Talk:Fuck/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Feb 4 2009 edits

I've removed some guff, but there's heaps more that should go. I'll wait a couple of days to see if anyone else wnats to do some heavy lifting, then I'll have another pass. - brenneman 14:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

passive voice in definition 2

• The first paragraph says:

It is also a verb that means "to be cheated" ("I got fucked by a scam artist").

The example given (which I believe is correct) contradicts the definition (which I think is wrong). It should be:

It is also a verb that means "to cheat" ("I got fucked by a scam artist").

It may also be worth noting that this usage may be formed emphatically as fucked over, fucked over hard, or fucked in the ass.

ruinia (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

---

• I agree, the definition as stated in the article is incorrect. It should read, a verb that means "to cheat". 207.155.244.69 (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
• I know section makes no mention of it. I'm at work and can't look it up right now, so I thought I would add so someone else can, if not myself, later. 76.192.185.125 (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• The sentiments listed in the paragraph describing transitive and intransitive usage leaves something to be desired:

  "The verb to fuck may be used transitively or intransitively, and it appears in compounds, including fuck off, fuck up, and fuck with. In less explicit usages (but still regarded as vulgar), fuck or fuck with can mean to mess around, or to deal with unfairly or harshly."

  fuck with in less explicit usage can merely mean to tinker with.

  09:17, 14 December 2009 User:99.130.198.123

FSCK

Can we link to the wikipedia entry for FSCK? Would you also consider spelling out File System Utility ChecK so that it is clear to non-geek people like me? Thanks. Nicely done overall :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.202.146 (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Other uses to possibly add?

Fuck-all "nothing" first recorded 1960.

Fuck up "to ruin, spoil, destroy" first attested c.1916. 64.180.202.146 (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No.

"A fuck" does not mean "a sexual partner." You can say, "she's a terrible fuck," but that doesn't mean sexual partner. That means she's bad at fucking. You can't say "she's my fuck," or "you will get AIDS if you have too many fucks." 128.210.12.38 (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed Hadrian89 (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

One certainly can say of a person "[he/she] is my latest fuck," meaning that the person is one's latest sexual partner. This is common usage!

==IMHO, actually, it means they are one's latest fuck. The implication is that they are one's latest coital performer, in a loose arrangement, not one's current sexual partner.

Proper sections

This page has apparently been written by a British author. Hence Shakespeare and British TV find mention prominently. Can the sections be more broadbased like "Occurrence in TV/Print/Movies/Songs/Meetings/etc etc". This will let new users know where to add and update. So, if i want to add something from Indian TV, where do i add it? 63.216.63.52 (talk) 11:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Varun

Osho

I had heard an audio recording of an Osho session which seemed like a public discourse, in which he gives 10 minute lecture on "fuck" and its varied uses in the language to the delight of the audience. Can someone reference that? 63.216.63.52 (talk) 11:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Varun

[1]. Funny, but not sure it is an acceptable external link. Jayen466 09:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

fuck is an agronomy

the word fuck was an agronomy regarding the king of england army and fornication

Do you have a source for that? (Also, I think you mean some other word than "agronomy".) - Jredmond (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe acronym? Those theories are covered in the article, by the way (see the section "False etymologies"). Jafeluv (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

ofcourse because that everyone have to use the telephone to keep touch with anotherone.So that ,the telepho —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.50.134.202 (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong link.

• I don't know if you guys noticed, but don't have any article in the portuguese wikipedia called "foder".
  Sphynge (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• pt:Foder has been deleted 7 times over the last 4 years, usually quickly as "garbage" or similar, the last time as "Eliminado em votação" (i.e. AfD): pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Foder is the Portuguese Wikipedia AfD discussion for pt:Foder. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

A couple of surprising omissions of the use of the word

1. A quick look at Who Are You (song) shows I am not the only person on earth to have heard Roger Daltry clearly sing "Who the fuck are you?" in that song. (And, Wikipedia:no original research aside, I can attest that the song was frequently played uncensored on US commercial radio during the 1970s.)
2. I was told that Ashley Montagu, in his The Anatomy of Swearing, reports that an auto mechanic once explained the problem with Montagu's car thusly: "The problem is that the fucking fuck won't fuck." (A friend who read the book claimed this was in it, & I was never able to find a copy to verify this.)

I probably wouldn't have posted these omissions had Gropecunt Lane never been a Featured Article on Wikipedia's front page. -- llywrch (talk) 05:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

"Iconic"

I was always taught that to use the word 'iconic' in the sense in which it's used in the opening sentence of this article is erroneous, though often repeated. Strictly speaking an 'icon' is some kind of deity, but even applying the abstract meaning of it, I still don't think you would say that the word 'Fuck' is iconic, it's just enjoyed by a lot of people.

an offencive term talking about sex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.234.243 (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Shouldn't we add something about Governor Schwarzenegger using the word covertly in a letter to the California Assembly. 94.6.32.59 (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

First response: If it is sourced properly, add it. If not, don't. Wait a minute. Second response: In addition to properly sourcing evidence, in order to be added some level of notability needs to be established for this article (as opposed to the other article on Schwarzenegger). Imagine if every time someone used the word it were added. I opine the article might get a tad long. (Please note: add comments in chronological order. See logical.) —Aladdin Sane (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Scarface (1932)

Usage in popular culture. In Scarface (1932), Tony's inarticulate "secretary" throws down the telephone, pulls a gun on it, and says, "Ah, shut up you, you fuck off..." Guv2006 (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

George Carlin tense change

time to change the tense of the verb, "is" to the past tense, "was" for George Carlin in the following paragraph under the heading, "Censorship".

Many stand-up comedians who perform for adult audiences make liberal use of the word fuck. While George Carlin's use of the word is an important part of his stage persona, other comedians (such as Andrew Dice Clay) have been accused of substituting vulgarity and offensiveness for genuine creativity through overuse of the word. Billy Connolly and Lenny Bruce were pioneers of the use of the word in their shows for general audiences.

I weighed the evidence in your argument, and I agree. The reference is to a stage persona that no longer exists. Note that this can get trickier than appears at first: Hamlet still is a play by Shakespeare, for example. In this case, the persona is endogenous to the person, a now non-existent person: The persona goes away when the person does, unlike a play by a now non-existent person. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is this page protected?

• I mean, what could anyone put on this page that would be worse than the word "fuck"? There are certain pages that there's no question, you know they're vandalism magnets. For example the Queen of England or the Pope. Ironically, the word "fuck" on those pages would be considered vandalism, but on this page, such a graffito would not appear so much vandalism as perhaps a typographical error. There is nothing you could do to a page about fuck that would be worse than fuck itself. Maybe in Commonwealth countries you could use the word "bloody", but really, is that even a swear word? While it is a bad word in a few places. It's an adjective describing something that has blood on it in most other parts of the world. Fuck is unambiguously a swear word in all Anglophone contexts. I just want to be sure that this is not done out of paranoia. Some Wikipedia editors can be a little anal. With things like deletions, there's guidelines and peer review, but with page protection, it's a form of censorship that anyone with the power can wield with impunity. There is little traceability. Perhaps an edit comment. "I protected this because someone wrote 'poo-poo' there, and it seemed like something that might happen again someday". I mean, that's not scientific. That's not consensus. Who do you think you are to make those kinds of decisions, shutting out multiple billions of other human beings because you thought it seemed appropriate? --72.225.47.167 (talk) 03:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not censored. That said, there is a vast difference between an encyclopaedic, professionally worded sentence such as "The word has probable cognates in other Germanic languages, such as German ficken (to fuck)..." and very unencyclopaedic, gratuitous use of the word, as seen in this bit of vandalism. Your argument is fallacious at multiple levels: the protection does not "[shut] out multiple billions of other human beings..."; only those who do not have an account. Furthermore, your statement "There is nothing you could do to a page about fuck that would be worse than fuck itself" is untrue: the word "fuck", when used informatively as in the example provided, is not at all offensive. Intelligentsium 03:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
• It's not as easy as "getting an account", you do have to make quite a few edits with it first before earning the privilege to edit semi-protected pages, which can be difficult for those who just want to make a few contributions to these types of articles, thus there are lots of people in this world who "do not have an account" on Wikipedia and are thus shut out from editing "Fuck". 71.113.46.74 (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Some pages get so much vandalism by anonymous users that regrettably they must be semiprotected. That happened with page Duck, and for a long time nearly all of its edits were vandalisms and reverts to repair vandalism. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Use in politics

Surely the amount of quotes here is overkill. Yes, it's unusual and therefore arguably notable when a politician drops the word in a public forum. But some of these cites are from conversations behind closed doors that have subsequently leaked to the press. Why are they notable? Digestible (talk) 06:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

"What the fuck" and "WTF"

A discussion at Talk:W.T.F. (the talk page for the South Park episode) involves discussion about redirects, moves, the disamb page WTF, and various related pages might be of some interest. Thanks. Ruodyssey (talk) 06:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism in lead?

There are portions in the lead (and elsewhere in the article) that appear to be lifted verbatim from that flash video that's been floating around the internet for years. (link) The video could have gotten it's dialogue from this article, but I doubt it. Anyone can see that the video is intended to be comical and quoting it directly (while not being acknowledged as a source, no less, though I doubt it can hardly be described as a reliable source) just messes up the article's tone completely. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Which portions? I have never watched that flash video and I had not heard of it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the second half of the entire lead, basically. And portions of the "Modern usage" section. In my personal assessment of the article, I would say it's in bad shape. It seems mostly focused on giving examples of the many different ways you can use the word. This is also the same thing the flash video does. In my mind, I equate the two, and that just makes me interpret the article as something intended to be amusing, rather than encyclopedic. I dunno, maybe I'm being unfair or irrational. I just wanted to run these thoughts by to see what anybody else might have to say. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope I am doing this correctly. I created an account just to say this. You are correct about the lines in this article being lifted verbatim. When I read this article, I remembered the audio file that I had saved on my computer when I was a kid. I still own that computer in it's original configuration and, after some searching, I found the old tower tucked in my attic. The audio portion of the file you have linked to is at least 17 years old. The sound file is identical to the one on my hard drive with the creation date of December 26, 1992. This was the file I tested my Sound Blaster 16 with. I am sure the source of the audio can be traced back to the late 80's early 90's. I think the key to tracking the date of this file is finding out when a computer could emulate that voice. (about the same time as Dr. Sbaitso, the computer voice/home therapist)Melderd (talk) 04:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

etymology fuck

It comes from the ancient England, where people neeeded to have permission from the King for having children, so they put outside their houses F.U.C.K., which means: Fornication Under the Consent of the King.

--- This is discussed in the core article, and no, it doesn't. Edwardfortune —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.63.197 (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Derivation from Latin of the word Fuck.

An Op Ed letter was published in the Wall St. Journal, Monday, July 12, 1999 concerning the Origins of (deleted). The letter was from Ron Goodman, English Department, Quincy College.

Fuck and its possible Latin roots:

Originally from the Latin faceo, "to make, to do." Conjugate it slightly--faceo, facere, feci, factus. Then go through early High German umlaut and you get from factus to fuctus. And therein might be the original root of the word. Certainly the original meaning of "to make, to do" does fit with the more recent (1500s) use of the word until it came down to its present usage.

21:18, 2 February 2010 User:Rongoodman7

That's absolutely absurd. Early High German umlaut would reduce factus to *fectus not *fuctus. See Germanic umlaut#I-mutation in Old High German. And German never had *fucken but rather ficken; additionally, it assumes English borrowed it from German. 90.212.180.42 (talk) 08:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Steinbeck, Cannery Row

Although there's a mention of The Naked and the Dead, there's not a word about John Steinbeck's "Cannery Row". Like others of his contemporaries, he had to use "fug" instead of "fuck" before the novel could be published.

'Cannery Row' includes two passages: "Doc, that's a fuggin' lie!" and "Go take a flying fug at the moon". If The Naked and the Dead is worth a mention, I'm certain we should include Cannery Row, because it was published in 1945, three years before Mailer's novel. And it would give Steinbeck a shout out for being a Nobel prizewinner as well as having at least two of his novels banned in the US and other places (Of Mice and Men was banned as recently as 2002; attempts to ban it persist to this day).SonOfAJim (talk) 07:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent uses?

Bad name for the section, it should be Notable Recent Uses 96.227.219.78 (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Another great use of the word is in the film "The Boondock Saints" by Troy Duffy:

                                    ROCCO
                        What did you do?! Fuckin'... what 
                        the fuckin' fuck! Who the fuck, fucked 
                        this fuckin'? fuck. How did you two 
                        fuckin', fucks?......... FUCK!!!

                                    CONNOR
                        Certainly illustrates the diversity 
                        of the word.

Bhanghai (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

And just recently USA VP Joe Biden said it on a open mike when commenting to Barack Obama (BO) ! AdamTheWebMan (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Simple Latin Etimology is Way more likely

In fact the Latin verb "figere" (to stick into, to attach, and later Vulgar for to fuck) it simply turned into the French verb "ficher" (to do, give, put, and to fuck), and into German "ficken" (to fuck), and into Italian "ficcare" (to stick into, to pierce, to fuck); Dutch "fokken" (to breed, to strike, to beget); dialectal Norwegian "fukka" (to copulate), and dialectal Swedish "fokka" (to strike, to copulate) and "fock" (penis); etc. etc. It just can't be easier. Please give your opinions. Vortex9000 (talk) 00:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but we try to refrain from our own opinions here. Only sourced ones could have any effect on the article. Please see WP:TALK. Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Rahm Emanuel

Rahm Emanuel's gratuitious usage of the word "fuck" ought to be added to the Politics section, as he is notorious, especially among Americans, for his usage of the word. And there are numerous citable examples. For instance, his recorded phone calls with congressmen, and the sign in his office reading "Secretary of F___ Off".

Next edit:
B/c as myself he wasn't born w/English in his mouth - he learned it, hence he cannot comprehend the offensiveness of this word. The offensiveness can only be properly comprehended when a "childhood block" is formed. I was born/raised in Russia, like Rahm Emmanuel of Jewish descent and yes I can also throw in "F" word w/o fearing it b/c - I have no "mental block" against it. Yet note I do have blocks against Russian curses, I don't like and afraid to use them without checking who is listening - they are vulgar to me. But "F" word is not equally vulgar b/c I wasn't born with English as first language. I've seen my x-coworker, a nice educated & fragile woman, would say things like "I am a little whor*" and complete what she thinks is a joke with "F* words. But to Americans her joke sounded so contradictory to this woman's appearance of a nice old lady (almost 60). Why? She learned English at the age of over 35, no mental blocks agains F word. No parents around slapping your mouth for using it, but she can't curse in Polish without thinking first - Polish is her native language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.53.167 (talk) 08:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Not Irony

In June 2004, during a heated exchange on the U.S. Senate floor about Halliburton's role in the reconstruction of Iraq, Vice President Dick Cheney told Democratic senator Patrick Leahy, "fuck yourself". Ironically, Cheney's outburst occurred on the same day that the Defense of Decency Act was passed in the Senate.

This is a coincidence, not irony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.177.99 (talk • contribs)

Fixed. Mindmatrix 13:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure about that. Seems like irony to me. You wouldn't expect the President of the Senate to be publically using explicit language while the Senate is passing a bill that is "defending decency". Seems to fit in with the notion of "tragic irony" (where someone's speech contradicts the situation) or "historical irony" Seems like it's only coincidence if the two incidences are chance events. Definitely irony if Cheney supported the bill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.144.10 (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

A rule when inserting "fucking" inside words

• I read in a book about slang, a rule when inserting "fucking" inside words: the word "absolutely" scans metrically as two trochees: absolutely. "Fucking" scans as one trochee. And, when infixing, the result is always "absofuckinglutely", keeping the scansion, never *"abfuckingsolutely" or *"absolutefuckingly", which do not keep the scansion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The Most Famous Word on Earth: Fuck

Everybodies Favorite Word... --Necromorph-X (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Temporary Issue

The "Etymology" chapter is rather scarce for such a common word. It appears obvious that such a common word was extensively researched and here's a bit of proof: Number of hits from a search of keywords +fuck+etymology in Google "Approximately 1.050.000 rezults (0,15 seconds)" Thus, I would respectfully ask Wikipedia enthusiasts to further their knowledge of this happy word's origins and enrich the "Etymology" chapter. Most interesting would be the etymological path that this word has undertaken. Thank you.

10:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Felix. a.k.a BlackTomcat

work on this page hard enough for it to become a featured article

that would be kind of funny —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 03:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't chu meen fucking fawnny? BOOYAH, score one for dee Cesarmeister! --Cesar Millan (talk to dogs) 13:38, 21 December 2012 (AYB)

Grammatical Mistake

When the article first mentions Shakespeare's use of the word, it uses a semicolon where there should be a comma. "While Shakespeare never used the term explicitly; he hinted at it in comic scenes in a few plays." The first clause is a fragment. 10:02 AM, October 17, 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.74.238 (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Alternatives?

The header “alternatives” is rather ridiculous. Alternatives would be “shit”, “crap”,… for the exclamation and “drill”, “bone”, etc. for sexual intercourse. “F***”, “fricking”, and so on, are rather censorings, bowdlerizations or expurgations. ‒Flying sheep (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC) PS: I hate dissembling moralizers pretending their ridiculous behavior was normal.

History of word FUCK

I the time of 8th Henry, King of England. Due to wars, plague and banishes, etc. Population of country were decreased and King was worried about his country future. After a research, it turns out that there are many people in prisons, because of their crimes such as prostitution, murdering, stealing, etc. King decide to allow these people to fornicate under the control of the king; so that population can be increased. In a decade of time, population was reached the desirable level. This event series called as, Fornication Under Control of the King (a.k.a FUCK)

kgg (talk) 03:44, 20 May 2009

It's in the article; see Fuck#False etymologies. Mindmatrix 01:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The article suggests that there may be something in the idea that population control was practiced in the time of the Black Death, when the opposite was true. Depopulation of Europe due to the bubonic plague was a major problem and one of the things that led to the demise of feudalism - workers were in short supply and had the new ability to move to another manor or demand pay for their work. If anything, kings and lords would be encouraging their serfs to reproduce.

Also, the idea that bubonic plague would contaminate food supplies seems inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.12.7.116 (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

More "fuck" in Music

1: Country Joe McDonald (of Country Joe and The Fish) used to work with the audience at concerts on 'The Fish Cheer', traditionally to spell out the word "fish". However, at the Woodstock Festival in 1969, McDonald called out "give me an F" and, after the audience's response, followed with the letters "U", "C" and "K" in turn before asking them "What's that spell" several times (and, of course, getting a loud and vibrant response each time). This probably still stands as a record for the most people in one place simultaneously shouting "Fuck!" several times (as many as 500,000 attended the festival, but more likely around 300,000 participated in the cheer). In that revised format, "The Fish Cheer" appeared on the Woodstock album and became one of the noted parts of the movie of the festival.

2: Pearls Before Swine's 2004 album, Wizard of Is, includes a song, "Miss Morse". The chorus is morse code (dididahdit dididah dahdidahdit dahdidah) for the word "fuck" SonOfAJim (talk) 07:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

3: Mike Oldfield's album, Amarok, was his final contractual album for Virgin Records. It includes pink noise represented as morse code, which when translated is "fuck off RB", and was aimed directly at Richard Branson who was Virgin Records' chief at the time. That's also mentioned in Amarok (album). 68.18.196.168 (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Fuck is a sound word

• Many words in the English language are merely phonetic interpretations of that word. Say bottle five times rapidly and you will get the idea. Same for slap, wack, ski, skate, rip, crush, slide etc. During sexual intercourse the slapping sound made by two pairs of thighs repeatedly coming into contact make a clear fuck fuck fuck sound. 17:49, 13 January 2010 User:Cinnaron
• "Ski" is not onomatopoeia but comes from Old Norse skið and has the same origin as English "skid". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
• Besides, the sound make when you fuck can vary and is irrelevant. --PorgeHR (talk) 01:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• Perhaps the sound varies but I am sure that "fuck" is not sexual onomatopoeia. Staying with basic pronunciation only, my own is one of the north-western English "fook" sounds, and there are many more including the south-eastern English "fack" and f*ck ( * is the second 'o' in "common"), as well as the Irish "feck". I don't believe that you can place people geographically by the sounds they make when fucking. It's just another word that has power because of the way it's uttered. "Fuck" can be whispered softly and be seductive, but it can also have an emphatic sound power that is shared by such interjections as "Bugger", "Shit" and even more so "Shite", but not "Gosh" or "Curses". --JH49S (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• In Ireland we use the words "feck" and "fuck" seperately, "feck" having somewhat less force. And, in Ireland at least, "shite" is a LESS "emphatically powerful" word than "shit".

that may be true in your experience, but I'd say "shite" is more emphatically powerful than "shit", not only because the longer 'i' vowel sound carries more emphasis than the short 'i'. At least, that's my experience, and not only with compounds such as "gobshite" etc.68.18.196.168 (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, the long i sound robs the T of some of its force.

John le Fucker

The article says: "A man's name, "John le Fucker", is said to be reported from AD 1278, but the report is doubtful" and "The "John le Fucker" reference first appears in Carl Buck's 1949 Indo-European dictionary. Buck does not supply a citation as to where he found the name. No one has subsequently found the manuscript in which it is alleged to have appeared."

