Talk:Fuck: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 06:07, 1 June 2017 edit80.72.69.185 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit		Revision as of 06:27, 1 June 2017 edit undoNeilN (talk \| contribs)134,455 edits Reverted 1 edit by 80.72.69.185 (talk): Rv disrupt. (TW)Next edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~censar~~}}		{{censor}}
	{{notaforum}}		{{notaforum}}
	{{Talk header}}		{{Talk header}}

Revision as of 06:27, 1 June 2017

Misplaced Pages is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Fuck. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Fuck at the Reference desk.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fuck article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Fuck was one of the Language and literature good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 3, 2004	Peer review	Reviewed
April 23, 2005	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
December 19, 2005	Good article nominee	Listed
January 28, 2006	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Template:WP1.0 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Linguistics Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Popular culture (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular culture, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Popular cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Popular cultureTemplate:WikiProject Popular culturePopular culture

Spoken Misplaced Pages

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

"Fokken HAIL". p2pnet.net. March 22, 2004.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Fugger and "fuckerey"

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

Innapropriate

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

The subject of the article is notable by Misplaced Pages standards, and Misplaced Pages 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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,

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

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_WATER 06:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Categories: