Wikipedia talk:Don't-give-a-fuckism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Essays
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.
 Top  This page has been rated as Top-impact on the project's impact scale.
WikiProject Department of Fun (Rated Project-class, Bottom-importance)
WikiProject icon This page is supported by the Department of Fun WikiProject, which aims to provide Wikipedians with fun so that they stay on Wikipedia and keep on improving articles. If you have any ideas, do not hesitate to post them to the discussion page or access our home page to join the Department of Fun.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the quality scale.
 Bottom  This page has been rated as Bottom-importance on the importance scale.

Locked down[edit]

I've locked it down (full-protect from move and edits) till there is some resolution on the talk page. Discuss away. If any admin feels there is a resolution and I'm not around, feel free to unprotect. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's safe to unprotect it. —Locke Coletc 06:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Having said that, maybe it's best to leave it this way, there's always WP:RM if someone wants to talk about moving the page in the future. —Locke Coletc 06:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

We should be able to write explicit language in school[edit]

I think it would be awesome if I could use words like "fuck, dumbass, etc." in school essays. Writing essays fucking sucks, so why not make it a little less stressful by being able to write how you truly feel on the topic. Cause come on, half the school essays students write are just suck-up bullshit. If I could write freely without having to worry about statements like "this is inappropriate" made by teachers, I would be so happy.

Not sure where you're from because you didn't sign your post (getting a username would help too), but where I come from schools are in a marketplace. They compete for students. They need to convince parents that they will give children a good education. They have to convince ALL parents of this, so they have to target the most conservative. Doing so won't generally offend more open minded, but allowing swearing, etc. will offend those conservative folk. So, the target is the conservative end of behaviour.
Another perspective is that it's good for you to learn to write for all possible audiences, including those who don't like swearing. HiLo48 (talk) 02:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC). However, the allowance of such shows acceptance of ignorance, which should not be pressed for in our society. - (this is based off of the idea that a point can be just as valid even with vulgar content and we should not allow for "explicit language" to diminish an arguments strength. Doing so is the acceptance of ignorance.) - Please add why the removal of this was necessary if you decide to do so again.

Humour tag removed[edit]

I see that it was previously removed, but restored because "the inclusion of the humor tag would be a stong indication that editors should not take it too seriously unless they really understand the true context". I disagree. The humour tag would indicate the page is considered to be humour and not meant to be serious, when this is a very serious opinion indeed. Please revert and discuss if needed. Thanks. wctaiwan (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you're not thinking about this the right way. Think what others will think when they think they understand this page, and just think of how strange they'll think it is if they don't think that this page is humorous. I think it's best that we let others know, and think, that this page makes its point through humor, otherwise they'll think we literally think what the page says, and I don't think that would be a great idea. Someone would think that we're crazy, and they'd think that best way to deal with this is at WP:MFD. The humor tag protects us Don't-give-a-fuckers from having to think up counterarguments to such thoughts, which is good because we might not be bothered to. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Alright. I don't completely agree, but this looks like a contentious issue and I don't think it's worth everyone's time to argue over it. Thanks for the reply. wctaiwan (talk) 03:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I just want to make this addition: who cares what other people think — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Pruning #Variations[edit]

I removed a (rather graphic) variation, the only Google hits for which were derivatives of this page. I also removed an explanation of the literal meaning since I feel it doesn't really aid in the understanding of the philosophy. Again, please revert and discuss if desired. wctaiwan (talk) 12:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Well that's a bit excessive, Dave. I'm pretty sure enough of us admins watchlist this page already. I get that we have people trying to get rid of the naughty words in this page fairly often, but that's no reason to be so abrupt. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Don't forget to WP:BRD, WP:AGF, and WP:DGAF (ironic, hm?). →Στc. 03:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I know that Wikipedia is not censored. However, as you can see here, the phrase "don't give two squirts of hot steamy piss" is not widely used. This means that it's probably offensive without being useful in aiding the reader's understanding (since most people wouldn't find the phrase more familiar than "don't give a fuck"), which makes me think it is unnecessary.
Similarly, the explanation about feces does not aid the understanding of the concept, aside from being a rather questionable interpretation.* As such, including it does not strengthen the explanation of the concept, but rather weakens it by drowning it out in other things.
*There are many variations of the phrase: "don't give a fuck", "don't give a damn", "don't give a fiddler's fart", etc., and in most cases it's not something people would possess, which leads me to believe that the "shit" is probably just a generic expletive and not something specific. But obviously I'm no linguist.
Lastly, I object to your treatment of my actions. I was aware people may not like my changes, so I took it as far as explaining them on the talk page and inviting reverts. You reverted, that's great, but please don't assume I was doing it to be disruptive. I would like a brief apology from you for that, if you would recognise that you overreacted.
I would appreciate further discussion on my removals with the more specific rationales in mind. If there is consensus that they are appropriate, I think they should be reinstated. wctaiwan (talk) 03:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The timeline of event tells another story, you were being unilateral and that's an undeniable fact for all to see so don't be going around telling others that you didn't. If you're not sure, ASK! (See → WP:Questions.) --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 08:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to pursue this argument about my behaviour further. However I'd still like people to look at my rationales and see whether the changes have merits or should be reinstated. wctaiwan (talk) 10:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Replying to the content changes themselves, I'm pretty sure no one will give two squirts of hot, steamy piss if "two squirts of hot steamy piss" is removed. It's just not a big deal either way. I'd feel better if we included another example of some sort of excrement for us to not give any of, but that's only because of comedy's rule of three (things are funnier in groups of three), so it's also not a big deal either way, especially since I can't think of a good one.
As for the rest, I can't help but relating the removal of the content with the removal of the humor tag (noted a section above). I'm assuming that you sort of want this page to be a bit more serious than it is, rather than straight humor, correct? I'm not sure that this page is the best place to seriously deal with a Buddhist-inspired editing philosophy. The humor here meshes well with the title. If we want to turn this into a serious page, rather than a silly one with serious intent, we really ought to talk about it first, and decide how much of the humor we keep, whether or not we move the page to a more descriptive title (Wikipedia:WikiBuddhism, for instance), or whether or not we create another page to be the serious version of this. I'd prefer either the first of third option (editing here or creation of another page), but only because Don't-give-a-fuckism is a great name and I'd hate to have it as only a redirect. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
In this light, you're probably right. I came to the page and didn't find anything too funny about it (and well, the lead did say it's not a joke :P). It seems like what I saw as being crass for the sake of it is actually intended as humour—which is fine, humour is individual, and if others find it funny, so be it. This certainly explains the {{humor}} tag for me. I have no further comments, then. Thanks for the reply. wctaiwan (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Carl Sagan reference[edit]

How does Carl Sagan's reflections on our "Pale Blue Dot" relate to "Don't-give-a-fuckism"? (talk) 03:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the idea is that one tiny issue on one tiny planet can't be all that significant in the overall scheme of things. HiLo48 (talk) 04:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Reading Sagan's reflections reminded me of the thought that as our little blue dot is so small and fragile, we'd better take better care of it and ourselves -- in other words, anything but "don't-give-a-fuckism". The last line of the quote is: "To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known." (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


The article seems to be about Wikipedians "chilling out" a little more and not getting unduly wound up about issues. But this doesn't quite chime with the current title which implies a rather negative "stuff you" attitude. So why don't we retitle the article something like "Wikipedia:Chill out" which is a) a better sentiment b) closer to the spirit of the article c) shorter and d) avoids profanity which could be offensive to some and rather undermines Wikipedia's attempt to be taken seriously. Just my 2 cents. --Bermicourt (talk) 08:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

  • No, it's not about "fuck you" at all; it's about not giving a fuck. Whatever title you use it will be offensive to some. Personally I would be offended by the blandness of "chill out", and probably wouldn't bother reading the article. There are other appropriate phrases widely used in the buddhist vajrayana, such as CCL (couldn't care less) and DGAS (don't give a shit), To be effective, this stuff needs some energy and punch behind it, which is no way captured by the 60's drug culture term "chill out". --Epipelagic (talk) 09:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • No, its just shock value and is the most direspectful and unprofessional essay I have ever seen here, It's use could well be disruptive and considered uncivil. I recommend and support a name change.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: WP:SNOW close. No policy-based reason given for moving the page. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 00:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckismWP:Apathy – Restore user friendly title after vicious move (talk) 09:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