This is incorrect. The document is an administrative record of 26 April 1278. An abstract of its contents is given in Calendar of the Close rolls preserved in the Public record office. Edward I, AD 1272-1279, London 1900, p. 451: "John le Fucker of Tythinge, imprisoned at Peterborough for the death of Walter de Leyghton and William de Leyghton, wherewith he is charged, has letters to the sheriff of Northampton to bail him". 85.130.55.163 (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Overall comment Where are the pretty pictures? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.144.167 (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit about syllables - I'm unconfirmed

I can't make this change because I have a new account and the article's semi-protected, but in the "Modern Usage" section it says that the k sound occurs in the 3rd syllable of "motherfucker". Technically, it's in the 4th syllable. Koojealion (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The Golf Specialist

In the 1930 movie The Golf Specialist. When the wife of the detective (Shirley Grey) approaches a group of people and says "I'm going to join your party!" after being rejected by the desk clerk. A man says "Oh yeah?" and the group leaves. Then Shirley stands there alone and clearly mutters "Well, fuck you!" under her breath. Would this count as the earliest (mainstream) use of the f-word in American cinema? PolarBearCatBear (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

We would need a source making that claim to include it in the article --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 01:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I wonder where I can get a citation on such a matter? :-) By the way, you can watch the movie here if you want to see what I'm talking about. PolarBearCatBear (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Command?

When is the word "fuck" used as a command? The only time I've ever seen the word "fuck" in an imperative sentence is "Fuck you!", which, given its target, is somewhat illogical as a command. I can see it as the starting call for a rather unusual race... Serendi^podous 19:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh wait. "Go fuck yourself". I forgot. Never mind. Serendi^podous 19:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

A link under "Further Reading" doesn't work.

This article is locked, or I would have corrected this myself.

Under the "Further Reading" headline, there's a broken link to a pdf of Andrea Hargrave's article "Delete Expletives?"

I found a link that works: http://www.audiencemap.com/whitepapers/delete_expletives.pdf

Will somebody please fix this? Also, why is this page locked? It just makes it difficult for users to make quick fixes like this.

Thanks, Boldmagicpizza — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boldmagicpizza (talk • contribs) 04:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It has to be locked cos, unfortunately, there are many morons vandalizing articles, and, as you may imagine, an article refered to the word fuck is likely to be their victim every now and then. Hope they fix the link.

190.178.209.107 (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Illustrations

Why are there no illustrations? Cannot add, as article locked.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

So what, do you want two people doing the nasty? Pictures are not necessary. KMFDM FAN (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not censored: though I dare say that if they use a pornographic image in the U.S. they would be subject to U.S. Federal Law relgating the usage of pornographic images on the internet. Also, it is not a requirement for any article to have images. Wolfpeaceful (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• You are correct, WP is not censored. This does not mean that we need things like illustrations on Fuck. See this page. C4757p (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The term FUCK is an abbreviation of a term used in Law to describe Forceful unlawful Carnal Knowledge and it was used so often is was shortened to the letters of FUCK

Your etymology has no source, but before you go looking for one, you should know the article directly contradicts this in its etymology section, which asserts that the word has a history dating back much further than the relatively recent expressions used in your backronym and probably developed naturally. Intelligentsium 23:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Origin of the word Fuck

the term originates in English Law that was used in cases involving sexual acts that were described a forceful unlawful carnal knowledge. so prevalent was the reference that it was shortened to the acronym FUCK. PJM

This is a common misnoma^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.228.216 (talk) 13:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed cruft

" and can logically be used as virtually any word in a sentence (e.g., "Fuck the fucking fuckers"). Moreover, it is one of the few words in the English language that can be applied as an infix (e.g., "Unfuckingbelievable!"; "Bullfuckingshit!")"

First part applies to many words, "Mouse the mousing mousers" "Scam the scamming scammers" second applies to most expletives "Archi-bloody-techts" - although in either case a lax interpretation of the phrase "the English language" is required. Rich Farmbrough, 19:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC).

Semicolon

"Non-English-speaking cultures tend to recognize the word's vulgarity, however, it is generally not censored as frequently as in English-speaking cultures." should be "Non-English-speaking cultures tend to recognize the word's vulgarity; however, it is generally not censored as frequently as in English-speaking cultures." Would like to change it but you guys protected the page.--201.81.83.65 (talk) 00:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Presence of women?

• "The highly profane term remains a taboo word to many people in English-speaking countries, while others feel the word remains inappropriate in social etiquette when used by a male in the presence of women." — What? Can this be substantiated? I've never observed such antiquated behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisdone (talk • contribs) 22:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• I have heard women saying "fuck" or "fucking" when annoyed, plenty of times. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Parts of speech

I've seen this claimed all over the internet, but "fuck" most definitely can't be used as nearly every part of speech. It's a noun, a verb, and an interjection. That's it.

No one says "this math problem is fuck difficult!" -- they say it's "fucking difficult". Just like any other verb, it has a participle in -ing.

And a pronoun? Yes, I know you can use it to refer to people, but that just makes it a regular old noun. Like "man" or "woman". You can tell by the use of a determiner ("She's a good fuck.").

"Fuck the fucking fuckers": I hardly see why that sentence is noteworthy. It only uses the verb meaning and its morphological derivatives! I can do that with any transitive verb: "eat the eating eaters", "punish the punishing punishers", etc.

Down under "Modern usage", there's a different list: "verb, adverb, adjective, command, conjunction, exclamatory, noun and pronoun". Command? Um, you mean the imperative mood of English? Conjunction? Hardly! Again -- verb, noun, interjection, that's it.

--76.14.67.134 (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with it not being a conjunction but it can be a command, since a command is a synonym for an imperative. --PorgeHR (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Of course. My point is that the imperative is something you can put any verb into, so this isn't really notable. Also, "command" doesn't belong in a list of parts of speech; it's still a verb. --76.14.67.134 (talk) 06:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The reason is that the second paragraph is essentially PLAGIARIZED from this thing that's been floating around the internet for years: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhh7Iu76yUA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.26.55 (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

why hasn't this paragraph been removed yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bathysphere (talk • contribs) 04:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering if/where another example might be added into this section: "Fuckin' A!" Clearly an interjection and, in my experience, usually denoting a positive, emphatic agreement with something/one... but what does the "A" stand for? 76.10.155.175 (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)MollyM

In 2009, in Waterloo Station in London, a mechanic was heard to say to his boss "The fucking fucker's fucking fucked!" Kiltpin (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it's improving. But "verb, adverb, adjective, command, interjection, noun"? That's an incoherent and inaccurate list. "Fuck" by itself isn't an adjective or adverb -- but it could become one if you add a suffix, just like any verb. And "command" isn't a part of speech at all, it's a mood. Walteroni (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Word Choice in the 2nd Paragraph

"it is one of the only words in the English language which"

I think this sentence does not make sense. It should either be "it is the only word" or "it is one of the few words..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.14.129 (talk) 07:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Makes sense to me... --PorgeHR (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• The sentence is too vague and uncertain. "Only" implies that there is a known number. I'm certain there are several. But how many are there?

I suspect there's only one other word: 'bloody' as in 'out-bloody-rageous'.

So a revision might read "...it is one of only two words (the other is 'bloody') in the English language which are applied in the middle of a word to strengthen its meaning (e.g. "Am I sexy? Absofuckinglutely!"). There should be a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody, too.

That will have to be edited by somebody else. For me, this article is at present protected from my edits. It's probably out-bloody-rageous, but I may be wrong and there be three or more words. --SonOfAJim (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• You can also do it win derivatives of fuck, like un-frigging-believable. Personally I can't, but many people can. Sabrebattletank (talk) 06:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Saying that it's any number in any number of words that people use a certain way is ridiculous. I, myself, sometimes say "fan-flapping-tastic" instead of "fan-fucking-tastic." Really, you could use ANY word for that purpose.RufioUniverse (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Portuguese

Under "Political Uses", should you really include the Brazilian president's use of a Portuguese word that means "fuck"? It's not technically the same thing.

So if someone says that he wants to kill his wife in a certain language, it can be translated to mean anything other than "he wants to kill his wife?"RufioUniverse (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"Generally"?

Per the first sentence, under what circumstances would the word "fuck" not be considered vulgar? Joefromrandb (talk) 12:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the word "generally". Please let me know if I've overlooked something. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding section on Simplified Chinese

"...machine translation of the Simplified Chinese character 干 (干) or Traditional Chinese character 幹 (幹) which can also mean "dry" and "do"..."

the Simplified Chinese character 干 replaces 3 Traditional Chinese characters, 干 itself meaning a pole, 幹 which mean to do or to work, and 乾 which means dried (alternatively this last character can also be pronounced Qian, which is a Taoist stem word meaning sky). 幹 does not ever mean dry.

1.36.48.81 (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)moxfactor

Suggestion to delete "Fuck Emo" photo at start of article

The photograph with the "Fuck Emo" graffiti has the effect of unfairly discriminating against and targeting emo subculture. I find this no more acceptable than a photo saying "Fuck Niggers" or "Fuck Jews" or "Fuck the Police" and so on. I move that this photo be deleted and replaced with a photograph that has more neutral content. Alialiac (talk) 04:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done The image has been removed. --Il223334234 (talk) 10:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree there. A picture stating "Fuck Emo" or "Fuck the Police" or anything else in no way implies that Wikipedia endorses that statement. If the Wikipedia logo had "Fuck Emo" in the center of it, that argument would hold water. I don't mind the photo being removed, as I don't think a photo of the word "fuck" is necessary for the reader to understand the subject of this article. I do, however, object to the grounds on which it was removed. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

scarface 1983 film

come on people it's not here and this film uses the word fuck more times than any UK film ever just take a look at it— Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.14.122.108 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 23 February 2012‎

Reliable sources discussing Scarface mention this, so it belongs in Scarface. Reliable sources discussing "fuck" do not mention it, so it does not belong in Fuck. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Joe Biden

For the the politics section, Joe Biden is missing. Recently he was quoted saying "Give me a fucking break" to one of his advisors. It got caught on tape, and was all over the news. If someone is really bored, you sould google and add it, sourced, of course. I would do it, I'm just far too busy and thought it was notable enough to be adressed. Zakariya bin Dana (talk) 10:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is him saying this relevant to anything? Why is anyone saying it relevant? It's a very common part of speech. You don't see this kind of thing on the page for Tree/Chair/etc. Youeffoh (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 June 2012

FROM: The phrase "Fuck you, you fucking fuck!" is a memorable quote from the movie Blue Velvet from 1986, and is still used today as heard in Strapping Young Lad's "You Suck" from their 2006 album The New Black.

TO: The phrase "Fuck you, you fucking fuck!" is a memorable quote from the movie Blue Velvet from 1986, and is still being used today as the website address [ www.FuckYouYouFuckingFuck.com ] for one of the largest online retailers of sex toys. In addition, the popular phrase can be heard in Strapping Young Lad's "You Suck" from their 2006 album The New Black. Saltwaterdreams (talk) 03:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This insertion sounds like an advertisement for a retail site, and way too trivial for the article. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 05:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Per Til Eulenspiegel . Rivertorch (talk) 06:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 July 2012

I think you need to add the 60's "Fish Cheer" by rock artist and band, Country Joe MacDonald and the Fish for their song segment in the rock-documentary film "Woodstock" . It was 1969 and Country Joe and the Fish performed at the outdoor music and art festival at Max Yasgar's farm in upstate New York before a crowd numbered by some at one million. During their act they performed the "Fish Cheer". At other gigs Joe would ask the audience, cheerleaderisk, to "Give me and F,... give me an I and so on spelling fish and then would ask the crowd "What's that spell?!" The crowd would yell back, "Fish!" Only at Woodstock, he yelled, "Gimme an F" with the massive throng yelling back after each letter, only instead of "Fish" he spelled out fuck and asked the crowd, what's that spell?! "Fuck!" of a million responded. Again "What's that spell?' "Fuck!" It was the real first time that word was so universally became part of the Boomer language because of both the festival and the movie.

68.26.121.111 (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now: I agree that this is probably noteworthy enough for mention in the article. If you'd be kind enough to dig up a reliable source and propose something short (maybe one or two sentences), I'd be inclined to add it. Rivertorch (talk) 06:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Nonsensical statement

"Fuck" is an English word that is almost universally considered vulgar by its speakers."

This statement makes no sense. The people who consider this word to be "vulgar", are the self same people who are very unlikely to speak it.Eregli bob (talk) 05:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Why is that? I have no problem speaking the word, but I certainly wouldn't deny that it's vulgar. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that statement as nonsensical... Speakers of English, not speakers of 'fuck'. --86.5.226.63 (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Spears Code Suggestion

(S.Maranatha (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)) Also, there's a Brittney spears song that says "If you seek Amy" that goes with the subtitle: "If you see kay" encoding. I'd add it but it's locked so yeah. (S.Maranatha (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)) oombu in tamil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.106.101 (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll look into it.

I'm a Writer and you know it! :) (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

f-bomb

Shouldn't the f-bomb section include the coining as credited by Merriam-Webster, to Gary Carter ? -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It is unlikely the source you are looking at says he "coined" the term. Much more likely (and far more trivially) is that it would cite him as the earliest known printed citation. Digging through the OED or similar, you'll find hundreds of thousands of these, all of them (IMO) trivial, unless discussed in independent reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

This Daily Mail article specifically posits that Gary Carter coined the term -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 07:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The Daily Mail article states GC as "the first person known to be quoted" and "lobbing F-bomb far and wide." That is different from "coining." It also writes Bobby Knight was the one responsible for helping it take off, not GC. Zepppep (talk) 07:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is not a reliable source for etymological information. Rivertorch (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Meaning of the word fuck

I am in my 60's & at least a 1/2 century ago as a pre-teen I was told the word originated from the early days of the USA when there were tools of punishment for different crimes.....this one particular torture device was for "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge" FUCK for short.....it may not be true but it makes more sense than many of these stabs at the meaning. Whether or not it is true it will always be the meaning of the word & it is a lot less crude than the sexual acts & profanity it invokes. I am sure that adulters & adultresses were punished in these horrid wood tortue devices back in the days of the Puritans with the words For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge etched in the wood above the person for everyone to see......sure makes sense to me....how about you?????

We already know that nothing in that story is the least bit true, regardless of whom it might "make sense" to; the article already discusses this and references the debunking websites, where you can read more about this untrue story being debunked. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• The "Flen, flyys and freris" use is long before Puritan times. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Fuccerham

• I'm afraid I have to agree that positing a connection between "Fuck" and "Fuccerham" (now Foxham) in Sussex is OR without a reliable source. The only literary mention of this theory I could find was in the words of a character in a 2008 work of fiction, Harald and the Holy Cross by Al Bas, p. 282. I wouldn't be surprised if this was already here on wikipedia before 2008. One source from 1930 that mentions the Anglo Saxon charter and the reading of Fuccerham, thinks it is a misreading for Fuccesham, since the name later became "Foxham, Sussex" and is now lost. But some RS is needed tying the name in with the centuries later-attested word "fuck" to show it is not Original Research. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• I was merely quoting the Anglo-Saxon original with a translation and letting each reader come to his own opinion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

If you would re-read our WP:SYNTH policy, it is clear that wp must not boldly advance ideas that no man has advanced before! This should be especially so wrt etymologies, I'd think. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there a secondary source? Policy considerations aside, it does seem rather far-fetched. Rivertorch (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

English Place Names, 1930, p. 502 says "Fuccerham: This is probably for Fuccesham (the text is a bad one) and the place is the same as the home of Stephen de Fugesham (1296 SR) and the Fuxhame, Foukesham of court-rolls of Herstmonceux (1381) and Fokesham, Fouxham of court-rolls of Crowhurst (1461, 1463)" It later became Foxham and is now part of Crowhurst, East Sussex but I can find no suggestion it was ever connected to 'fuck', so perhaps this info ought to be moved to Crowhurst, East Sussex. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 November 2012

For unlawful carnal knowledge acronym for the word fuck also a van Halen album 99.102.105.93 (talk) 04:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: It's not clear exactly what you want. I'm not going to add the above to the article. "Fuck" is not an acronym—that's an urban myth—and I don't see an appropriate place to mention the Van Halen album, even if it warrants mentioning. Rivertorch (talk) 05:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Fuckyeah

In the last two years I run over more and more blogs named fuckyeah... It seems to me that this naming scheme originated on Tumblr ([2]), probably because offensive content Tumblr does not filter offensive content as strong as other platforms. As I'm not a native speaker of English, I wonder where this fits in ethymologically.

(Martin) 07:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd call them "special interest" blogs; clearly defined as covering just one area by someone who's a fan (e.g. fuckyeahnakedgirls, fuckyeahgoodfoods, fuckyeahcartography). The "fuckyeah" is memetic; it informs and prepares the prospective viewer as to the author's approach of the subject matter - almost 'anything goes' in that respect. Chris W. (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

cross-language fuckage?

Do languages besides English use the word "fuck"? Do they have their own word that translates to fuck? Or do they literally use the sound "fuck" to mean the same thing? Or neither? Which languages? 107.0.32.54 (talk) 05:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I immediately think of ficken (translated), the German (roughly) equivalent - but in terms of severity I think it's a closer approximation of the English 'shit' than 'fuck'. In French, "je t'emmerde" translates as "fuck you" - 'merde' is the French for 'shit' (and it's not as severe). "Va te faire foutre" roughly means 'go fuck yourself', "je m'en fous" is colloquial and loosely translates as "I don't give a fuck". "Va te fair foutre" - roughly "fuck off" - is usually considered very vulgar; 'foutre' is probably the best French equivalent to 'fuck' but I've never heard it used in a sexual context. It's probably closer in equivalence to 'cunt' in terms of pure vulgarity. Happy to accede to native French speakers on this though! Chris W. (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Carl Jung

Did Carl Jung really connect Pfluog and fuck/fick? It seems extremely far-fetched, without any basis in any sourced corpus. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yet another possible etymology is from the Old High German word pfluog, meaning "to plow, as in a field" (similiar pronunciation
to ""fuk-"", the sexual euphemism being obvious). This is supported in part by a book by Carl Jung, Psychology of the
Unconscious: A Study of the Transformations and Symbolisms of the Libido, in which he discusses the "primitive play of words"
and the phallic representation of the plough, including its appearance on a vase found in an archaeological dig near Florence,
Italy, which depicts six ithyphallic men (erect penises) carrying a plow.

I'll remove it - I cannot see it in a quick scan through the entirety of Psychology of the Unconsciousness; even if it is found in Jung, Jung is by no means an etymologist and the theory seems flawed anyway (impossible to get plfuog -> fuk [sic, perhaps phonetic transcription intended], modern German has ficken, from MH German ficken not *fucken, this assumes the English/Pseudo-Latin came first, etc...) 90.212.180.42 (talk) 08:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the theory and the attribution to Jung are both far-fetched. I'm curious to know where this idea came from--I've only been able to find an indirect reference to the theory, in "Silent Parrot Blues" by Al Young (reprinted in _Colors of Nature_, ed. Alison H. Deming and Lauret E. Savoy): The narrator tells his friend that "The original meaning of the word 'fuck' is 'to plow'" and that the origin is "Anglo-Saxon" (148). The story first appeared in Young's _Something About the Blues_, published in 2008. 141.222.65.122 (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC) ETA: This seems to have been added by user Waynem37, who writes on Feb. 14 2009 "Verifiable information, sourced to Jung p. 513-514 in the book ref." The pages in _Psychology of the Unconscious_ don't mention anything about the word "pfluog," and he seems to be using them to support the bit about phallic representation of the plow. That may be legitimate, but it does not support an etymological connection between "pfluog" and "fuck." Waynem37's evidence for that is simply "similiar pronunciation to ""fuk-"", the sexual euphemism being obvious." This seems to be his own speculation. It seems unlikely and at any rate falls under "original research." I think the whole paragraph on "pfluog" should be removed, especially since it's being repeated verbatim on dozens of sites as factual. 141.222.65.122 (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Censorship section

This section deals almost exclusively with the USA. Could someone add information about the extent to which use of the word in various media (particularly films) is censored in other English-speaking countries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.133.31 (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Google Ngram illustration

The Google Ngram illustration operates on Google's mistaking of the long s as an f, so it inaccurately shows an overuse of "fuck" when it should be showing "suck" and even "such." The illustration should be removed.

Batinse (talk) 04:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Batinse

I think you're right. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

So, can someone make the change? It's very easy to see how the graph is misleading. Batinse (talk) 06:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)Batinse

It has been removed Wikipeterproject (talk) 06:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, (in popular culture) this misunderstanding turned up on an episode of The Vicar of Dibley, in which one character, during the Bible reading, mispronounced the word "succour" due to its use of the long s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.133.31 (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I remember that! Rivertorch (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 March 2013

Section "Older etymology", please replace "Swedish fokka" by "Swedish focka". 109.58.223.10 (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Please give a [[WP:RS|reliable source to confirm your claim. - Camyoung54 talk 19:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It's difficult since it's a dialectal word which is not in standard dictionaries. The sound is always spelled "ck" in Swedish and "kk" in Danish and Norwegian, see List_of_Latin_digraphs#C. Sometimes "kk" is used when transcribing dialectal speech, so it appears as "fokka" in the 19th Century standard reference Svenskt dialektlexikon. But that looks very weird outside an academic context; if it was used in modern written Swedish it would be "focka". The Online Etymology Dictionary gives "focka"; I don't know if that counts as a reliable source.37.250.255.233 (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 April 2013

missing cognate is the italian word "fottere" obscene word too, related to the word fututus , I plant and therefore I give life Angelo67 (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe this is correct, so I'd like to put it in. Do you have a reference? Formerip (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Er...when I say "I'd like to put it in", please don't take it the wrong way. Or that. Oh dear. Formerip (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

That they're both "f-words" is probably coincidental. According to the third paragraph here, it's not a cognate. (One must go deeper into these things ). Rivertorch (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Severity different from country to country?

