This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Doing a Google search for "What defines an English person?" gives a rather unusual result — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.68.7 ( talk) 12:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I do not see why a topical event that will be forgotten in a month should be included under the encyclopaedic definition of this word. I recommend this section be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wearmysocks ( talk • contribs) 09:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree, it needs removing Twobells ( talk) 13:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
user:Wolfkeeper has removed a very long-standing section with the following edit summaries: "is not a dictionary (only one distinct definition per article)", "nothing to discuss rv: already covered at cunt splice and cunt cap + violate WP:NAD". Firsly it is highly inappropriate to refuse to discuss on the Talk page when requested to do so. More importantly, these edit summaries betray a failure to understand the purpose of this article. This is an article about the history of a word. The word is the topic, so the concept of "one distinct definition per article" is quite different from an article about a thing. The history of the word and its evolution is central to the article, and that includes the evolution of its meanings and connotations. It is not an article about the one "definition" of Cunt as "female genitalia". If it were, it would be a redirect to other articles on that subject. If the 'other uses' section had been about wholly different meanings then deletion might have been appropriate, but they are about how the word's primary meaning has generated extensions of usage that retain the original sense as part of the connotation, and which derive from perceived similaries of objects to the shape of the female genitals. They are directly linked therefore to the purpose of the article. WP:NAD does not therefore apply in this case, at least not in any simple sense. We have to adapt our understanding of policy to the specific topic and purpose of each article, not apply it mechanically. In fact the relevant content for this article is not covered in the separate articles, nor should it be confined to them. Paul B ( talk) 13:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Thepm ( talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below. As the article is rather long, an explanation that includes diffs would be appreciated.
It's not possible to keep it that short, but I'll try. This article is about the word "cunt". As such, it starts with an etymological discussion, continues with historical uses, within and without literary sources (such as would be used as examples in the Oxford English Dictionary). Usage is developed into more modern literary and other cultural uses to illustrate varying attitudes to the word in recent history. The article deals with several oblique, yet obvious, references to the word to indicate both its unacceptability in normal usage yet its acceptability in "non-blatant" usages. All the foregoing indicates that this article is way beyond a mere dictionary definition and is therefore a valid inclusion within an encyclopedia. The particular point of dissent is proposed by only one editor who, it has to be said, has a track record of failing to recruit other editors towards his viewpoint; it boils down to whether, in an article offering an encyclopedic and well-sourced treatment of a word in the English language, whether a section of Derived Uses is appropriate. Consensus so far has been that it is. That leaves whether that section is a content fork. However, we have many, many, articles in which a section is headlined, followed by a {{ seealso}} and then a brief discussion relevant to the topic of the current article, but perhaps less important to the linked article. Accordingly, it's not a fork, or a knife, or a spoon, of any type whatsoever. Wikilawyering is all very well, but does not address the needs of our readers, who should not be shuffled off to read other articles when all the information they are likely to require is focussed into one comprehensive article. As for diffs, it's a simple difference of opinion over this section, for which the article's edit history and the above discussion should suffice to explain. Rodhull andemu 22:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
In the article, there is/was a section called 'derived meanings' which contains several sections: Nautical usage, US military usage, Hot-metal printing and Others.
Of these
None of these sections have any proven, verifiable etymological relationship to 'cunt' in the sense of female anatomy. and None of them are a use of 'cunt' as a derogatory term either, which is how the article is defined and scoped. Additionally, I couldn't even verify the 'hot metal printing' term at all, in any way shape or form. (I actually tried, google etc.)
In short, every single part of this derived meanings section is not verifiably derived from cunt (as opposed to be derived from another similar word- for example 'cut' as in cut splice), nor is it even claiming to be scoped in the article as it is defined in the introduction, nor is there even any mention of such a section in WP:MOS.
So I removed them, as far as I can tell entirely fairly and squarely, but rodhullandemu is edit warring them back in; repeatedly, while claiming that I am owning the article. Which is odd, because he's got about 100x more edits on this article than I do...
If he wants to stick a 'see also' to these articles, that's fine, but having mini off-topic articles is not fine.- Wolfkeeper 23:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request (Disagreement on relevance of 'derived meanings): |
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Cunt and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. |
It does seem to me that the article is overly long. For example, there seem to be far too many examples of usage and some of the sections are over-wordy. In an article such as this, it's important to remove any perception that the article is written to be deliberately provocative or salacious. Use of the word 'cunt' should always be encyclopaedic and necessary. Having said that, it's clear that a great deal of very thoughtful and good faith editing has gone into the creation of this article. On balance, I think that the section 'derived usages' could easily be reduced to a list of derived usages, simply noted, carefully referenced and redirected to articles on that particular usage. For example there is currently a paragraph on 'cunt splice' that could be reduced to a bullet point reading "A cunt splice is a type of rope splice used to join two lines in the rigging of ships". That's my opinion. Hope it helps. Once again, many thanks to all involved here for creating a very fine article. What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next. Thepm ( talk) 01:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)— Thepm ( talk) 01:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC) |
Maybe this is regional, but I've often heard 'cunt scab' in Southern Ontario. Most people I know consider that to be the most vulgar word of them all.
++In the section "Usage by Meaning" it talks about how it's applied to men and women. I believe that it's generally applied only to women in US English as a derogatory insult but in British English it's usually only applied to men. I don't have any citations for this - but the examples already given in the text seem to back this up. I think this should be referred to in the text. Is there any explanation for this diference in the two cultures I wonder. 109.154.100.168 ( talk) 10:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
This section of the article directs to the Wiki article on Ball culture as a reference. This is sufficient for sourcing of the information. If you feel it isn't, do not remove the entire section; add a tag saying that you feel the section needs a better source or citation. CouplandForever ( talk) 16:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
The slang word is derived from a nautical term dating at least to the middle ages. The term cuntline is used to describe the indentation between the strands of twisted rope. Sailors used to(and still do on boats that use rope rigging)place small twine in the cuntline in order to make the rope more even on that portion, it is then wrapped and sealed, this is done primarily on stretches of the rope that are subject to abrasion. Looking at these cuntlines you will notice the high similarity to the the womans groin and crotch line, through long usage it was shortened to cunt.
The term is easily verified in any older book dealing with sailing in the middle ages and later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Didereaux ( talk • contribs)
I stand corrected. It is from as far back as the cuneiform...kunta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.147.112 ( talk) 01:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I posted earlier that Brute Splicers from BioShock 2 say the word "cunt". I thought it was a worthy addition, as it's not really a word seen in video games often. If it's not okay, fine, but give me a good reason.
More and more people start using "americunt" as a strong verbal abuse. -- 91.62.155.142 ( talk) 21:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Someone should add it was also used in the video game Red Dead Redemption a few times under the video game section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.86.162 ( talk) 02:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
It says that the first song on a major label to use the word was Sid Vicious's "My Way" in 1978. However, earlier that month the Dead Boys had released "We Have Come for Your Children". The final song on the album, "Ain't It Fun," contains the line, " Ain't it fun when you tell her she's just a cunt." Should this be mentioned in the article?
Mightn't 'cunny' be mentioned somewhere as a term which could be used in a better class of gutter? Varlaam ( talk) 21:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
in the introduction it says things about britain, new zealand and australia as having a positive thing on cunt, but some people might not understand, so at the end put 'e.g (funny cunt)'
80.1.189.205 ( talk) 23:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
The vast amount of verbage written on the origin of the word "cunt" would be be unnescessary if only someone had consulted an English dictionary from the 1920s-1930s-1940s period. Because of so called humour about my surname during the later 1930s my brother and I looked up the word in our school dictionary. Here is what was read. "Cunt:- Agricultural tool used by reapers of the wheat. An open top sheath worn on the belt for holding the round sharpening stone used in sharpening or pricking the edge a scythe". In short,a sheath for a pricking stone. Our agricultural ancestors would be aware of the connotation between the sheath and the round stone.
D. Caunt Mr.
I was born and bred in Lincolnshire ( UK ) and always understood CUNT to mean a leather sheath which held the cigar shaped sharpening stone used by a farmworker when working with SYTHE, which was used in the old days to cut corn, more recently to cut down the reeds in a ditch. The said sheeth was attached to the worker's belt and was so designed that the sharpening stone could easily be withdrawn for use and then replaced. It was only my teen years that I found that cunt had a sexual meaning.
This page really does not seem necassary. Is there any way we can add a restriction or warning about the language used (athough in context) in this page? Nathanl1192 ( talk) 17:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I see that Category:Slang terms for men has been reverted out without explanation. I think it's untrue to say that this term is never applied to men. The lede says, "the Macquarie Dictionary of Australian English defines it as "a despicable man". When used as a slang term with a positive qualifier (good, funny, clever, etc.) in countries such as Great Britain, New Zealand and Australia, it conveys a positive sense of the object or person to which it refers.[4]". I think this categorisation is at least as important to highlight as the much more disparaging application to women. Since it is a red link, shall we create the category, or remove Category:Slang terms for women? I think the current situation is untenable. -- Nigelj ( talk) 20:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
The above paragraph is not correct. In British English, 'cunt' is almost never applied to women, rather almost exclusively men, and things. It is sometimes used in a non-insulting way for a man. "He's a lucky cunt" may be insulting or not, depending on tone, and usually is not. I have an example of it's use for things - an electrician, whose meaning was "These items are inadequate for the purpose for which they have been ostensibly designed" which he rendered as a beautifully accurate "Fucking wank, these cunts". Prick and dick are not applied in the UK to women either. The use of 'cunt' to refer to a woman is wholly an American usage. I'd like to see that clearer in the article, otherwise British English readers will be led into import a false usage into the UK English language.-- T. 07:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, I created the category and re-added it here, plus to a good handful of other existing articles. I couldn't believe that WP had one gender covered in this respect and not the other. -- Nigelj ( talk) 16:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I was born and lived in England for 35 years (Yorkshire and then various parts of the country: north-east, London and south-west) and I can confirm that cunt in England is usually heard as a strong, coarse insult by a man to a man, meaning "very unpleasant person". I suppose the usage mainly comes from it being a "taboo" word (as with milder terms like twat, knob, tit, plonker, arsehole etc which also refer to taboo body parts and are also used as insults). I don't think I've ever heard a woman say it or it be used of a woman and in my opinion the American usage which - as I understand it - deliberately degrades a woman by referring to her using her sexual organs - is never used. Orlando098 ( talk) 09:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Is Jimmy Wales's photo at the top of this page for a reason? There is no entry about him on here, does he know his photo is at the top of the Wiki Cunt page? Did he delete the entry about him? Is he a Wiki Cunt for asking for donations??? I dont get it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.214.95 ( talk) 13:50, 13 November 2010
In the section about "other uses" it says it can be used with a positive qualifier in British English, and it listed good, funny, clever etc. I took out "good" and someone reinstated it and I have taken it out again. I agree someone might say in a very slangy and informal (and "popular") register of speech, "he's a clever cunt" or "he's a funny cunt" (though I wouldn't say it would usually be entirely "positive" and approving, more a sense of e.g. being "too clever by half" or something. At least in my experience you are not going to refer to a person as a cunt if your meaning is completely neutral or positive/respectful). However I can't imagine any sense in which someone would refer to a person as "a good cunt", it just doesn't sound natural. Orlando098 ( talk) 09:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Do you feel we should put a photo of a cunt to better illustrate what a cunt is? If so, I have several I would be happy to provide. Olyus ( talk) 16:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The only possible reason I see a photo is not included is because the word is considered by some people to be obscene. If this was any other article, it would have a photo of the subject matter. The meaning of cunt is, aside from cultural baggage, at its essence "vagina". I will confess I was not completely concerned about the lack of photo when I first posted, but I think as a point of principle and not giving in to prudish interests, the article needs a graphic description of the subject at hand. Olyus ( talk) 14:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree the word cunt can have other meaning, but it also means vagina and all the other means derive from that. I can see no reason what so ever not to have a phtot of a black person used for the article on Nigger. I see bastard is maybe problematic because it is a sociological phenomenum and hard to illustrate graphically, but people have sex for fucking seems quite possible and reasonable. To put it another way, why wouldn'y we put a photo of the subject matter in this article or the other articles mentioned? Olyus ( talk) 12:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
A swear word whose principal meaning derives from a physical object and which still means that physical object. Saying "this is an article about a word" is irrelevant. Olyus ( talk) 21:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Given that the word derives from female genitalia, and given that one of its meanings is still female genitalia, I can not imagine how displaying female genitalia would not be relevant. I suspect the only reason you even consider not adding a picture of the subject at hand and the origin of this word, is that you don't wish to appear purient. "Cunt (pronounced /ˈkʌnt/) is a vulgarism, primarily referring to the female genitalia,[1] specifically the vulva, and including the cleft of Venus." Given the previously quoted line is the how the article opens, are you seriously suggesting this isn't an article, at least in part, about the physically existing female genitalia, aside from its other usages? Olyus ( talk) 10:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
It obviously is. As quoted before, and ignored by you, "Cunt (pronounced /ˈkʌnt/) is a vulgarism, primarily referring to the female genitalia,[1] specifically the vulva, and including the cleft of Venus." You may to focus on it's meanings, as an insult or term of endearment, but are you seriously denying that if I were to say "you've got a nice cunt" you wouldn't understand that was a vulgar means to refer to female genitalia? If you answer yes, then you acknowledge that this article does refer to a physical object and thus there should be a picture. To say that an article about cunts is not about vaginas is just bizarre. Are you seriously making this argument or are you just uncomfortable with pictures of female genitalia? Olyus ( talk) 15:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the references to the BBC guidelines for offensive language is incorrect
It should be http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/page/guidance-language-full Adrianw1455 ( talk) 20:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Based upon the article and the ensuing discussions I question why the word cunt is listed as a vulgarism rather then the Anglo-Saxon word for vagina. 'It was, however, also used before 1230, having been brought over by the Anglo-Saxons, originally not an obscenity but rather a factual name for the vulva or vagina.' Queyntessa ( talk) 15:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Both Webster's New World English Dictionary and The Australian Oxford English Dictionary second edition state cunt as a noun in the first instance and as slang or a vulgarism secondly.
The Australian Oxford English Dictionary second edition definition for cunt: cunt n. coarse colloq. 1. the female genitals 2.offens. an unpleasant or stupid person
I personally have heard the word cunt used by many individuals from various demographics and nationalities use the word as a factual term rather then a vulgarism - on the other hand I have only ever heard faggot used as slang, however the word faggot is treated firstly as a unit of measure and secondly as a pejorative. I would like to see more consistency in the handling of words. In my experience many individuals that consider cunt to be vulgar also consider vagina vulgar; are we to reduce all anatomical words for genitalia to simply genitals? Queyntessa ( talk) 05:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
cunt (kunt) noun the vulva or vagina http://www.yourdictionary.com/cunt
Is the Webster's New World English Dictionary definition then considered non-specific? "Cunt" is not only and always used as a vulgarism in current speech and that is my point; the original meaning is commonly used in day to day language. By your statement above many words would have to be completely reclassified back to being purely a vulgarism as the original meanings are not used in day to day language. Also keep in mind the common usage of "vagina", "The word vagina is quite often used colloquially to refer to the vulva or female genitals generally" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagina; and the same is true of "cunt" although as you have pointed out "they have a specific meaning referring to a clearly defined body-part". Example; "2005 Mark Latham The Latham Diaries 113 She floored them by pointing out, ‘Listen, you blokes, I have had more rubber up my cunt than you’ve got on those tyres.’ Rose for PM." http://andc.anu.edu.au/australian-words/lambert-additions-corrections/second Queyntessa ( talk) 04:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Or you don't want to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.6.139.204 ( talk • contribs)
I have removed the following sourced passage because it appears to be simply wrong:
I've looked at the literature on this, which is pretty clear that the last line is and always was "when I stretch'd out my hand I caught hold of the fille de chambre's". There is no full-stop (period) at the end of the line, which is followed by "End of vol II". Later editions added dots ("when I stretch'd out my hand I caught hold of the fille de chambre's..."). The title of the chapter is "The Case of Delicacy". "Case" was one of the slang terms for female genitalia at the time, so it has sometimes been suggested that either the word "case" or the word "end" is intended to suggest what he might have touched. Alternatively it has the innocent reading of "hand" ("I stretch'd out my hand I caught hold of the fille de chambre's.") This ambiguity is typical of Sterne and is characteristic of the way he uses type and layout. It is wildly improbable that the he would publish the novel with "cunt" as the last word, or that modern editors would not have remarked upon it if he had! Montgomery Hyde's book is not about Sterne, so if he does say this he appears to have his information garbled. Paul B ( talk) 19:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The first link in the article text is a link to the wiktionary definition for vulgarism instead of the wikipedia article for vulgarism. Could someone who has access change this. I realize this is not very important, but it breaks a rule that I learned reading xkcd: If you click on the first link in the text of an article that is not in parentheses and repeat the process you will always end up in the article for philosophy. While hardly critical for the purposes of this encyclopedia this behavior is neat and deserves preservation when possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.106.97.96 ( talk) 22:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The sentence “Despite criticisms, there is a movement within feminists that seeks to reclaim cunt not only as acceptable, but as an honorific. . .” really ought to read “Despite criticisms, there is a movement among feminists. . .” The movement is not taking place inside of the feminists themselves. Also acceptable, though in my mind somewhat awkward, would be “Despite criticisms, there is a movement within feminism. . .”
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The phrase - the Compact Oxford English Dictionary defines cunt as "an unpleasant or stupid person" - gives rise to the wholly amusing to some fact that a search for 'What defines an english person' in google.com gives the wiki page 'Cunt' as the first answer. Could that sentence be reworded to change this offensive result? Maybe by replacing the word defines by 'has' would suffice? Sadly, using alternatives like 'describes' or 'has the definition' would probably leave the window open for the offensive 'gag' to be repeated!! Thanks.
Kev&deb ( talk) 22:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
When googling "what defines an english person" this page is the top result. I suggest changing "an unpleasant or stupid person" to "someone unpleasant or stupid" or something along those lines. 62.31.243.219 ( talk) 22:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the following paragraph,
" cunt is defined in the Compact Oxford English Dictionary as as "an unpleasant or stupid person"
to
"cunt is described in the Compact Oxford English Dictionary as as "an unpleasant or stupid person"
This is because google rates this page at the top of the result when you search for "what defines an english person". This is completely unacceptable.
Jae118 (
talk) 16:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Spoonerisms are not always deliberate, of course. Stalwart BBC Radio 4 anchor James Naughtie had notable difficulty when introducing Jeremy Hunt, the Culture secretary in December 2010. I feel some mention of this unintentional yet inescapable use of the word may be in keeping with the general tone of the article. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/06/james-naughtie-today-jeremy-hunt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.30.67 ( talk) 02:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
The article mentions at least two towns with "gropecunt lane" and I know Shrewsbury has a Grope Lane (believed to have the same etymology). Does anyone know of other towns with similar streets? ( 79.190.69.142 ( talk) 00:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC))
It might be worth noting that in (parts of) Britain, the word is in such common use that it is no longer considered so offensive. It is also very much in vogue among London-dwelling 20-somethings. Stuff White Brits Like, a spin-off of Stuff White People Like, lists "cunt":
"From Shakespeare’s ‘country matters’ to every second word Malcolm Tucker pronounces, the word ‘cunt’ is deeply embedded in white British culture. While using it as a descriptor of female genitalia is frowned upon, it is entirely acceptable to use this word as an insult for people in a variety of circumstances. Between friends (usually male), it is a jocular moniker. ... Aimed at a Tory politician, it is deadly serious, as demonstrated by Jarvis Cocker’s ... (Cunts Are Still) Running the World. ... Brits call someone a cunt on pretty much a daily basis. ... Perhaps the apotheosis of this word is its use in Withnail and I, when Withnail exclaims ‘Monty, you terrible cunt.’ This particular phrase is particularly in vogue as a term of endearment among close friends." [4]
The parts of Britain are the gutter everywhere else it is still considered objectionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.53.71 ( talk) 13:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Dexter to list of Showtime series that commonly use the word
86.182.22.156 ( talk) 23:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I placed a {{ Dubious}} template in the Generally section for two reasons:
If no one can find a reliable source that supports this claim, it shall be removed soon. – p i e ( Climax!) 03:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I removed the dubious claims from the article, and, from the end of the Generally section, here they are:
<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.gusworld.com.au/nrc/thesis/ch-5.htm | title = "HE'S AN UGLY CUNT, ISN'T HE?": cunt | accessdate = 2008-05-05}}</ref>
(
Template:Dubious|The argot|date=April 2012) and in recent years attempts have been made to mitigate its
connotations by promoting positive uses.(
Template:Citation needed|reason=This is highly dubious and requires a reliable source!|date=April 2012)If better, more reliable sources are found that support these claims, only then should they be returned to the article. – p i e ( Climax!) 21:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the search word flags as when typed "English person" in to Google, this is the top result. Totally disgusted by the editing on this page. About 3,590,000,000 results (0.16 seconds)
Web
Images Videos News
More Dublin
Change location
Search Options
The web
Pages from Ireland
More search tools
Search Results
Cunt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunt
Reflecting different national usages, cunt is described as "an unpleasant or stupid person" in the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, whereas Merriam-Webster ...
Alternative names for the British - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_names_for_the_British 2 Alternative names for English; 3 Alternative names for Scottish ... in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, commonly denotes a person of British heritage ...
"Define An English Person" C-Word Easter Egg or Google F-Bomb ...
searchenginewatch.com/.../Define-An-English-Person-C-Word-Easter... 14 Dec 2011 – Go to Google. Type in "define an English person". Belly laugh. For "Define An English Person," Google Suggests The C-Word
searchengineland.com/for-define-an-english-person-google...
by Danny Sullivan - in 1,309,737 Google+ circles
22 Dec 2011 – I've seen some weird Google results in my time, but this one is pretty strange. Search for "define an english person" or some related queries, ...
62.40.46.68 ( talk) 19:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
AND SHOULD BE REMOVED — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.103.194 ( talk) 00:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
No mention of 1975 One flew over the cuckoo's nest, "That nurse is some kind of cunt'.
And how about "Shaun of the dead" for use of cunt as an affectionate term for your friends? "Can I get any of you cunts a drink?". It isn't always used to be offensive. 184.66.143.224 ( talk) 20:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The article mentions Kun in persian as used for cunt. this is wrong. Kun means anal orifice. Kos is used for cunt... -- helohe (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
There is a meme going around that the origin is related to an Oriental goddess named "Kunda," "Cunda," or "Kunti." I've seen this three times in the last two days. As far as I can tell,it has no basis in reality, although there is a Hindi human religious figure - not a goddess - named "Kunti." Should this sort of thing be addressed in the article?
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under Spoonerisms and acronyms, add a new second paragraph, as follows: A variation is: "What's the difference between a band of pygmies and a girls' track team?" - "The band of pygmies is a bunch of cunning runts..." 76.93.186.167 ( talk) 00:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
In section 4.2.3 Other uses, it states:
'The word "cunty" is also known, although used rarely: a line from Hanif Kureishi's My Beautiful Laundrette is the definition of England by a Pakistani immigrant as "eating hot buttered toast with cunty fingers,"...'
The film is not My Beautiful Laundrette, it is Sammy and Rosie Get Laid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.202.201 ( talk) 22:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
At 01:38, 16 January 2013 nearly 2,500 words were edited from the 'Cunt' page. The reason referred to is "unsourced commentary".
One of the edits included the removal of a reference to the film Sexy Beast which uses 'cunt' in its script. This is not an opinion. This is an encyclopedic fact with a clear reference and has potential research interest either directly in relation to the film, as an example of the use of the word in cinema within that era, and as an unusual simile.
Whilst some editors may feel that the use of 'cunt' in film scripts is becoming so wholesale that repeated citation of every use over-labours the point, is not "notable" or adds no value, this should not a reason to remove facts from an encyclopedia. That would show subjective bias over an objective forum.
Could someone explain why the reference was removed? El srettiws ( talk) 14:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
You're not comparing like for like, and it is not about whether it appeared in 'a film' necessarily; it appeared in that film, in that context, at that time. If the word "fuck" is used in an unusual context, or at an unusual period of history, or by an unexpected person, or to define a variation to its wider meaning then it can rightly be regarded as a point of encyclopedic interest. Similarly if "cheese", as a simile or as a food, or whatever, were used in the same manner it would also potentially be noteworthy. So to answer your point, a film reference would be relevant if it helped explain the subjects etymology. I think this argument is obvious frankly and refutes your position. Can anyone offer a credible reason? El srettiws ( talk) 14:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, if you had had the opportunity to read the section before it was censored, your uncertainty would be less pronounced. The edited section read: "An example in modern film script evoking 'cunt' as a simile of crude excess ..." The film script is not ambiguous and the context and connotation is very clear, unlike the contexts in which you claim to routinely hear such phrases as "like a cunt" which leave you ambivalent. There is no speculation and no equivocation; it is a simile of crude excess. The character's shirt is sticking to him (the context is qualified), because he is "sweating like a cunt". The film Sexy Beast is the published source in this example. The evolution of the words meaning from simply a vulgar synonym for the vagina to a simile of excess is real, it happened in 2000, and it happened in Sexy Beast. That is not subjective, that is not speculation, that is encyclopedic fact. I would urge that the reference and edited material is reinstated forthwith. Thank you. El srettiws ( talk) 16:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Frankly I don’t understand the point you are trying to make regarding connotations as the phrase imports a clear understanding of crude excess. I agree though that there is “a network of modern usages of this particular word”. Of course, which is why they should be expressed in Wikipedia, even if some of them may seem 'obvious'. My argument is that Sexy Beast sets a cultural precedent for the use of the word cunt as a simile for crude excess within that “network”. If anyone interested in the word ‘cunt’ needed an example, they can look into Wikipedia and find one. Like I said, the reference stands up to debate and improves the article. Its case for inclusion is clear. El srettiws ( talk) 17:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
this is an untrue USA specific generalisation, it may be true of us network television. The BBC etc. show the unedited version as alluded to in the rest of the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.11.45 ( talk) 01:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
If i was to write "black people are thieves" would this be allowed to stand? i could cite one instance of a black person being convicted in court of theft and using your logic it would be true.
The correction is "Some television stations broadcast an edited version in which the word is dubbed with the word scent.[67]". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.11.45 ( talk) 16:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion the lead sentence is misleading insofar as it implies that "vulva" is part of the female anatomy. In fact "vulva" is no more part of the female anatomy than "phallus" is part of the male anatomy. You won't hear gynecologists, for example, referring to the "vulva". The two words "cunt" and "vulva" are equivalent, the one vulgar, the other not—but neither refers to a particular sexual or reproductive organ, they are general terms for a woman's...nether regions, for want of a better periphrasis. Courbet's L'Origine du monde could be described as the painting of a "cunt" or vulva—meaning the whole kit and caboodle in its external aspect. That's why I have changed the lead sentence to read "Cunt is a word for the female genitalia..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prohairesius ( talk • contribs)
The German word "Kotze" translates to "vomit" not prostitute and "kutte" would be a cape so a bit unlikely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.74.68.5 ( talk • contribs)
Why are there no images in this article? 86.56.71.208 ( talk) 19:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Doing a Google search for "What defines an English person?" gives a rather unusual result — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.68.7 ( talk) 12:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I do not see why a topical event that will be forgotten in a month should be included under the encyclopaedic definition of this word. I recommend this section be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wearmysocks ( talk • contribs) 09:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree, it needs removing Twobells ( talk) 13:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
user:Wolfkeeper has removed a very long-standing section with the following edit summaries: "is not a dictionary (only one distinct definition per article)", "nothing to discuss rv: already covered at cunt splice and cunt cap + violate WP:NAD". Firsly it is highly inappropriate to refuse to discuss on the Talk page when requested to do so. More importantly, these edit summaries betray a failure to understand the purpose of this article. This is an article about the history of a word. The word is the topic, so the concept of "one distinct definition per article" is quite different from an article about a thing. The history of the word and its evolution is central to the article, and that includes the evolution of its meanings and connotations. It is not an article about the one "definition" of Cunt as "female genitalia". If it were, it would be a redirect to other articles on that subject. If the 'other uses' section had been about wholly different meanings then deletion might have been appropriate, but they are about how the word's primary meaning has generated extensions of usage that retain the original sense as part of the connotation, and which derive from perceived similaries of objects to the shape of the female genitals. They are directly linked therefore to the purpose of the article. WP:NAD does not therefore apply in this case, at least not in any simple sense. We have to adapt our understanding of policy to the specific topic and purpose of each article, not apply it mechanically. In fact the relevant content for this article is not covered in the separate articles, nor should it be confined to them. Paul B ( talk) 13:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Thepm ( talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below. As the article is rather long, an explanation that includes diffs would be appreciated.
It's not possible to keep it that short, but I'll try. This article is about the word "cunt". As such, it starts with an etymological discussion, continues with historical uses, within and without literary sources (such as would be used as examples in the Oxford English Dictionary). Usage is developed into more modern literary and other cultural uses to illustrate varying attitudes to the word in recent history. The article deals with several oblique, yet obvious, references to the word to indicate both its unacceptability in normal usage yet its acceptability in "non-blatant" usages. All the foregoing indicates that this article is way beyond a mere dictionary definition and is therefore a valid inclusion within an encyclopedia. The particular point of dissent is proposed by only one editor who, it has to be said, has a track record of failing to recruit other editors towards his viewpoint; it boils down to whether, in an article offering an encyclopedic and well-sourced treatment of a word in the English language, whether a section of Derived Uses is appropriate. Consensus so far has been that it is. That leaves whether that section is a content fork. However, we have many, many, articles in which a section is headlined, followed by a {{ seealso}} and then a brief discussion relevant to the topic of the current article, but perhaps less important to the linked article. Accordingly, it's not a fork, or a knife, or a spoon, of any type whatsoever. Wikilawyering is all very well, but does not address the needs of our readers, who should not be shuffled off to read other articles when all the information they are likely to require is focussed into one comprehensive article. As for diffs, it's a simple difference of opinion over this section, for which the article's edit history and the above discussion should suffice to explain. Rodhull andemu 22:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
In the article, there is/was a section called 'derived meanings' which contains several sections: Nautical usage, US military usage, Hot-metal printing and Others.
Of these
None of these sections have any proven, verifiable etymological relationship to 'cunt' in the sense of female anatomy. and None of them are a use of 'cunt' as a derogatory term either, which is how the article is defined and scoped. Additionally, I couldn't even verify the 'hot metal printing' term at all, in any way shape or form. (I actually tried, google etc.)
In short, every single part of this derived meanings section is not verifiably derived from cunt (as opposed to be derived from another similar word- for example 'cut' as in cut splice), nor is it even claiming to be scoped in the article as it is defined in the introduction, nor is there even any mention of such a section in WP:MOS.
So I removed them, as far as I can tell entirely fairly and squarely, but rodhullandemu is edit warring them back in; repeatedly, while claiming that I am owning the article. Which is odd, because he's got about 100x more edits on this article than I do...
If he wants to stick a 'see also' to these articles, that's fine, but having mini off-topic articles is not fine.- Wolfkeeper 23:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request (Disagreement on relevance of 'derived meanings): |
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Cunt and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. |
It does seem to me that the article is overly long. For example, there seem to be far too many examples of usage and some of the sections are over-wordy. In an article such as this, it's important to remove any perception that the article is written to be deliberately provocative or salacious. Use of the word 'cunt' should always be encyclopaedic and necessary. Having said that, it's clear that a great deal of very thoughtful and good faith editing has gone into the creation of this article. On balance, I think that the section 'derived usages' could easily be reduced to a list of derived usages, simply noted, carefully referenced and redirected to articles on that particular usage. For example there is currently a paragraph on 'cunt splice' that could be reduced to a bullet point reading "A cunt splice is a type of rope splice used to join two lines in the rigging of ships". That's my opinion. Hope it helps. Once again, many thanks to all involved here for creating a very fine article. What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next. Thepm ( talk) 01:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)— Thepm ( talk) 01:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC) |
Maybe this is regional, but I've often heard 'cunt scab' in Southern Ontario. Most people I know consider that to be the most vulgar word of them all.
++In the section "Usage by Meaning" it talks about how it's applied to men and women. I believe that it's generally applied only to women in US English as a derogatory insult but in British English it's usually only applied to men. I don't have any citations for this - but the examples already given in the text seem to back this up. I think this should be referred to in the text. Is there any explanation for this diference in the two cultures I wonder. 109.154.100.168 ( talk) 10:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
This section of the article directs to the Wiki article on Ball culture as a reference. This is sufficient for sourcing of the information. If you feel it isn't, do not remove the entire section; add a tag saying that you feel the section needs a better source or citation. CouplandForever ( talk) 16:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
The slang word is derived from a nautical term dating at least to the middle ages. The term cuntline is used to describe the indentation between the strands of twisted rope. Sailors used to(and still do on boats that use rope rigging)place small twine in the cuntline in order to make the rope more even on that portion, it is then wrapped and sealed, this is done primarily on stretches of the rope that are subject to abrasion. Looking at these cuntlines you will notice the high similarity to the the womans groin and crotch line, through long usage it was shortened to cunt.
The term is easily verified in any older book dealing with sailing in the middle ages and later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Didereaux ( talk • contribs)
I stand corrected. It is from as far back as the cuneiform...kunta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.147.112 ( talk) 01:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I posted earlier that Brute Splicers from BioShock 2 say the word "cunt". I thought it was a worthy addition, as it's not really a word seen in video games often. If it's not okay, fine, but give me a good reason.
More and more people start using "americunt" as a strong verbal abuse. -- 91.62.155.142 ( talk) 21:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Someone should add it was also used in the video game Red Dead Redemption a few times under the video game section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.86.162 ( talk) 02:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
It says that the first song on a major label to use the word was Sid Vicious's "My Way" in 1978. However, earlier that month the Dead Boys had released "We Have Come for Your Children". The final song on the album, "Ain't It Fun," contains the line, " Ain't it fun when you tell her she's just a cunt." Should this be mentioned in the article?
