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I looked into talk page archive and see numerous appeals for referencing, voices of ones crying out in the wilderness. -No.Altenmann >t 22:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I am asking for the third time to provide justifications for huge unreferenced text, so that it can be discussed. Otherwise, I am afraid I will have to address this to administrators. -M.Altenmann >t 16:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's start by clearing up this is the *first* time you ask, at least BEFORE going ahead and deleting massive amounts of content. Having said that...
do you see dates? the problem reported 28 October, 31 October, 2 November. I don't need to beg someone to fix the problem. If you refuse to fix it, I do it in my way. -M.Altenmann >t 15:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
User cramyourspam was clear enough: you're never going to have a "fully" referenced page on a topic like profanity. More so, this is even more obvious when taking into account the article goes into detail on the different regional meanings of a lot of words (and, let us remember, most of this content has been added over the years by wikipedians from different Spanish-speaking countries, so this is *direct experience*, not "original research" in the sense you imply), and that's no excuse for deleting this content. Still, there can be a larger reference pool, and you should have called attention to this instead of going out and erasing everything you didn't like before asking, including erasing several references (an odd action for one who decries the absence of references...).
So let's go look up some references. Diccionario de la lengua española is a good starting point! The following entries: http://drae22.rae.es/cachar http://drae22.rae.es/chingar http://drae22.rae.es/coger http://drae22.rae.es/culear http://drae22.rae.es/correr http://drae22.rae.es/polvo http://drae22.rae.es/joder http://drae22.rae.es/pisar all contain a definition of sexual intercourse (except for «correr(se)», which "only" refers to having an orgasm). I'd go on, but I'm not going to look up every other word, only to then discover you've decided the DRAE is somehow not good enough of a source for you... (after all, one of the references you did erase was to the DRAE's definition of "puto"'
Aaaaaaall right, just onetwo more: http://drae22.rae.es/paja (masturbation) and http://drae22.rae.es/pajear (to wank).
Cheers! Mfarah (talk) 10:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
"direct experience" is exactly what is not allowed reference in wikipedia. you don't need to add referenced into talk page. add them into wikipedia article. -M.Altenmann >t 15:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
re: "you should have called attention" - what a ridiculous demand: the article has been tagged for years! This is how attention is called in wikipedia. -M.Altenmann >t 05:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This article is a huge mess, but I honestly think due notice has been given for removal of these things. Mfarah - If you want to mirror this page as it exists now in your sandbox/userspace so that you can find reliable sources and add the items back to the page, I don't know that these things need to inherently be removed forever, but honestly, 4 years where most of the article is a bunch of unreferenced stuff? This isn't urban dictionary.

As to your contention that some of this stuff will never be "fully referenced", if that's the case, then it shouldn't be on here at all. Verifiability and NO original research are core content policies on Wikipedia. Having a bunch of uncited regionalisms based in peoples' personal experiences violates both of these. I say remove. 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 19:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Mfarah: I think it's been an appropriate amount of time waiting for a response on this, so I'm ready to remove the content again since Altenmann and I are in agreement about this. I'm going to advertise this conflict at the relevant wikiprojects (WT:WikiProject Languages, maybe WT:WikiProject Lists) and see if we can get a few more eyes to build a clearer consensus. In the meantime (or even after the removal), feel free to provide a substantive response to clarify why you think that this material should stay even before any references are provided. 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 13:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I support removal of unsourced text and any references used for synthesis or Original Research purposes.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:Verifiability; WP:Reliable Source; WP:NOTDIRECTORY...making arguments for inclusion of content that will never be verified goes against everything Wikipedia is. At this point, a simple Spanish language Google search should be considered sufficient 'reasonable effort" to track down a source. If none is found that way, deletion should be the next option. The item should only be added back if a citation is found. If cross cultural issues are causing confusion of definition, that isn't an argument for keeping items, it is an argument for deleting the entire list and coming up with a better scope for the list. If "Spanish profanity" isn't a unified concept than it shouldn't appear as such with a Wikipedia article. Perhaps subheadings for regional definitions is the way to go. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 22:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete all unsourced material, aggressively, since it's been 4+ years. Per WP:PROVEIT, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" (bold in original) and "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source." Altenmann (talk · contribs) is completely right to remove unsourced material at any time, especially after such a long time: Removing unsourced claims is Wikipedia policy, and adding unsourced claims violates Wikipedia policy. The following are not valid excuses to add unsourced material:
    • That you are just "restoring" previous content. It's longstanding Wikipedia consensus is that reverts and undos make the reverter/undoer personally responsible for each and every thing re-added, including adding the sources for the additions that are now their own fault for adding.
    • That you know the claims are "true" even though there are no citations. (See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth.) Which one of them is true? Every sentence? Which sentences? You checked every one of them when you re-added 10kB of material? How about you point them out, by adding references?
    • That it's somehow quick and easy for someone else to go find and insert references in the proper place, even though it's clearly not quick and easy enough for the person who keeps re-adding the claims without proof in the proper place. These unproven claims have been here for 4 years; no Wikipedia policy supports keeping challenged unsourced claims for any significant length of time, let alone 4 years.
    • That the references are on the talk page or some other unusual place instead of inline in the article. All sources must be at the point where the claim is made: see WP:INTEGRITY, which is a Wikipedia guideline.
    • That deleting unsourced claims somehow makes the article ugly or incomplete. If that's so, then it was already ugly and incomplete, then had unsourced garbage scattered into it to try and cover it up the problem, which is worse. Visibly incomplete, with all proper references, is always better than incomplete with unreferenced noise camouflaging it. That's Wikipedia policy.
    In light of the following, I also will be removing most or all unsourced claims on sight: The existence of these unsourced sections is its own evidence that the people adding the claims think arguing about it for 4 years is quicker and easier than finding a real source; otherwise they'd be adding the source instead. If I'm wrong: WP:PROVEIT; don't violate Wikipedia policy. --Closeapple (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Religion[edit]

You don't erase a whole section just because it was "unreferenced since 2012", in a wiki article 99.999% of whose contents are unreferenced as well.

If religious coarse words are too unpalatable to you on moral grounds you should seek professional help. And if you don't believe these expressions do exist then you're not a Spanish speaker. By the way there are scarcely references to Spanish profanity because profanity is mostly unreferenced, as in colloquial. That's the little thing about profanity, you see. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

By the way taking out the entire section would entail erasing "hostia", "leche", "copón" and all the shitting-on-God swearing and anyone who has listened a profanity-laden conversation knows this omission would be absurd. If anything "hostia" is the most conspicuous word in Spanish profanity. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Please read wikipedia policies about citing your references. Unreferenced for 4 years is a perfectly valid reason. If the word is "most conspicuous, it must be discusse somewhere. -M.Altenmann >t 16:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll look for references for this in the future but I must say people like you are to Wikipedia what the Ebola virus is to the human immune system. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Altenmann, with all due respect, SOD OFF. When we had our little discussion last November about the contents on this page, you kept yapping about references, then you proceeded to ignore the sample references I provided and kept complaining about the lack of them. No wonder, then! Just say, once and for all, that you hate the existence of this page and try to put its deletion to a vote. I let you have your way last year because no one else showed up at the discussion and I had better stuff to do than to waste my time with your vitriol. Perhaps now that there IS someone else with a legitimate interest in this page, we can actually have a meaningful analysis of the deficiencies of this page's content with the objective of fixing them, instead of going on a deletionist rampage. Mfarah (talk) 08:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Removal of unsourced content has nothing to do with religion: Removal of unsourced content is Wikipedia policy, regardless of where the violation occurs, and regardless of whether someone thinks their policy-violating original research "knowledge" is as good as formal reliable sources or thinks that unsourced information is better than not having information. Looks like Walter Sobchak0 (talk · contribs) has now been temporarily blocked for his un-civil behavior; "sod off" doesn't sound very civil either. Were these "sample references" inline in the article, or just a request for someone else to do the work? I support any removal of unsourced content in this article instantly on sight at this point, considering the 4+ years that users kept ignoring WP:PROVEIT. See my comment a few minutes ago at the end of #Removal of enormous unreferenced text above. Adding material, refusing to add sources at the same time, then trying to force the rest of the world to trust that someone will eventually add a source next month or a thousand years from now or whatever, is against Wikipedia policy. --Closeapple (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The Word Pinche On the Southwest Border. 3/21/2015[edit]

Another meaning of the Word PINCHE as used around Yuma, Arizona and El Paso, Texas, was translated as "chickenshit". If you were "pinche' you were a chickenshit or acting like a chickenshit. Not just "cheap" but so whiney, obnoxious, picky, sometimes selfish, you were called "pinche". Sometimes almost as if you were considered as a form of a pain in the ass. It seemed to vary due to context. This was based on personal experience in government service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P38L5 (talkcontribs) 09:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)