It seems much less offensive in Britain and Scotland especially. Shouldn't this be noted? 188.221.161.189 (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

And pretty much not at all in the Netherlands, not even where English is the main spoken language. PPP (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Etymology: meaning of the Dutch word 'Fokken'

The article states the Dutch verb Fokken may also mean 'to strike'. However, this is not correct, see e.g. the Dutch dictionary: [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.60.189.221 (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

True. I removed it. PPP (talk) 19:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Created new article: Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties

• Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties

I've gone ahead and created a new article for the book, Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties.

Collaboration and particularly suggestions for additional secondary sources would be appreciated at the article's talk page, Talk:Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties. — Cirt (talk) 06:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Further reading

I've added Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties to the Further reading section. — Cirt (talk) 07:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

@Cirt: That looks like a great source, I've just downloaded the e-book from my library as it'll be helpful in reworking the "Censorship" section. :) I think otherwise I'm sitting on most if not all of the books that have scholarship on fuck - if you know of any particularly good ones, please let me know! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 13:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, great, good luck with the quality improvement project for this article, sounds like fun! — Cirt (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

edit request: similar to bloody (but more "violent)

The text similar to bloody (but more "violent) contains an extraneous quotes mark. The parenthetical expression does not make it clear that "bloody" has the less violent meaning. It should be something like similar to but more violent than "bloody". 75.210.158.226 (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Ooh, yeah, you're right. Taken care of, thanks! :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Business label FCUK

Shouldn't there be at least a mention of the retailer and wholesaler FCUK or fcuk (for French Connection UK) as a successful use of the word as an attention getter? werldwayd (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Short version: Probably not. Basically, that's a pop culture reference. It is unlikely that their advertising gimmick is a significant aspect in the history of the word "fuck".

Longer version: While a full discussion of FCUK would not be possible without mentioning that someone (, a bunch of old guys in suits,) decided teens would spend (a lot of money at the mall) for (mass produced) clothes designed to irritate (old guys in suits). They are certainly not the only company to have tried to use the word (or words that are soooooooo close to the word that I'm tellin' Mom, but not so close that you can't get space at the mall) to sell stuff (that's otherwise identical to cheaper stuff) to teens (who are trying to be edgy and different by buying mass produced stuff at the mall like all of their friends). A discussion of the word "fuck" is complete without a list of those attempts. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Page Protection

Why is this page protected? Is it because of all the rumors that aren't true? Just because it's a swear word doesn't mean it means, "Anything mean". Besides, are you guys scared parents will be all "WAHHH!!!!" and take down all the content.VoomPedia (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

1. No content will be taken down.
2. I don't know about what rumors you are talking about but whatever they are they are there and they are there for variability of a content. They are sourced and that's all what counts.--Mishae (talk) 02:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The page is semi-protected to prevent vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Insightless Comment on the Page

Anglo-Saxon

An Anglo-Saxon charter[6][7] granted by Offa, king of Mercia, dated AD 772, granting land at Bexhill, Sussex to a bishop, includes this text in a mixture of Anglo-Saxon language and Latin:

Þonne syndon þa gauolland þas utlandes into Bexlea in hiis locis qui appellantur hiis nominibus: on Berna hornan .iii. hida, on Wyrtlesham .i., on Ibbanhyrste .i., on Croghyrste .viii., on Hrigce .i., on Gyllingan .ii., on Fuccerham 7 and on Blacanbrocan .i., on Ikelesham .iii.; Then the tax-lands of the outland belonging to Bexley are in these places which are called by these names: at Barnhorne 3 hides, at Wyrtlesham [Worsham farm near Bexhill ] 1, at Ibbanhyrst 1, at Crowhurst 8, at (Rye? The ridge north of Hastings?) 1, at Gillingham 2, at Fuccerham and at Blackbrook [may be Black Brooks in Westfield village just north of Hastings ] 1, at Icklesham 3.

The placename Fuccerham may or may not be related to the verb "fuck", which in Anglo-Saxon would probably have been fucian = "to fuck", ic fucie = "I fuck".

So, erm, its and Anglo Saxon name and you really feel that they would name a village after procreation? Not impossible perhaps, but dont you think its more likely derived from Feoh (the H is a hard H like the Scottish Loch) and the word means, amongst other things, cattle. So, Feoherham, or pasturland or the village with cattle or etc. 80.229.240.202 (talk)

• This "Fuccerham" has been tracked down as a handwriting misread of "Fuccesham" and survives to the present as "Foxham". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Fuck featured article candidate discussion

• Fuck (film)

Fuck (film) is a candidate for Featured Article quality — comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck (film)/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2013 (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)

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.

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)

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)

Untitled

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

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

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)

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)

I think this total section should be immediately deleted. The lyrics are not free they are under copyright. Jim Carter ^(talk) 12:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia?

I am amazed at the amount of tripe that people can come up with. Worse still, it is so much that it would take ages to check all the claims and links, most of which will not survive a proper reliable sources test. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Might be helpful if you pointed out a couple sources you think are dubious. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a first - reverting a comment on a talk page, where we are supposed to do exactly that - talk about the artile. Neil, thanks for the reverting (undoing) the revert. You are right, I could point out a few sources, but like I said it would take ages. I happened to land on the page doing something else. I will see when I have a moment to go back to the page. For now, anything that sounds odd, you can bet it has a source that I doubt would pass the grade - like www.openculture.com. Worse still, are cases of source falsification, such as citing the American Heritage Dictionary but in fact using another source (see ref 7). Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, some of the refs are questionable and need to dig deeper at the very least. For example, the openculture one, this, is a blog that points to a blog that points to a decent source - Holy Sh*t: A Brief History of Swearing (ISBN 0199742677), written by a real academic with a PhD in Renaissance Literature.. There's some laziness going on, for sure. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Off topic chat
?Why do people always say fuck? i mean, seriously. YOU DONT NEED TO SAY FUCK ALL THE TIME, DUDE!!! i don't get why people always say fuck? IT DOESNT MAKE ANY SENSE! PLZ HELP ME UNDERSTAND!!! Awesomewolf17 (talk) 03:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Please refrain from making posts like these. We're here to build an encyclopedia. --Coo coo pigeon (talk) 03:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2014

The word comes from the United Kingdom Medieval Age, when a couple needed to breed they had to have the consent of the King. When allowed the King ordered to put by the couple's house a sign saying "Fornication Under the Consent of the King", hence F.U.C.K. 83.240.207.100 (talk) 04:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd add that to the article, but it should be stated that this etymology is only a popular myth (see [4]). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.135.177.185 (talk) 06:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - This total fabrication was added to the article in this edit in February 2009 - well over 5 years ago. - Arjayay (talk) 07:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

frak frag

Fragging giving the term frag not frak maybe battle star galactica#susage. as is also found in far scape with abso-fraggin-lutely — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.23.88.139 (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Notification of a TFA nomination

In the past, there have been requests that discussions about potentially controversial TFAs are brought to the attention of more than just those who have WP:TFAR on their watchlist. With that in mind: Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties has been nominated for an appearance as Today's Featured Article. If you have any views, please comment at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. — Cirt (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2015

122.177.119.68 (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Done  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  19:56, 14 January 2015 (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

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

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.

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.

apostrophe abuse

In the sentence fragment " including the 60's countercultural" under the Censorship section the apostrophe is misplaced. It hhould be " including the '60s countercultural"

143.226.45.198 (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC) Stan Furlong Rock Island, Illinois 143.226.45.198 (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Fixed as "1960s" instead. Mindmatrix 19:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The Two George Tuckers: Why We Should Give a Fuck

The "George Tucker" attributed with the neologism "I'd not give a fuck" in this article is almost certainly the wrong "George Tucker." The reason for confusion is understandable: Both St. George Tucker (1752-1827) and George Tucker (1775-1861)--cousins, actually--were prominent figures in early Virginian political, juridical, and academic life. The two professors were pioneers in their fields, moral philosophy and law, respectively, and both had an interest in poetry.

Perhaps it is not clear whether or not we should give a fuck as to which learned Tucker introduced the colorful phrase into our political, social, and moral vocabulary.

But, interest aside, it's clear that the elder Tucker was the one whose volume of poems were republished in 1977 (William S. Prince, ed., The Poems of St. George Tucker of Williamsburg, Virginia, First Ed. (New York: Vantage Pressm 1977). It's this volume of St. George Tucker's work that Sheila Mohr refers to (through "Jesse Sheidlower and George Hughes" in her Salon article linked in this page. I believe that it is St. George Tucker, and not his cousin, who should be recognized in this section.

I contend, however, that it's worthwhile to attend to the attribution question. That is, we should give a fuck, I might say, about who first gave no fucks because St. George and George took substantively different stances on the most important moral and legal question in the Virginia's public sphere. Most notably, St. George Tucker was an early and outspoken critic of the slave trade. The younger George Tucker also objected to slavery on moral grounds yet nevertheless, per James Fieser, by the 1850s had "staunchly oppose[d] abolitionists"--arguing that a free political culture could tolerate the institution of slavery because "in the freest societies in existence, a very large majority of the community are subjected to the will of others" (Fieser 2004, xi).

Further, it was "George Tucker," incidentally, who became the first appointed Professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Virginia. Thomas Jefferson, U.Vas founder, once explained he didn't give a fuck about the subject: "I think it a lost time to attend lectures in this branch," he wrote to his impressionable nephew. A guided bibliography for books he and his tutor, George Wythe, should fuck with was enclosed (Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, letter, August 10, 1787). Three years before "St. George Tucker" penned the phrase, "I'd not give a fuck for all you've read," it was Thomas Jefferson himself who explained why he'd not give said fucks for any reading... (Well, at least any reading in ethics!)

True, George Tucker's anti-slavery positions only emerged, in full, after he retired from teaching duties in 1845. But his status as the first Professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Virginia highlights how an ambivalent attitude toward the rightness or wrongness of slavery had filtered to even what was perhaps pre-war Virginia's most rigorous post in moral thought. What's more, that Jefferson derided even the importance of moral philosophy in general would contribute to the historical project of sizing up both men.

Lastly, it would suggest a great deal of "what the fuck" historical irony if the man who gave birth to ultimate expression of apathy was shown to waver, in the course of his life and ideas, on such an important moral and legal debate. This suggestion, while implicit, would be greatly misleading: a "gives no fucks" reading of George Tucker's views toward slavery in no way follows from his deep and conflicted ambivalence toward it.

Amending this article to reflect the correct authorial attribution will help ensure that casual Wikipedia readers do not fuck up their understandings of both George Tuckers' influences on moral and legal life in Virginia's formative days. Reuben22 (talk) 07:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reuben22

Felonious Unlawful Carnal Knowledge

Quite a lot of research here!

Trained in the law, I always knew that the term ' Unlawfulful Carnal Knowledge' was archaically used for the act of rape.

Thus, Felonious Unlawful Carnal Knowledge became acronymed as 'FUCK'

Probably Victorian.!

86.14.62.190 (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like you have another varient of one of the folk etymologies dismissed under Fuck#False_etymologies. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

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

The title comes from 'Comin Thro the Rye' by Burns. This poem had been around before Burns (GW Napier), and was ribald, containing the words fuck and cunt.203.213.62.125 (talk) 11:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

F-Word Overuse?