Mightn't 'cunny' be mentioned somewhere as a term which could be used in a better class of gutter? Varlaam ( talk) 21:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
in the introduction it says things about britain, new zealand and australia as having a positive thing on cunt, but some people might not understand, so at the end put 'e.g (funny cunt)'
80.1.189.205 ( talk) 23:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
The vast amount of verbage written on the origin of the word "cunt" would be be unnescessary if only someone had consulted an English dictionary from the 1920s-1930s-1940s period. Because of so called humour about my surname during the later 1930s my brother and I looked up the word in our school dictionary. Here is what was read. "Cunt:- Agricultural tool used by reapers of the wheat. An open top sheath worn on the belt for holding the round sharpening stone used in sharpening or pricking the edge a scythe". In short,a sheath for a pricking stone. Our agricultural ancestors would be aware of the connotation between the sheath and the round stone.
D. Caunt Mr.
I was born and bred in Lincolnshire ( UK ) and always understood CUNT to mean a leather sheath which held the cigar shaped sharpening stone used by a farmworker when working with SYTHE, which was used in the old days to cut corn, more recently to cut down the reeds in a ditch. The said sheeth was attached to the worker's belt and was so designed that the sharpening stone could easily be withdrawn for use and then replaced. It was only my teen years that I found that cunt had a sexual meaning.
This page really does not seem necassary. Is there any way we can add a restriction or warning about the language used (athough in context) in this page? Nathanl1192 ( talk) 17:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I see that Category:Slang terms for men has been reverted out without explanation. I think it's untrue to say that this term is never applied to men. The lede says, "the Macquarie Dictionary of Australian English defines it as "a despicable man". When used as a slang term with a positive qualifier (good, funny, clever, etc.) in countries such as Great Britain, New Zealand and Australia, it conveys a positive sense of the object or person to which it refers.[4]". I think this categorisation is at least as important to highlight as the much more disparaging application to women. Since it is a red link, shall we create the category, or remove Category:Slang terms for women? I think the current situation is untenable. -- Nigelj ( talk) 20:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
The above paragraph is not correct. In British English, 'cunt' is almost never applied to women, rather almost exclusively men, and things. It is sometimes used in a non-insulting way for a man. "He's a lucky cunt" may be insulting or not, depending on tone, and usually is not. I have an example of it's use for things - an electrician, whose meaning was "These items are inadequate for the purpose for which they have been ostensibly designed" which he rendered as a beautifully accurate "Fucking wank, these cunts". Prick and dick are not applied in the UK to women either. The use of 'cunt' to refer to a woman is wholly an American usage. I'd like to see that clearer in the article, otherwise British English readers will be led into import a false usage into the UK English language.-- T. 07:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, I created the category and re-added it here, plus to a good handful of other existing articles. I couldn't believe that WP had one gender covered in this respect and not the other. -- Nigelj ( talk) 16:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I was born and lived in England for 35 years (Yorkshire and then various parts of the country: north-east, London and south-west) and I can confirm that cunt in England is usually heard as a strong, coarse insult by a man to a man, meaning "very unpleasant person". I suppose the usage mainly comes from it being a "taboo" word (as with milder terms like twat, knob, tit, plonker, arsehole etc which also refer to taboo body parts and are also used as insults). I don't think I've ever heard a woman say it or it be used of a woman and in my opinion the American usage which - as I understand it - deliberately degrades a woman by referring to her using her sexual organs - is never used. Orlando098 ( talk) 09:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Is Jimmy Wales's photo at the top of this page for a reason? There is no entry about him on here, does he know his photo is at the top of the Wiki Cunt page? Did he delete the entry about him? Is he a Wiki Cunt for asking for donations??? I dont get it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.214.95 ( talk) 13:50, 13 November 2010
In the section about "other uses" it says it can be used with a positive qualifier in British English, and it listed good, funny, clever etc. I took out "good" and someone reinstated it and I have taken it out again. I agree someone might say in a very slangy and informal (and "popular") register of speech, "he's a clever cunt" or "he's a funny cunt" (though I wouldn't say it would usually be entirely "positive" and approving, more a sense of e.g. being "too clever by half" or something. At least in my experience you are not going to refer to a person as a cunt if your meaning is completely neutral or positive/respectful). However I can't imagine any sense in which someone would refer to a person as "a good cunt", it just doesn't sound natural. Orlando098 ( talk) 09:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Do you feel we should put a photo of a cunt to better illustrate what a cunt is? If so, I have several I would be happy to provide. Olyus ( talk) 16:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The only possible reason I see a photo is not included is because the word is considered by some people to be obscene. If this was any other article, it would have a photo of the subject matter. The meaning of cunt is, aside from cultural baggage, at its essence "vagina". I will confess I was not completely concerned about the lack of photo when I first posted, but I think as a point of principle and not giving in to prudish interests, the article needs a graphic description of the subject at hand. Olyus ( talk) 14:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree the word cunt can have other meaning, but it also means vagina and all the other means derive from that. I can see no reason what so ever not to have a phtot of a black person used for the article on Nigger. I see bastard is maybe problematic because it is a sociological phenomenum and hard to illustrate graphically, but people have sex for fucking seems quite possible and reasonable. To put it another way, why wouldn'y we put a photo of the subject matter in this article or the other articles mentioned? Olyus ( talk) 12:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
A swear word whose principal meaning derives from a physical object and which still means that physical object. Saying "this is an article about a word" is irrelevant. Olyus ( talk) 21:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Given that the word derives from female genitalia, and given that one of its meanings is still female genitalia, I can not imagine how displaying female genitalia would not be relevant. I suspect the only reason you even consider not adding a picture of the subject at hand and the origin of this word, is that you don't wish to appear purient. "Cunt (pronounced /ˈkʌnt/) is a vulgarism, primarily referring to the female genitalia,[1] specifically the vulva, and including the cleft of Venus." Given the previously quoted line is the how the article opens, are you seriously suggesting this isn't an article, at least in part, about the physically existing female genitalia, aside from its other usages? Olyus ( talk) 10:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
It obviously is. As quoted before, and ignored by you, "Cunt (pronounced /ˈkʌnt/) is a vulgarism, primarily referring to the female genitalia,[1] specifically the vulva, and including the cleft of Venus." You may to focus on it's meanings, as an insult or term of endearment, but are you seriously denying that if I were to say "you've got a nice cunt" you wouldn't understand that was a vulgar means to refer to female genitalia? If you answer yes, then you acknowledge that this article does refer to a physical object and thus there should be a picture. To say that an article about cunts is not about vaginas is just bizarre. Are you seriously making this argument or are you just uncomfortable with pictures of female genitalia? Olyus ( talk) 15:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the references to the BBC guidelines for offensive language is incorrect
It should be http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/page/guidance-language-full Adrianw1455 ( talk) 20:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Based upon the article and the ensuing discussions I question why the word cunt is listed as a vulgarism rather then the Anglo-Saxon word for vagina. 'It was, however, also used before 1230, having been brought over by the Anglo-Saxons, originally not an obscenity but rather a factual name for the vulva or vagina.' Queyntessa ( talk) 15:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Both Webster's New World English Dictionary and The Australian Oxford English Dictionary second edition state cunt as a noun in the first instance and as slang or a vulgarism secondly.
