Talk:Motherfucker
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Motherfucker article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days  |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 29/11/2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 |
|
Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2022
[edit] | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Kindly add that motherfucker is a very misogynistic term and objectifies women. While "guys", a masculine term, is used to generalize everyone in the room, this is used to "generalize" the mother as anyone. It's a shameful thing to objectify women as the only people that can be fucked in the first place. Disgraceful. Please also add that alternatives like "mindfucker", "worldfucker", "parentfucker" must be used instead. Justrebellious (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}}template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)- Not sure the alternatives provide anything since people using the term are normally not trying to be Politically correct. Terasail[✉️] 12:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Its offensiveness
[edit] | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The lead claims: "The word is usually considered highly offensive.[1]"
References
That material should be removed from the article. 1. Definitions.net is not a reliable source. 2. Definitions.net merely gives definitions from other sources, many of which are also unreliable. 3. Verification fails. And the page doesn't even include the word "offensive". 4. The ref is basically a bare URL. 5. Material arbitrarily includes "usually" and "highly". 6. Per aforementioned 5, it is an ECREE. It's a single unreliable source. Or - if that's your reasoning - it's multiple definitions that paint a picture, but then it's WP:OR by whichever editor added the material to our article.
--62.166.252.25 (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. While I agree sourcing could be better, it is definitely NOT an extraordinary claim that this word is considered offensive. Debatable, yes, but not extraordinary. Simply removing the claim would not constitute an uncontroversial edit to made via the Edit Request template. PianoDan (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Fine, the ref should be removed. --62.166.252.25 (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)- You can tag the ref with {{Unreliable source?|date=April 2024}}. --62.166.252.25 (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Partly done: I tagged the ref with Template:Better source needed to encourage a replacement. I agree with PianoDan that the claim should not be removed, as it is verifiable even without a citation. Jamedeus (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not only is "verifiable even without a citation" impossible in the context of WP, but I've also explicitly challenged its verifiability. I've also clearly pointed out the current ref is unreliable. What you are doing here clearly goes against WP policy. I'm reopening my edit request. Stop writing that the word is "usually" considered "highly" offensive. It is not. We do not need a better source, and there won't be one. The material is a lie. --62.166.252.25 (talk) 04:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Comment: In my opinion, the statement that profanity is considered offensive is WP:COMMONSENSE, and better sources may be needed, but removal is inappropriate. '''[[User:CanonNi]]'''(talk|contribs) 05:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)- Implying that the word is (just) "profanity" now. And still not acknowledging that the material says the word is considered "highly" offensive. In my country it's considered a compliment. I do not lack common sense, thank you very much. --62.166.252.25 (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- It is considered "badass to be a “motherfucker”" (ref). --62.166.252.25 (talk) 05:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not only is "verifiable even without a citation" impossible in the context of WP, but I've also explicitly challenged its verifiability. I've also clearly pointed out the current ref is unreliable. What you are doing here clearly goes against WP policy. I'm reopening my edit request. Stop writing that the word is "usually" considered "highly" offensive. It is not. We do not need a better source, and there won't be one. The material is a lie. --62.166.252.25 (talk) 04:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. As this request is now self-evidently not uncontroversial, I have once again closed the request. Please develop a consensus for the proposed change here BEFORE re-opening it, per WP:EDITXY. PianoDan (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)