While I do appreciate how Wikipedia portrays the word as obscene (though not for saying not in the very first sentence that it is profane) and that I know that Wikipedia is not censored, I do feel however that the f-word may be overused. I feel as if at least half of all of these words should be replaced with "the word" or simply just the pronoun "it"; that is, as long as others know the idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamingforfun365 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Archived a few threads

Archived a few threads, specifically, those that were marked as resolved, and/or quite old with zero new comments for some time. — Cirt (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

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.

That IS fascinating; it would seem to give more points more towards Old High German pfluog as a source? I don't buy it though; I was in a class I shouldn't have been in once on Chaucer, Orm, etc and it seemed pretty obvious that the least complicated explanation was that it was another Viking loan word, like "Anger" (Angr/Anga) and "window" (vindauga); it's Fukka/fukja.Paganize (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2014

This word started to be used in America around the 1950's. Became common in the 60"s when the "hippies"began to rise up against the Government for what the government was doing to it's people but mainly as sex became more open and popular as in the 70's. The word really comes from what it really means, Farnicating Under Coiridanal Knowledge! Like every other acronym turned in to a word, F.U.C.K. is just short for farnicating under coirdinal knowledge. It was also defined this way in the dictionary's of the 1960's & 70's 24.54.128.201 (talk) 06:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I just talked to my dad, who was born in the early 1930's in backwoods kentucky; he says he used the word as a kid. I think it's possible that "fuck" wasn't *written* much before the 1950's.Paganize (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Also need reliable sources to support your claims Cannolis (talk) 08:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2015

you might check out Chaucer and where he wrote "the farmer fucked his field" this may help. 2001:5B0:2CFF:1EF0:0:0:0:3D (talk) 18:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 18:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

"For Fuck's sake"

when did the term Fuck start replacing God in this exclamation/interjection?Ericl (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Evidently Chickentown

I'm surprised that there's no mention of John Cooper Clarke's poem Evidently Chickentown. See here for why I mention it for this article. I'm not sure when it was written. Epa101 (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

dead link

References 49.link "german beer can call itself fking hell" http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/german-beer-can-call-itself-fking-hell is not working anymore and should be replaced by http://www.rnw.org/archive/german-beer-can-call-itself-fking-hell Ca2dy (talk) 10:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2015

Somehow changing 'The exchange referred to the newly appointed CEO of a recently opened toll road within Sydney' by either not mentioning the toll road or even deleting the entire sentence, because a link had just been provided to the toll road in question. First day editing, so correct me if I'm wrong. Regards, redblueyelllowrainbow. Redblueyelllowrainbow (talk) 07:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced/OR/etc.

This article contains a lot of unsourced material, synthesis (and other WP:OR), material sourced to blogs, etc. I removed a chunk of it. It was reverted without explanation. I'll wait a bit for discussion before reinstating my edit. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• Where it says that the word "fuck" occurs in this or that film or etc, the film is the reference, for anyone who has seen it or knows anyone who has seen it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is not a list of films that include the word "fuck". The edit in question does not restore a complete list of films that include the word "fuck". Instead, it says:

• Various films might have been the first to include the word. Who says these were or may have been the first?
• When the MPAA did/does allow or disallow the use of the word in various ratings. Where did this list of rules come from (the MPAA does not specify any such limits)?
• Lennon "got the word past censors" with a particular song. Which censors (record labels, UK radio, US TV, Canadian tour promoters, pecific venues)?
• It has become more commonplace in films since the 1970s. Says who? Which films? Which countries?
• Various films are "known for" using the word "extensively". According to whom?
• Etc.

Most of these claims are not verifiable. Many of them are likely original research. The only one that is sourced cites a blog.

All of this (and a lot more) needs to be sourced or removed. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2015

FUCK STANDS FOR FORTIFICATION UNDER THE CONSENT OF KING.... please do not put any thing which is irrelevant. Satyajit0904 (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

No it does not. That is something of an "open" hoax, nobody knows the true origin but those words you state are modern English whereas the word fuck has changed spelling and pronunciation over time. Mendezes Cousins (talk) 06:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

 Not done See Fuck#False_etymologies --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Possible origins going back to 1310

A new theory on the etymology, from 1310 by Dr. Paul Booth, Honouray Senior Research Fellow in History at Keele University. Incorporate as appropriate. [5] -- Fuzheado | Talk 09:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

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)

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

Structure

The structure of the article has become somewhat confusing or haphazard, leading to similar information being added twice. I would suggest the following:

• Move the first sub-section under Etymology ("First use in sexual sense") to the beginning of the section "Early usage".
• Make the section "Early usage" a sub-section of "Etymology".
• Move the section "Offensiveness" to immediately precede "Censorship", so as to keep the etymological stuff together, at the beginning, followed by contemporary usage and social acceptance, followed by legal issues such as obscenity laws and censorship. That material is currently US-centric, so needs some expansion.
• Change the section heading "Censorship" to (something like) "Legal issues" (and later include material on relevant application of free speech and obscenity laws in different English-speaking countries).
• Move the section "Grammar" to the beginning, before "Etymology".

--Boson (talk) 12:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Fuck as obscene

Chafe66 made this change to the lead, stating, "whether 'fuck' is obscene is a matter of opinion, should not be stated as a fact." I reverted, stating, "Revert lead to previous wording, without all the WP:Editorializing. We go by what the WP:Reliable sources state and WP:Due weight. And most sources do indeed view this word as obscene." SummerPhDv2.0 and I also reverted Chafe66's wording in the Offensiveness section, as seen here and here.

I have no issue citing sources noting that fuck is widely considered obscene/offensive. Whether we call this view an opinion or not, it should be handled according to what WP:Due weight states about the majority opinion. Nigger and faggot are widely considered pejorative, and we note their pejorative/offensive nature right at the beginning of their Wikipedia articles. While many people would state that fuck is not as offensive as nigger or faggot, fuck remains one of the most controversial words, a word that is still typically disallowed on basic television.

Opinions? Flyer22 (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Tweaks to the status of the word (for whatever reason) which are not supported by reliable sources do not belong in this article. Phrases like "in the workplace" are vague enough to be meaningless, as your school or lunch spot is someone else's workplace (I cannot imagine it flying in my workplace). Phrases like "among trusted coworkers" suggest someone trying to justify their own loose lips. Neither phrase is likely to reflect reliable sources on the issue.

A good bit of this article is unsourced POV/OR and needs a light trimming with a chainsaw. The well-sourced info that we do have needs to protected from POV/OR editing. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the apparent original research, but I think the point about "obscene" not being neutral is valid. I think the word slang would be more appropriate in the introduction. Obscene inherently expresses a value judgement and has legal implications. Its use in the lede is oversimplifying, and subjective. I would restrict use of the word "obscene" to legal contexts. Acceptability varies greatly throughout the English-speaking world, in different contexts, and among different demographic groups. It is hard to reconcile the classification "obscene" (as fact) with the word's regular use on English broadcast television (after 9 p.m.). See, for instance, this Guardian article on British usage:

Further verification that fuck is, well, fucked, comes from Andrea Wills, the BBC's chief advisor on editorial policy. "In research, 50% or more people said the words that should never be broadcast are cunt, motherfucker, nigger, Paki and spastic. Young women also don't like whore, slag and twat. But fuck wasn't on the list."

Discussion of whether the word is or was generally viewed or described as "coarse", "vulgar", "offensive", "taboo", "obscene", etc. belongs in a body section. If possible this should also discuss regional differences (depending on the availability of sources explicitly discussing usage). Even in America, the SCOTUS Miller test practically rules out a classification of the word itself as obscene. It seems likely that community standards are defined differently for older, conservative Americans living in Utah and for young Britons living in Edinburgh.

--Boson (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Boson, as you know, the lead begins by stating "Fuck is an obscene English language word [...]." Changing that to "Fuck is a slang English language word [...].", and not having the lead mention anything about the word's obscene/offensive level, is highly inadequate. Furthermore, fuck is not simply slang. At least Chafe66 changed "obscene" to "expletive" (I'm sure he meant for that link to go to the Profanity article), which still gets across the point. That this word is widely considered obscene/offensive, and we have an Offensiveness section in the article because of that, is something that should be in the lead, even if we don't begin the lead with "is an obscene English language word." This is per WP:Lead. Also, I don't see why you think we should "restrict use of the word 'obscene' to legal contexts" in this case when WP:Reliable sources do not. And considering that use of the word fuck is significantly regulated on English broadcast television, I disagree that "it is hard to reconcile the classification 'obscene' (as fact)" in this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Boson, except for the legal aspect, which I have no opinion on, and strongly disagree w/Flyer22 Reborn. Some points: 1) "fuck"'s being "significantly regulated on English broadcast television" is definitive evidence that it is a fact that "fuck" is obscene? I wish you were joking but I think you're not. Images of tribal women's boobies are also "significantly regulated on English broadcast television" whatever that means. I think you must mean censored. In any case, by your reasoning we must conclude that the breasts of certain African tribeswomen are obscene. We would if we believed the infinitesimal fraction of the population whose job it is to decide what requires censoring on TV must be the authorities on what is, in fact, obscene. But since we do not agree on that (I think you'd have a hard time establishing it in fact), I reject that as evidence. It makes it clear though that "fuck" does not pass muster with the puritanical FCC (assuming we're talking about US television). 2) No one has suggested the lead must not "mention anything about the word's obscene/offensive level." Everyone knows the word is considered obscene by some. Our point (well, mine anyway) is that to simply say it is, in fact, obscene flat out undermines the fact that obsceneness is subjective--yes, it's an objective fact that it's subjective. I would revert the change back to my original correction but I'm afraid of one of these ridiculous revision wars. 3) Notice that you (Flyer22 Reborn) yourself say "that this word is widely considered obscene/offensive." Two points: a) how widely? do you know? I find people often say this just because they have an impression with no actual knowledge at all of what "widely" means. b) even if it is "widely" considered obscene, well and good! Let the article reflect that instead of stating that it simply IS obscene without qualification. Perhaps it is also "widely no longer considered offensive." Do we know how widely? We do not. Which must mean the first "widely" is in question, and regardless, the fact that some do not consider it obscene should be enough to wrest it from the unqualified claim of being obscene. Chafe66 (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

We clearly disagree. Also, nowhere did I state or imply that "fuck being 'significantly regulated on English broadcast television' is definitive evidence that it is a fact that 'fuck' is obscene." I was using the "significantly regulated on English broadcast television" aspect as an example of one way that the term is considered obscene. And I reiterate that the word being widely considered obscene/offensive, and the fact that we have an Offensiveness section in the article because of that, means that this is something that should be in the lead, even if we don't begin the lead with "is an obscene English language word." You stated "No one has suggested the lead must not 'mention anything about the word's obscene/offensive level.'" But Boson quite clearly stated, "I think the word slang would be more appropriate in the introduction. Obscene inherently expresses a value judgement and has legal implications. Its use in the lede is oversimplifying, and subjective. I would restrict use of the word 'obscene' to legal contexts." I am not tied to the lead beginning with "is an obscene English language word." But the lead certainly should not begin with "is a slang English language word [...]."; this is per what I've stated above. It's time to list sources, preferably scholarly sources, to support our points. Your WP:Pings didn't work, by the way. WP:Pings only work with a new signature. But since this talk page is on my WP:Watchlist, I don't need to be pinged to it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Alternatives to Fuck in fiction

As mentioned, Frell and Frak are two examples of alternatives to Fuck in fiction. There are plenty more out there that I have seen. In Gaunt's Ghosts, the soldiers use the word Feth. It should be included in the main page. Muaddib042 (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

protectiion length

How long is this article protected for?