The Australian Oxford English Dictionary second edition definition for cunt: cunt n. coarse colloq. 1. the female genitals 2.offens. an unpleasant or stupid person
I personally have heard the word cunt used by many individuals from various demographics and nationalities use the word as a factual term rather then a vulgarism - on the other hand I have only ever heard faggot used as slang, however the word faggot is treated firstly as a unit of measure and secondly as a pejorative. I would like to see more consistency in the handling of words. In my experience many individuals that consider cunt to be vulgar also consider vagina vulgar; are we to reduce all anatomical words for genitalia to simply genitals? Queyntessa ( talk) 05:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
cunt (kunt) noun the vulva or vagina http://www.yourdictionary.com/cunt
Is the Webster's New World English Dictionary definition then considered non-specific? "Cunt" is not only and always used as a vulgarism in current speech and that is my point; the original meaning is commonly used in day to day language. By your statement above many words would have to be completely reclassified back to being purely a vulgarism as the original meanings are not used in day to day language. Also keep in mind the common usage of "vagina", "The word vagina is quite often used colloquially to refer to the vulva or female genitals generally" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagina; and the same is true of "cunt" although as you have pointed out "they have a specific meaning referring to a clearly defined body-part". Example; "2005 Mark Latham The Latham Diaries 113 She floored them by pointing out, ‘Listen, you blokes, I have had more rubber up my cunt than you’ve got on those tyres.’ Rose for PM." http://andc.anu.edu.au/australian-words/lambert-additions-corrections/second Queyntessa ( talk) 04:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Or you don't want to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.6.139.204 ( talk • contribs)
I have removed the following sourced passage because it appears to be simply wrong:
I've looked at the literature on this, which is pretty clear that the last line is and always was "when I stretch'd out my hand I caught hold of the fille de chambre's". There is no full-stop (period) at the end of the line, which is followed by "End of vol II". Later editions added dots ("when I stretch'd out my hand I caught hold of the fille de chambre's..."). The title of the chapter is "The Case of Delicacy". "Case" was one of the slang terms for female genitalia at the time, so it has sometimes been suggested that either the word "case" or the word "end" is intended to suggest what he might have touched. Alternatively it has the innocent reading of "hand" ("I stretch'd out my hand I caught hold of the fille de chambre's.") This ambiguity is typical of Sterne and is characteristic of the way he uses type and layout. It is wildly improbable that the he would publish the novel with "cunt" as the last word, or that modern editors would not have remarked upon it if he had! Montgomery Hyde's book is not about Sterne, so if he does say this he appears to have his information garbled. Paul B ( talk) 19:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The first link in the article text is a link to the wiktionary definition for vulgarism instead of the wikipedia article for vulgarism. Could someone who has access change this. I realize this is not very important, but it breaks a rule that I learned reading xkcd: If you click on the first link in the text of an article that is not in parentheses and repeat the process you will always end up in the article for philosophy. While hardly critical for the purposes of this encyclopedia this behavior is neat and deserves preservation when possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.106.97.96 ( talk) 22:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The sentence “Despite criticisms, there is a movement within feminists that seeks to reclaim cunt not only as acceptable, but as an honorific. . .” really ought to read “Despite criticisms, there is a movement among feminists. . .” The movement is not taking place inside of the feminists themselves. Also acceptable, though in my mind somewhat awkward, would be “Despite criticisms, there is a movement within feminism. . .”
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The phrase - the Compact Oxford English Dictionary defines cunt as "an unpleasant or stupid person" - gives rise to the wholly amusing to some fact that a search for 'What defines an english person' in google.com gives the wiki page 'Cunt' as the first answer. Could that sentence be reworded to change this offensive result? Maybe by replacing the word defines by 'has' would suffice? Sadly, using alternatives like 'describes' or 'has the definition' would probably leave the window open for the offensive 'gag' to be repeated!! Thanks.
Kev&deb ( talk) 22:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
When googling "what defines an english person" this page is the top result. I suggest changing "an unpleasant or stupid person" to "someone unpleasant or stupid" or something along those lines. 62.31.243.219 ( talk) 22:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the following paragraph,
" cunt is defined in the Compact Oxford English Dictionary as as "an unpleasant or stupid person"
to
"cunt is described in the Compact Oxford English Dictionary as as "an unpleasant or stupid person"
This is because google rates this page at the top of the result when you search for "what defines an english person". This is completely unacceptable.
Jae118 (
talk) 16:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Spoonerisms are not always deliberate, of course. Stalwart BBC Radio 4 anchor James Naughtie had notable difficulty when introducing Jeremy Hunt, the Culture secretary in December 2010. I feel some mention of this unintentional yet inescapable use of the word may be in keeping with the general tone of the article. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/06/james-naughtie-today-jeremy-hunt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.30.67 ( talk) 02:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
The article mentions at least two towns with "gropecunt lane" and I know Shrewsbury has a Grope Lane (believed to have the same etymology). Does anyone know of other towns with similar streets? ( 79.190.69.142 ( talk) 00:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC))
It might be worth noting that in (parts of) Britain, the word is in such common use that it is no longer considered so offensive. It is also very much in vogue among London-dwelling 20-somethings. Stuff White Brits Like, a spin-off of Stuff White People Like, lists "cunt":
"From Shakespeare’s ‘country matters’ to every second word Malcolm Tucker pronounces, the word ‘cunt’ is deeply embedded in white British culture. While using it as a descriptor of female genitalia is frowned upon, it is entirely acceptable to use this word as an insult for people in a variety of circumstances. Between friends (usually male), it is a jocular moniker. ... Aimed at a Tory politician, it is deadly serious, as demonstrated by Jarvis Cocker’s ... (Cunts Are Still) Running the World. ... Brits call someone a cunt on pretty much a daily basis. ... Perhaps the apotheosis of this word is its use in Withnail and I, when Withnail exclaims ‘Monty, you terrible cunt.’ This particular phrase is particularly in vogue as a term of endearment among close friends." [4]
The parts of Britain are the gutter everywhere else it is still considered objectionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.53.71 ( talk) 13:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Dexter to list of Showtime series that commonly use the word
86.182.22.156 ( talk) 23:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I placed a {{ Dubious}} template in the Generally section for two reasons:
If no one can find a reliable source that supports this claim, it shall be removed soon. – p i e ( Climax!) 03:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I removed the dubious claims from the article, and, from the end of the Generally section, here they are:
<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.gusworld.com.au/nrc/thesis/ch-5.htm | title = "HE'S AN UGLY CUNT, ISN'T HE?": cunt | accessdate = 2008-05-05}}</ref>
(
Template:Dubious|The argot|date=April 2012) and in recent years attempts have been made to mitigate its
connotations by promoting positive uses.(
Template:Citation needed|reason=This is highly dubious and requires a reliable source!|date=April 2012)If better, more reliable sources are found that support these claims, only then should they be returned to the article. – p i e ( Climax!) 21:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the search word flags as when typed "English person" in to Google, this is the top result. Totally disgusted by the editing on this page. About 3,590,000,000 results (0.16 seconds)
Web
Images Videos News
More Dublin
Change location
Search Options
The web
Pages from Ireland
More search tools
Search Results
Cunt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunt
Reflecting different national usages, cunt is described as "an unpleasant or stupid person" in the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, whereas Merriam-Webster ...