While I support the move in principle, this request is simply not based on policy. User friendly is not per policy. Is there a policy based reasoning that can be discussed?--Amadscientist (talk) 10:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • This essay has nothing to do with "apathy". --Epipelagic (talk) 11:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Uhm...Apathy (also called impassivity or perfunctoriness) is a state of indifference, or the suppression of emotions such as concern, excitement, motivation and passion. An apathetic individual has an absence of interest in or concern about emotional, social, spiritual, philosophical and/or physical life.
Soooooo, does. But in a less than civil manner.
A side note. The editor that submitted this request will be unable to respond for two days during their current block.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
You radically misunderstand the essay. Try reading it again and reflecting on it. --Epipelagic (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
You may wish to do the same, aside from that, do you have a real counter to this proposal other than accussing editors of not understanding what the obscure and unprofessional essay is attempting to demonstrate?--Amadscientist (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Here is the intial page when concieved in 2006: [1]. Explain that.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
The only reason that I support this move is that the essay cannot be used in civil discussion. I note that "Don't be a dick" had the same issue and was reduced several times until it was a simple single line and then it was simply deleted altogether. The reason was that the essay was overly used and caused disruption and was considered an innaproppriate way for editors to engage each other. This really has no place on Wikipedia, but we do not censor and if it remains will simply be limited in use.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Far too much of this sort of ill-considered busy-body censorship is going on in Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, the essay is very ill concieved. If it was censorship it would have been deleted years ago.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any redlink for WP:DICK. I see a soft redirect to the the essay's home on Meta, where it exists in over a dozen languages. And I might add that there's a vast gulf of difference between an essay that can be (improperly) used to call another editor a "dick", while this is just simply uses the fuck word in the title in a manner that can't be used to insult anyone. In fact, it's a rather positive use of the fuck word. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
If it's true that, as Amadscientist claims, "the essay cannot be used in civil discussion", those self proclaimed, dreadfully civil people having those civil discussions without mentioning this article are doing their own self censorship. Why should I give a fuck about that? Just leave it alone. If you like the content, but not the name, just write another article. Otherwise, you're asking for censorship, and we don't do that here. HiLo48 (talk) 07:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
We also don't accuse people of actions they are not doing but look at you...again being uncivil in your approach. I am beginning to see what this essay is for. If this was censorship there would be no discussion. Now, having said that, I do believe the OP may have requested this move for the wrong reasons but that is still not censorship. I understand that you may not be familiar with how Wikipedia works Hilo but whether or not you agree with the policy, this is how we do things. We make a proposal and then we discuss it, but just making accusations wont strengthen your opinion. All it does is make the closer ignore your part as patent nonsense. And yes, Hilo...the use of a link and the phrase would be seen as uncivil just as linking "Don't be a dick" is seen in the same way. I see no one arguing for to oppose the move has yet given a reason within policy as well so...--Amadscientist (talk) 08:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
And its not even a clever use of the word "Fuck" by the way.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Calm down and do something constructive, like writing an article. If you come back later and read the essay you are so upset about in a more considered way, you might find it helpful. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Try not to direct others Epipelagic or attempt to inject suggestions without bases. Stick to the subject at hand. I know this may be difficult but perhaps you could try "not giving a fuck". I see nothing useful with this essay. I find it disruptive, unprofessional and lacking any encyclopedic value.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
It is not an encyclopaedic article so talking about its "encyclopedic value" is irrelevant. It offers some material that is helpful to some editors, though clearly not helpful to you. Please try and spell words correctly when you pontificate on "professionalism". --Epipelagic (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah yes, the argument of the those with little to say...discussing the contributer and not the contributions. The weakest argument ever is to discuss the spelling of others. How classy. Whether you like it or not, everything created on Wikipedia is to improve the encyclopedia. This does not do that. Its intent is clearly disruptive.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I really think editors should refrain from further comment if all they are going to do is make personal attacks and criticism of others. I am not sure why this approach seems appropriate, especially when this proposal is clearly not going to end with a title change but it isn't important enough to me to continue. Happy editing guys and gals.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Where are the personal attacks? HiLo48 (talk) 10:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
The attacks from Amadscientist. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
LOL HiLo48 (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
If you are both done discussing the merits of the proposal you should just refrain from further chat. Anyone can remove posts that are just chat, but doing so would just encourage more uncivil accusations from these two and clearly they are no longer assuming good faith. Geez guys...I didn't even make this fucking thread or even !vote in it.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
And in accusing others of making personal attacks and criticising others, seemingly without any grounds at all, YOU were assuming good faith? LOL. (You could try answering my question of "Where are the personal attacks?") HiLo48 (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I love how you continue to demonstrate a lack of understanding of the basics of Wikipedia Hilo. Happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
LOL again. HiLo48 (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
At least I can make you smile.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, there's nothing wrong with the title as it is. Wikipedia is not censored, and project-space essays are definitely not censored. —Locke Coletc 10:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: Move instead to Wikipedia:Don't give a rat's arse. Much more colourful and interesting title. Skinsmoke (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
No, that would create too much international debate about whether it should be spelt arse or ass. (My spell checker rejects arse.) HiLo48 (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • WTF??? Oppose of course. Those who just don't like it are sure blessed with enough free will not to read/cite it and if the mere existence of this essay is offending/bothering them, tough luck. Welcome to the real world where there are no "peeps".TMCk (talk) 19:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, there really should be confusion here. The OP did not give a reason per policy because there really isn't one aside from the civility issues from linking to the essay...but then that would require it be used in a specific way to begin with so it is clear this request is going nowhere. I recommend a speedy close by an uninvolved editor (it need not be an admin).--Amadscientist (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Can't be arsed[edit]

"Can't be arsed" doesn't mean the same as "don't give a fuck". The former means "I'm not willing to put any effort in" whilst the latter means "I just don't care". There is a subtle but important difference. danno_uk 00:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

SFW title[edit]

If someone wanted to write a non-humorous version of this, titling it Wikipedia:don't get too attached might be a good suggestion, or even Wikipedia:Zen. The editor proposing above this be renamed to "Apathy" obviously didn't get what this page was about, so perhaps that is an argument for writing a "for dummies" version, omitting humor. Wikipedia:Let it go and Wikipedia:It's not the End of the World seem to be just that though. I've added them to "see also". Someone not using his real name (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

G10: Attack page deletion[edit]

I have requested speedy deletion per G10 at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism_(5th_nomination). WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED! blastertalk! see 09:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be violating WP:POINT/WP:TROLL. Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because... No valid reason given --SabreBD (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

"Bad ways" section[edit]

Seems biased/contradictory, animals go around killing each other and they don't care or have any positive or negative viewpoints of life. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I find this offensive.[edit]

I know that Wikipedia isn't censored but there is a reason that m:Don't be a jerk exists. Because people like me find "Don't be a d++k" to be offensive and obscene and vulgar and foul. But there is something else; Profanity must not be used in Wikipedia unless its omission would reduce the accuracy of articles and there is no equally good alternative. --— Darth Tacker (talkcontribs) 12:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Darth Tacker: All things being equal, I think that most editors find socking more offenseive  :) ciao! Muffled Pocketed 12:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I find this essay both humorous and usefully instructive, and not even remotely offensive. Avoiding giving a fuck can be a useful and positive thing to do at times, as there are things in this world that are better dealt with via lack of fucks given. There are certainly times where fucks should be given, but many times where the gift of a fuck does not produce a better overall outcome. I agree with keeping profanity in real articles to an uncensored reasonable and appropriate minimum, but it certainly does not matter elsewhere when used occasionally. Sometimes there are even occasions where you are quite justified in wishing that someone would just procreate in an alternate location. There are some precedents set by people with notability, such as Jimbo "utter fucking bullshit" Wales. The trick is not to use it routinely or excessively, and not to give a fuck about the occasional use of profanity or when used to humorous effect. In some major parts of the English speaking world (notably the United Kingdom), profanity is both expected and accepted in many situations, and most people don't give a fuck about it. In some parts of Ireland, some would prefer it if people "didn't give a feck" instead, particularly in more polite company, but overall they still don't really give a fuck about it. Face-grin.svg Murph9000 (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Essays, like Wikipedia, are not censored. You also have to understand, as per above, that what you view as profanity may be simply viewed as the day-to-day culture in other countries (such as Australia, where "yer a fuckin' asshole, ain'tcha" is actually a cheerful greeting).--WaltCip (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
To me, dear @Darth Tacker: visiting this essay is a bit like having a gay marriage. If you don't like it, don't do it. Carptrash (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because... (your reason here) --Carptrash (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

  • KEEP If we start deleting pages because anonymous editors find them "offensive" we probably stand to loose about 2 million of our 5 million articles. Who does the "negative unsourced biography " refer to anyway? And I have not yet seen who blanked the page, but I shall check again. Carptrash (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
It was just trolling, forget about it. Muffled Pocketed 01:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)