Indefinitely as it would be a popular vandalism target if it were unprotected. Register a Wikipedia account, make 10 edits over a four day period and you can edit the article.  Philg88 ^♦talk 08:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It should be removed

It contains vulgar words Ishanbull (talk) 08:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored and may contain language/topics that some readers may find offensive. Sorry, but that's the way it is.  Philg88 ^♦talk 09:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fuck. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070710112649/http://www.med.mun.ca:80/comhealth/CASWE/pdf_docs/Proceedings_july22-06_diana.pdf to http://www.med.mun.ca/comhealth/CASWE/pdf_docs/Proceedings_july22-06_diana.pdf#page=241

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Fuck

The true origin of the word FUCK dates back to King Henry viii when he wanted to divorce his wife and marry his mistress, but was excommunicated from the Catholic church, so he started the Prodistan religion and came up with an application for members who wanted to fornicate out of wedlock. The application was named F.U.C.K. Fornication Upon Consent of the King. Reference: [+Note: posted by RIP BabySnow (talk | contribs) 06:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC) ]

FWIW - according to Kate Wiles, a Ph.D. in Medieval Studies (Linquistics/Historical Languages), the above notion is "... wrong ... And if you do believe that, stop it. Stop it right now." (please see => http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kate-wiles/on-the-origin-of-fuck_b_4784565.html ) [also, imo - the noted "imune.net" ref link seems like "WP:SPAM"?] - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, we can dismiss any source that says Henry VII started the "Prodistan(sic) religion". - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Irrelevant Image

Why is there an image of a spent tank shell on a beach? What does that have anything to do with the article? Shouldn't it be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.188.73 (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2016

Please change 'Fuck is an obscene English language word' to 'Fuck is a vulgar and sometimes obscene English Language word'.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Reference, Cohen v Califoria,

It's 1968. A man named Paul Robert Cohen is in the Los Angeles County Courthouse, in a public corridor. On Cohen is a jacket, and on the jacket are the words "Fuck the Draft." He takes the jacket off as he walks into the courtroom, but puts it back on when he's in the corridor again. When he does so the courthouse police arrest him and charge him with disturbing the peace. Cohen challenges the arrest as a violation of his First Amendment rights. The conviction for disturbing the peace clearly rests upon the speech that Cohen is conveying. He cannot be punished for his speech, as it does not fit into one of the narrow categories where we allow punishment of speech for its content (such as obscenity or defamation).

Freyapaul (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Request is getting stale. We're getting nit-picky about wording here. Also, the second part of your edit request is unclear exactly what change you are requesting, and whether it's relevant to the article. Consider opening a new request and give a "Please change X to Y"-type request to make the change clear. Thanks — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 16:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Truth and Honesty

This article should be 100% free from bullshit, everyone should be allowed to speak (or type) freely no matter how they are attacked, but we should also have a wide range of views and opinions, I believe that no Wikipedia article should be 100% biased in any direction. in the United States, the 1st Amendment encompasses the right to be wrong, but to be allowed to say whatever you need to say, or whatever you think is right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millzie95 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

You will need to specify something found in, or missing from, the article, for this discussion to bear fruit. Robert the Broof (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, the First Amendment guarantees that the government cannot restrict your speech. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia allowing or not allowing material on its website.

Material is accepted or rejected based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Italic

Why is “fuck” and similar words italic?

Is there some sort of Manual of Style guideline that expletives should be italic?
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 18:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Our MOS italicizes words that are being discussed. This article is about the word, not the concept. For example: "Milk is a pale liquid produced by the mammary glands of mammals....The term milk is also used for white colored, non-animal beverages resembling milk in color and texture..."

See MOS:WORDSASWORDS. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 03:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

"is also commonly used as an intensifier"

From the introduction: Fuck ... is also commonly used as an intensifier. This might be nit-picking, but that's not quite accurate. The intensifier form is fucking/fuckin', not fuck. Omc (talk) 15:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

A little nit-picking (or nitpicking—some authorities don't hyphenate it) never hurt anybody. How would you classify "fuck" in this context: "Did you win the race?" "Fuck yeah, I did." Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 06:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Innapropriate

This article should not exist. The word f**k is not allowed on Wikipedia. If I could I would report this article. Sausagea1000 (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The subject of the article is notable by Wikipedia standards, and Wikipedia is not censored, like Conservapedia. You could nominate the article for deletion, but I doubt you would be successful. 98.213.49.221 (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Lets not encourage him to do anything that would only get him into trouble. Its not his fault if he doesn't know the ropes yet. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fuck. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/43544.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160323072550/http://gawker.com/5972435/congress-passes-fiscal-cliff-deal-but-not-before-john-boehner-told-harry-reid-to-go-fuck-himself to http://gawker.com/5972435/congress-passes-fiscal-cliff-deal-but-not-before-john-boehner-told-harry-reid-to-go-fuck-himself

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Fuck "obscene"?

Although it sometimes called an "obscenity", I am not sure that the word "fuck" should be described as being "obscene", in the opening assertion of the article. The word is *not* legally obscene. For example, for many years - Victorian age and up until the 1960s, the word "cunt" was legally obscene and just putting it into print could land you in jail. We should be objective and, instead of siding with the view that the word "fuck" is obscene, when legally at least it is not, we should put it, at its highest, that the word is considered by some people as being "obscene". This is even though legally it isn't and therefore they are, legally, wrong as well as being unable, it seems to me, to substantiate their assertion without reference to their own and other people's opinions. The use of the word is sometimes contrary to generally accepted standards and sometimes it isn't - therefore, in the places that it isn't, it is not obscene even in this sense and should not be described as being obscene which implies that it includes cases in which it is not. Obscenity is often in the eye of the beholder and whoever made the edit to claim that the word "is an obscene word..." should provide evidence to support this, rather than including it as a bald assertion. In any case, the claim has sided with the views of the section of society that considers that it is and therefore is not objective.

(talk) 19:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Remember that we are an international or global project, but what you just said is wonderfully vague about what country or jurisdiction you mean about a legally jailable offense. Also it may not be considered obscene in your society, but your idea seems to be that you can speak on behalf of all other societies where it is obcsene, or claim that your society thus gains some sort of moral precedence to overrule other societies. 172.58.217.222 (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fuck. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724141217/http://www.nypost.com/seven/02012007/news/regionalnews/full_steam_ahead_for_spunky_spitz_regionalnews_fredric_u__dicker_________state_editor.htm to http://www.nypost.com/seven/02012007/news/regionalnews/full_steam_ahead_for_spunky_spitz_regionalnews_fredric_u__dicker_________state_editor.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516091524/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2007/05/mccain_cornyn_cursing_showdown.html to http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2007/05/mccain_cornyn_cursing_showdown.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

the word fuck

used as a abbreviation by royal navy (for using carnal knowledge) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.244.68.94 (talk) 05:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Did you want that added to the article? We'd need a reliable source. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 06:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fuck. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151101114206/http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/09/the-remarkable-discovery-of-roger-fuckebythenavele/ to http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/09/the-remarkable-discovery-of-roger-fuckebythenavele/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.omnilogos.com/2014/11/fuck.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080215133406/http://www.themanitoban.com/2004-2005/1117/article.php?section=culture&article=01 to http://www.themanitoban.com/2004-2005/1117/article.php?section=culture&article=01
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080215133406/http://www.themanitoban.com/2004-2005/1117/article.php?section=culture&article=01 to http://www.themanitoban.com/2004-2005/1117/article.php?section=culture&article=01

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Infix

Some believe it to be the only infix?? Honestly I don't rly know but pls look into it it's funny - anyway, it is an infix, which should be mentioned either way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.175.132.80 (talk) 09:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The article does discuss its use as an infix and does not say it is the "only" infix. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

After some research on infixes I found that "fucking" (as well as "bloody") are entire words and therefore not infixes. This phenomenon is known as tmesis. Jd489 (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Grammar (minor edit)

While reading the very first section, I noticed the following phrase that to me seems grammatically incorrect: "the term fuck and its derivatives (such as fucker and fucking) can be used as a noun, a verb, an adjective, an interjection, or an adverb."

My proposed correction or edit would be the following: "the term fuck (and its derivatives, such as fucker and fucking) can be used as a noun, a verb, an adjective, an interjection, or an adverb." Jd489 (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how the original is incorrect. Both fuck and it's derivatives can be used as a noun, verb, adjective, etc. The parenthesis give examples of derivatives. Dammitkevin (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The content is correct; however, the syntax is not. The compound group unit, "fuck" and "its derivatives," cannot be associated grammatically to a single noun/adverb/verb/etc. In any case, "fuck and its derivatives" (plural) can be used as nouns (plural), verbs (plural), adjectives (plural), interjections (plural), or adverbs (plural). It is an issue of plural-singular concordance. Jd489 (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Then "the term fuck (and derivatives such as fucker and fucking) can be used as a noun, a verb, an adjective, an interjection, or an adverb." seems to be closer to the mark. What do you think? Dammitkevin (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was referring to. That seems to work. Jd489 (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

More

Should we mention the acronym MILF? And what about some idea of the phrasal verbs 'fuck' can form with the particles off, up, around, about and over? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.209.244.248 (talk) 01:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)‎

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fuck. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080808070253/http://slate.msn.com/id// to http://slate.msn.com/id//

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

FUCK is derived from an arabic word (all comment on the literall and technical meaning is welcome) in simple term its means to close it

Fuck is an arabic term used to means to closed it. Mohd Zaidi (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I try to put some contribution but cant. The word FUcK is derived from the arabic word. Its means to closed it. In specific term is to "close it and let no ones ever knows its happens" . Its aj action requested in prayer for a believer to ask God to clean all his sins and protects its to be ever known by all creatures during the hereafter. A referral to the closes Muslim cleric ia highly advised. Without prejudice Mohd Zaidi (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia content is based on reliable sources. (I have moved your first comment to this section because its earlier placement made the authorship of the previous comment unclear.) Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 08:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

what is fuck?

is there so sources on this?75.171.10.90 (talk) 09:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems you haven't read the article. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

About "to occupy"

I propose adding something like this to the "early usage section" regarding "occupy"

"As late as the 18th century, the verb to occupy was used in print only seldom, carrying sexual overtones that would be obvious to audiences at the time it was written."

This is well enough known and should not be hard to source as plenty of authors have covered this fact. 71.246.144.118 (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

It's mentioned in this book and even in a major dictionary. I'm not sure they quite support the "obvious to audiences" bit, though. What other sources can you find? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

That part may be deduced from the rest anyway, so it is unnecessary and might be left out.

"As late as the 18th century, the verb to occupy was used in print only seldom, carrying sexual overtones."

Seems to work just as well. 71.246.144.118 (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Done (with a slight change in wording). Thanks! Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 21:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

First word fuck appeared in movies in 1963

see video proof https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbIrkIgQ3e4 Sergey Woropaew (talk) 11:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

National variety of English?

Wordsmith's recent edit here hinges on the question of what national variety of English we are using in this article.

I was unable to find prior discussion of this issue in the talk archives. If I missed something, please point it out.

WP:ENGVAR states we first turn to the national variety most closely tied to the subject. Given the international popularity of the word and the innumerable purported etymologies, that doesn't seem to be much help... unless someone has a strong argument that I'm missing.

This leads us to default to the earliest variety used in the article. Digging through early versions of the article, I found little to go on, just a few random mentions of FCC censorship, an early use of the word in a BBC broadcast, and a Canadian PM having maybe/maybe not used it in a speech. None of these clearly use a national variety.

Prior to Wordsmith's edit, we had the British treatment of "couple" as plural (rather than the U.S. treatment of collective nouns as singular) and "light in colour", in the "Use in Marketing" section.

As this topic has been known to generate a lot of pointless heat, I'm looking for comments/discussion before doing anything. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Baise-Moi

rather than the literal Fuck Me

Actually, the literal meaning of Baise-Moi is really Kiss me. The meaning fuck me has simply come to be more common, shifting the meaning of the verb baiser (which as a noun is still perfectly permissible to mean a kiss) onto embrasser, to embrace.

Nuttyskin (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Greek pephyka

In the Greek verb form pephyka, the "k" consonant is an ending indicating the perfective aspect -- it does not appear in present inflections of the verb or aorist inflections of the verb, but only in some (not all) of the perfect inflections of the verb, so it is not part of the root. I don't think that the Greek perfective "k" morpheme goes back to Proto-Indo-European, but even if it did, it couldn't correspond to Germanic "k" (rather it would correspond to Germanic "h" by Grimm's Law). In short, pephyka should be deleted from the article... AnonMoos (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

P.S. The reference given is to Liddell and Scott, but that only covers the Greek inflections -- not any connection to English... AnonMoos (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, Latin futuo and Greek phyo have initial consonants which would go back to Indo-European bh-, which would become b- in Germanic (not f-). That whole section should probably be deleted. AnonMoos (talk) 11:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

No reply after a week, so deleted it. AnonMoos (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

"Vaffanculo" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Vaffanculo. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 6#Vaffanculo until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 06:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

"Fuque" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Fuque. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 6#Fuque until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 06:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

"Jancok" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Jancok. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 6#Jancok until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 06:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

"Fudge (euphemism)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Fudge (euphemism). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 6#Fudge (euphemism) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 06:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2020

Edit start of this article. 174.251.67.32 (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Related move discussion

There is an ongoing move discussion at Talk:Holy Fuck#Requested move 17 August 2020 involving renaming the article Holy Fuck to Holy Fuck (band) and making the title Holy Fuck a redirect to Fuck#Holy fuck. If you wish to participate, please discuss on that page and not in this talk page section. Momo824 (talk) 07:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2020

Cohen v. California should be cited as 403 U.S. 15, 91 S.Ct. 1780, 29 L.Ed. 284 (1971). See the White Book. John D. Maher (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. No idea what the White Book is, but I just removed the case number from the prose; it's meaningless to the general reader, and for anyone who really wants to know, they can follow the link for more detail. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposed Contribution to Fuck Article

a new section to appear before the section "Use in Politics"

Use in College and Professional Athletics: Frequently, the word is uttered by athletes following miscues made by themselves or their teammates, a bad call by an official or simply a bad turn of events on the court, ice, or playing field. Rarely can the word be actually heard by fans present or watching on television; but the nature of the word can be clearly discerned by the athlete's body language and movement of the lips.

 Future NFL Hall of Famer and current Tampa Bay Buccaneer's quarterback, Tom Brady, during the Sunday (September 20, 2020) game against the New Orleans Saints, can be seen emphatically mouthing the word while sitting on the bench after fumbling the football while attempting a handoff to his running back leading to a fumble recovery by the Saints. [cite]
 . . . [insert other examples]

The word also occasionally manifests itself in post game interviews of players, coaches and even team owners, particularly those on the losing team. Accordingly, most live broadcasts are time delayed to permit "bleeping" i.e., editing out the offensive word to avoid offending sensitive ears of viewers. Famously . . . was heard to say . . [examples]

This is not a good proposal. It seems a very trivial and uncited contribution. Something with more global significance and resonance than just something you happened to see on a TV sports channel last weekend are needed. What sources would you suggest to support this edit? Nick Moyes (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree with above. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

It's a very commonly and widely used expletive, there's nothing particularly interesting or significant about these instances. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I haven't checked the sources, but IMO Fuck#Use_in_politics looks bloated like an unkempt pop-cult section. I may look into trimming it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Example of the flexibility of the word 'fuck'

In the Grammar section of the article, I wanted to enter the sentence:

"Who is the fucking fucker who fucked this fucking fucker up." (A sentence often used in the Royal Australian Navy.) 

Here the word 'fuck' is not used as a profanity at all, plus it shows how flexible the word is, in that it can be used as a subject, noun, adjective, verb, and object all in the one sentence. But somebody with a background in linguistics would be needed to explain the grammatical definition of each 'fuck' in the sentence.Leveni (talk) 06:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

"Who is the motherfucking fucker who fucked up this fucking thing? Whatever fuckhead did this is going to fucking hell! Whoever did this is a fuckwit and must be fucking punished! That fucking bastard!"

"Focative case" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Focative case. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 3#Focative case until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ColinFine (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Announcement - now available in Welsh

I translated this page into Cymraeg, AKA the Welsh language. It’s available on the Welsh Wikipedia as Ffyc. This article is a stub so that if you like, you can expand it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.180.225.212 (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2021

Catty Person (talk) 11:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Please allow me to edit this.

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

"F****" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect F****. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 13#F**** until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 04:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2021

I would like to add some contents to Fuck and found some errors, can i corrupt it? 0"cleopatra"0 (talk) 05:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. And if you really mean to "corrupt" the article (rather than correct it), then don't bother. Meters (talk) 05:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Additional sources for "buck fush"

https://www.seattlemag.com/news-and-features/we-are-america-election-reflections-millennial https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/09/13/civil-disobedience https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/2004/04/26/body-politics/1d43b085-8738-431b-8e44-b26dccf656ed/

Yes, they're all musings and not official news wire reports, but it seems like AP/Reuters had better things to do back then than report on bumper stickers (it was a more innocent time), but currently it's just sourced to Dennis Prager, who I assume was similarly oriented politically back then as he is now. I thought some diverse sourcing would lend credence to the idea that Dennis Prager didn't see one fringe bumper sticker and got offended. They weren't everywhere, but they definitely had a presence, enough to appear in many newspapers of record. 2600:1012:B066:CF5C:1883:5375:5500:C179 (talk) 05:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

"Let's go Brandon"

Also, since this is the place to do it, I'm wondering why we can't include "Let's go Brandon" here. The reverter User:Ohnoitsjamie did not give a cogent reason for the reversion, which is inappropriate. I'd appreciate an explanation. 2600:1012:B066:CF5C:1883:5375:5500:C179 (talk) 05:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Use in Politics

Why is this section significant enough for inclusion here; and other uses are not? There are plenty of other platforms and media that are notable for inclusion that have seen the word used historically other than politics. What am I missing? Why only politics? Maineartists (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

""F" word" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect "F" word and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 7#"F" word until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Q28 has 5K edits *ଘ(੭*ˊᵕˋ)੭* ੈ✩‧₊˚ 08:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Please change in the lede sentence...

...the word profane to obscene. It may be nitpicky, and I'm well aware that the general masses do not know the difference, but there IS a difference, and as an encyclopædia we shouldn't be tossing around improper use of words. An example of a profanity would be, say, "goddamn" (profanity has some kind of religious connection to the word); "shit" is an example of a vulgar word, but not profane nor obscene. Obscenities, fuck, cunt, motherfucker, cocksucker, etc. Note: the source that the lede sentence is cited to does not contain either of the words profane or obscene nor any variants thereof; the article lede was changed at some point to 'profane' from 'obscene' without a source to support that change, please do not demand a source in order to change it back, as the current wording is likewise unsourced. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:24EC:A979:EF51:C97F (talk) 00:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

You're correct. The word was changed without discussion in 2019. I've changed it back. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 02:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Correction request

In the "Early Usage" section, the Latin phrase "non sunt in coeli, quia fuccant vvivys of heli" should not contain "of" (which is not a Latin word, and was probably typed in confusion while translating the genitive heli). Al Begamut (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

"Fu*k" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Fu*k and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 9#Fu*k until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. HurricaneEdgar 12:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Sexual Act

Doesn't Fuck somebody means have a sexual act CherryLS (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

This is mentioned in the first sentence of the article. Belbury (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Belbury, oh yeah sorry heh CherryLS (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

It certainly does@ Treemanintx (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Obscene

Opening line of article is "Fuck is an obscene English-language word." This is a claim without citing any support. (It is a profane word, but whether it is obscene is a matter of opinion.) The term "obscene" is famously difficult to establish (c.f. the debates about whether pornography is obscene back in pre-internet days.) The fact that a very high percentage of English speakers use this word at some point in their lives is I think good grounds to claim that it is not obscene, except for maybe in conserative Christian circles. I would like to change it to "profane." Let's hear the objections. And if there is no at least pseudo-data-based evidence for the notion of "prevailing" in the definition of "obscene" then I think the evidence is weak for this claim. For just about any term or notion there will be some small fraction of people who will find it offensive. But that is not sufficient to attribute "offensive" in those cases. Here we need evidence that it is the prevailing feeling about fuck.

Also there's this: "Fuck is considered offensive and vulgar." Same problem, obviously. Is there a survey supporting this claim? Is there a reason not to say "Some consider Fuck offensive and vulgar"? I don't like the unsupported claims on this article. (Note there are similar problems with WP's "definition" of "profanity.") Chafe66 (talk) 07:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

My understanding of profane is that there is some manner of religious transgression, which does not seem to apply here. Even if there might be an overlap between people with certain religious beliefs and people with objections to the word fuck, that doesn't mean there is any relationship between fuck and religion. The expectation of a citation for obscene is reasonable, but one would be needed for profane as well. However, I notice the Wikipedia entry for profanity states the word originally referred only to irreligious speech but now is essentially a synonym for obscenity. Thisisnotatest (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)