Alternative names for the British - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_names_for_the_British 2 Alternative names for English; 3 Alternative names for Scottish ... in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, commonly denotes a person of British heritage ...
"Define An English Person" C-Word Easter Egg or Google F-Bomb ...
searchenginewatch.com/.../Define-An-English-Person-C-Word-Easter... 14 Dec 2011 – Go to Google. Type in "define an English person". Belly laugh. For "Define An English Person," Google Suggests The C-Word
searchengineland.com/for-define-an-english-person-google...
by Danny Sullivan - in 1,309,737 Google+ circles
22 Dec 2011 – I've seen some weird Google results in my time, but this one is pretty strange. Search for "define an english person" or some related queries, ...
62.40.46.68 ( talk) 19:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
AND SHOULD BE REMOVED — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.103.194 ( talk) 00:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
No mention of 1975 One flew over the cuckoo's nest, "That nurse is some kind of cunt'.
And how about "Shaun of the dead" for use of cunt as an affectionate term for your friends? "Can I get any of you cunts a drink?". It isn't always used to be offensive. 184.66.143.224 ( talk) 20:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The article mentions Kun in persian as used for cunt. this is wrong. Kun means anal orifice. Kos is used for cunt... -- helohe (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
There is a meme going around that the origin is related to an Oriental goddess named "Kunda," "Cunda," or "Kunti." I've seen this three times in the last two days. As far as I can tell,it has no basis in reality, although there is a Hindi human religious figure - not a goddess - named "Kunti." Should this sort of thing be addressed in the article?
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under Spoonerisms and acronyms, add a new second paragraph, as follows: A variation is: "What's the difference between a band of pygmies and a girls' track team?" - "The band of pygmies is a bunch of cunning runts..." 76.93.186.167 ( talk) 00:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
In section 4.2.3 Other uses, it states:
'The word "cunty" is also known, although used rarely: a line from Hanif Kureishi's My Beautiful Laundrette is the definition of England by a Pakistani immigrant as "eating hot buttered toast with cunty fingers,"...'
The film is not My Beautiful Laundrette, it is Sammy and Rosie Get Laid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.202.201 ( talk) 22:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
At 01:38, 16 January 2013 nearly 2,500 words were edited from the 'Cunt' page. The reason referred to is "unsourced commentary".
One of the edits included the removal of a reference to the film Sexy Beast which uses 'cunt' in its script. This is not an opinion. This is an encyclopedic fact with a clear reference and has potential research interest either directly in relation to the film, as an example of the use of the word in cinema within that era, and as an unusual simile.
Whilst some editors may feel that the use of 'cunt' in film scripts is becoming so wholesale that repeated citation of every use over-labours the point, is not "notable" or adds no value, this should not a reason to remove facts from an encyclopedia. That would show subjective bias over an objective forum.
Could someone explain why the reference was removed? El srettiws ( talk) 14:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
You're not comparing like for like, and it is not about whether it appeared in 'a film' necessarily; it appeared in that film, in that context, at that time. If the word "fuck" is used in an unusual context, or at an unusual period of history, or by an unexpected person, or to define a variation to its wider meaning then it can rightly be regarded as a point of encyclopedic interest. Similarly if "cheese", as a simile or as a food, or whatever, were used in the same manner it would also potentially be noteworthy. So to answer your point, a film reference would be relevant if it helped explain the subjects etymology. I think this argument is obvious frankly and refutes your position. Can anyone offer a credible reason? El srettiws ( talk) 14:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, if you had had the opportunity to read the section before it was censored, your uncertainty would be less pronounced. The edited section read: "An example in modern film script evoking 'cunt' as a simile of crude excess ..." The film script is not ambiguous and the context and connotation is very clear, unlike the contexts in which you claim to routinely hear such phrases as "like a cunt" which leave you ambivalent. There is no speculation and no equivocation; it is a simile of crude excess. The character's shirt is sticking to him (the context is qualified), because he is "sweating like a cunt". The film Sexy Beast is the published source in this example. The evolution of the words meaning from simply a vulgar synonym for the vagina to a simile of excess is real, it happened in 2000, and it happened in Sexy Beast. That is not subjective, that is not speculation, that is encyclopedic fact. I would urge that the reference and edited material is reinstated forthwith. Thank you. El srettiws ( talk) 16:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Frankly I don’t understand the point you are trying to make regarding connotations as the phrase imports a clear understanding of crude excess. I agree though that there is “a network of modern usages of this particular word”. Of course, which is why they should be expressed in Wikipedia, even if some of them may seem 'obvious'. My argument is that Sexy Beast sets a cultural precedent for the use of the word cunt as a simile for crude excess within that “network”. If anyone interested in the word ‘cunt’ needed an example, they can look into Wikipedia and find one. Like I said, the reference stands up to debate and improves the article. Its case for inclusion is clear. El srettiws ( talk) 17:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
this is an untrue USA specific generalisation, it may be true of us network television. The BBC etc. show the unedited version as alluded to in the rest of the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.11.45 ( talk) 01:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
If i was to write "black people are thieves" would this be allowed to stand? i could cite one instance of a black person being convicted in court of theft and using your logic it would be true.
The correction is "Some television stations broadcast an edited version in which the word is dubbed with the word scent.[67]". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.11.45 ( talk) 16:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion the lead sentence is misleading insofar as it implies that "vulva" is part of the female anatomy. In fact "vulva" is no more part of the female anatomy than "phallus" is part of the male anatomy. You won't hear gynecologists, for example, referring to the "vulva". The two words "cunt" and "vulva" are equivalent, the one vulgar, the other not—but neither refers to a particular sexual or reproductive organ, they are general terms for a woman's...nether regions, for want of a better periphrasis. Courbet's L'Origine du monde could be described as the painting of a "cunt" or vulva—meaning the whole kit and caboodle in its external aspect. That's why I have changed the lead sentence to read "Cunt is a word for the female genitalia..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prohairesius ( talk • contribs)
The German word "Kotze" translates to "vomit" not prostitute and "kutte" would be a cape so a bit unlikely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.74.68.5 ( talk • contribs)
Why are there no images in this article? 86.56.71.208 ( talk) 19:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)