[Home]SNAFU/Talk

HomePage | SNAFU | Recent Changes | Preferences

I mentioned "fuck" explicitly because that's what it actually stands for, by all accounts. We shouldn't dance round the word, if its use is justified in making a point in an article, and that's the case here. See Wikipedia policy/Foul Language --Robert Merkel

Robert - we can make the identical point without being explicit. I don't see the need to use the word. I personally am in favour of keeping the 'pedia as clean as possible. - MMGB

But isn't it more important for an encyclopedia to provide full and accurate information rather than to just "make the right point" with deliberately incomplete and obscured data? The term FUBAR doesn't mean "fouled up", it means "fucked up". The fact that it's often bowdlerized is also useful to know, but I think that kind of thing is only a secondary piece of information. -BD

Firstly, I think we are all agreed that "fucked up" is what the original saying was, and "fouled up" was a euphemism for describing the acronym to generals and women (no sexism intended, but I gather that was the way things were in the 40's)?

If so, according to the way I read the policy page, explicitness is called for here. The expression was "fucked" so in the interests of accuracy we should use "fucked" in the article. "Fouled" is *not* making an identical point, nor are the allusions. As AxelBoldt and others have pointed out, many people, particularly non-native speakers, may not recognise the allusions. If you disagree with the foul language policy, I suggest we take the debate there. If you disagree with the way I'm interpreting or applying it, by all means continue the discussion here. At this point, I'm going to restore the older version. --Robert Merkel


You know, as many of my friends can testify, I have been known to talk like a truckdriver more often than not (years of restaurant work). THat said, I still find it unnecessary to ALWAYS use my favorite vulgarities. I think the point is well taken that "fouled" is an incorrect substitute. COuldn't we say that, then perhaps use "effed up"? I'm pretty sure EVERY reader of the Wikipedia would know what was meant -- every English-speaking European thinks it's normal conversational language, thanks to Hollywood! JHK
JHK: But its not "effed", its "fucked". I say we should say things like they are, and not make attempts to hide the truth merely for the sake of arbitrary societal conventions of 'politeness' or the squeamishness of some. -- SJK
If we use language that, for example, describes torture, should we then show pictures? My point is that it can be made amply clear without going there -- or at least write in a way that seems less like someone is enjoying seeing "fucked" in print just to do it, under the guise of truthfulness. JHK
I don't think the two are comparable. Negative reactions to the word 'fuck' are just social conditioning; there is nothing inevitably abhorrent about the sight of that combination of letters, or the hearing of the associated sounds. On the other hand, visions or sounds of torture are abhorent at a much deeper level. The abhorrence of images of torture is innate and universal, not the result of being conditioned by a particular society at a particular time. -- SJK

Additionally, if showing pictures of torture significantly added to the informational content of the article, I would advocate their inclusion (though perhaps on a subpage where the squeamish weren't forced to read them as part of the article). To take a specific example for the future, if Wikipedia gets to the point where audio recordings are made available from it, there are audio tapes of executions that were played on NPR? last year. Some segments of them might be *highly* relevant and informative on the death penalty page.

Finally, could somebody please explain to me why people are so insistent on jumping through hoops to avoid the use of the word where its use for purposes of accuracy is so justified. It's just a word describing (if with a lack of poetry) a usually highly pleasurable act performed by billions of people around the world every single day. --Robert Merkel


HomePage | SNAFU | Recent Changes | Preferences
This page is read-only | View other revisions
Last edited November 7, 2001 9:53 pm by 61.9.128.xxx (diff)
Search: