Talk:Romanian profanity

Untitled

Strong keep - as a native romanian speaker I can confirm the accuracy of the info. Profanities of the sort are spicing to a hight extent everyday Romanian. Might not be that all are recorded by specialty or more general dictionaries. This is not due to the fact that such expressions are seldomly used, but due to the fact that most nowadays Romanian dictionaries are rather conservative. Maybe many would not like to agree upon this, but this inventory is rather representative for how everyday Romanian talk might look like.

I agree! I also am a native Romanian speaker and consider this article to be very important because of the way this list (which by the way is in fact much longer) has been censored in my country or simply ignored when putting together a dictionary! Someone from outside my country would find it very useful as these words and phrases are extremely common! This is my opinion: If Wikipedia wants to describe the whole world it is not doing a good job if it deletes this article and articles similar to this one! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.36.77.25 (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The page has been copied to Wiktionary (puteţi vedea aicea) so at least they'll be there. I still think this article should remain to talk about the usage of profanity in Romania, when it might be ok, when it's definitely not and that kind of thing, but at least it will exist in one place. — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 16:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any deletion. Swearing and cursing is a part of every day life both in Romania and everywhere else. I encourage any constructive criticism and any modifications but I must say that the modifications made so far have in my opinion made this article worse. If there are articles on spanish, portughese and italian profanities why can't there be one for romanian profanities as well? This looks a lot like censorship to me. I would be very disappointed should this article be removed and I would start to question the nature of wikipedia as a whole. — [ para15000 ] — 15:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If the article does stay it definitely needs a lock against unregistered editors, who seem to be the main source of all the crazy nonsense — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 14:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This article has become very popular lately with Romanians, and everyone seems to add their favorite profanity. At least lock it for a limited period. 86.120.236.174 16:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed lock the article but keep it. Definetly keep it. — [ para15000 ] — 15:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Okey dokey... made some small "touch and go" clean-ups. Added a comment related to the unlisted curses in the profane section. Question. How about adding some insults too such as "sclav" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.122.244.15 (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thorough cleanup needed

This was supposed to be an encyclopedic article on the Romanian profanity --- and it's definitely not. While the topic announced in the title is indeed notable, I can't find any encyclopedic information in the article. Instead, it's made up of a list of swear words and curses. It should contain verifiable details about the use of profanity in Romanian and its place in everyday communication, in literature, in films, in the media, etc. The spread of profanity in various social layers should be pointed out, as well as the various attitudes towards profanity. Just listing curses doesn't help the reader understand the place of profanity in the Romanian culture.

To do that that there is a strong need for reliable sources. The only reference cited in the article doesn't seem to have been used at all. I would write the article myself (I've written several full articles related to the Romanian language) but I don't have access to sources on profanity. As such I just placed a couple of templates to let the readers and the editors know this article needs a good cleanup. — AdiJapan ☎ 16:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I do agree that it needs to be cleaned up (AND PROTECTED, PERHAPS), I have to disagree on the point of all of it being just a list of words. At least in the first part, the descriptions of use are much more detailed than they are on wiktionary. Some have etymologies listed, and all this is formatted into paragraphs.

After a while, I got sick of reverting bullcrap from anons, and basically abandoned the article, though. So I never got around to making the rest of it look nice. :) — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 15:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the article really is just a list of swear words, except that each word is given some explanation, a translation, and in a few cases a tinge of a context. It's almost like a guidebook on how to swear nicely. But that is not the purpose of an encyclopedia article.

I totally agree the article should be semi-protected. — AdiJapan ☎ 19:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it's any less valid than other articles on various subjects in Romanian. We have an article for Romanian verbs, one for nouns, so why not naughty words? There are profanity articles for Latin, French, Spanish, Mandarin, and several other languages. In varying levels, they're more or less the same as this one. — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 15:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You entirely missed my point. I said we should have an article on the Romanian profanity, because the topic is indeed notable. The problem is just that the current version is far from what it should be.

I believe you didn't take a good look at the articles you mentioned. Romanian verbs and Romanian nouns (both of which I've written) do contain linguistic information; if the verb paradigm is given based on a specific example and if noun declension is shown for specific cases, it's only to make the explanations clearer, not to replace the explanation. Latin profanity is a lot better than this article, since it gives information on etymology, cognates in other languages, usage in literature (Horace, Catullus, Martial), and occurences in archaeological findings. Similarly, Quebec French profanity and Spanish profanity are much better, and yet they have templates showing they still need some work. Mandarin slang is just as bad as this, which doesn't mean we shouldn't require both to be cleaned up. — AdiJapan ☎ 18:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary. Când am început să învăţ română, articolele acestea au fost foarte utile. :)

But I do know the article needs more. I just don't feel like spending so much time on it for anonymous users to come fuck it up again. I don't have that kind of patience. lol — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 19:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the relevant use and history of profanity, one could consider adding info on the Romanian avant-garde, including the likes of Geo Bogza and Mateiu Caragiale, both of whom shocked their audience by using very frank and disturbing language (Bogza went to jail for it). One could also consider the rehabilitation of slang in recent literature, and the controversies it sparked. This is just one of the paths editors could explore to bring this article back into a relevant and coherent area. It's also what I could see myself contributing, but what about the rest of the article? How about finding sources on etymologies, earliest recorded use, symbolism, etc.? Dahn (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Article quality

I think that the "encyclopedic" content of the article is very poor indeed. We see adjectives like stupid, descriptions like who think they are different or smarter then the usual people that talk dirty, which should not be found in wikipedia articles.

Maybe the article should be split into "list of common Romanian swear words" and "Romanian profanity".

Also, there is no talk of safe profanity (i.e. dodging the bullet at the last moment, by saying "Băga-mi-aş picioarele" - put my feet in - instead of "Băga-mi-aş pula" - put my dick in; or "pisicii mă-tii" - you mother's kittens - instead of "pizda mă-tii" – your mother's cunt)

Why is this not getting deleted ?

Honestly this does not belong on wikipedia and if you'd take a careful look at the profile of people sustaining this; one could see that this article is a joke. Please delete this as soon as possible. Also don't try to conjure free speech or anything (i don't really know the inner workings of wikipedia) this article does not have any redeeming qualities. Also the reference of this page is a dead link so that's a plus when considering deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.106.6.44 (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This won't be deleted as long as freedom of speech will still exist. If you do not like the article offer constructive criticism on how to improve it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.106.6.44 (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

To --- Why is this not getting deleted ? ---

I've never been one for profanity and cursing - as a native Romanian speaker, at least cursing in English, never seemed "real" to me - but I don't see why you came to this page, if, by its title, you knew what it was. So you may complain about it?

I'm sick and tired of being treated with kid gloves and walking around eggshells around others for fear of how they may react to my opinions, beliefs, morals, etc. I guess it's only free speech as long as you agree with the majority. This has truly become a country full of whiners.

Take a little responsibility for yourself and stay away from things you don't agree with. Don't force others to have your moral beliefs and standards just because you don't agree with others' opinions.

And yes, I'll pull the free speech card. It's free speech, thank God!

P. S. My American husband finds these hilarious!!!

Off my soapbox now. :o) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.121.137.182 (talk) 07:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

To --- Why is this not getting deleted ? ---

As a Romanian native I confirm pretty much everything on his page right now. I find the Goose / gâscă a word I never encountered to be used as a profanity in my life, its just a harmless animal, I guess it must be a regionalism. Btw, to the unsigned 86.106.6.44(the Why is this not getting deleted dude), please provide a some reason WHY you feel this should be deleted, or your statement will be perceived as troll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.167.80.84 (talk) 02:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

As a Romanian native i denounce pretty much everything on This page right now, and whenever it needs restating. Why would your statement carry more weight than mine? But nevertheless, what you or i have experienced so far is 100% irrelevant; what can be read in scientific studies on this subject is the only thing that matters. So here's your precious "reason WHY you feel this should be deleted" (aka, constructive criticism for 86.106.6.44): there is absolutely no visible support for any fraction of this. The existing document in the 'external link' is a much better approach to the subject, but none of it is actually used in the current text. Plus, the "list" (that isn't actually a list, at least not visually) is poorly written, and quite POV. Also, your identically unsigned IP-based contribution is so much not like a troll... -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

PS To the unsigned 86.106.6.44(the Why is this not getting deleted dude), unfortunately Wikipedia has had a change of policy, in that challenging statements as unsourced is not limited to a timeframe anymore. We are to let existing text stay in until a source can be found - or actually help with such a search: When faced with unreferenced information, an editor should make an effort to find sources before deleting material.

I would fully support stubbing this article, semi-protecting the page, and rewriting the page from what scientific and culturally significant secondary sources say. The topic and its social implications are fascinating. For instance, I could easily see this article mentioning the preservation of Romanian profanity in one Transylvanian Saxon source (the two unfortunate Mediaş residents recorded saying that ungurii au început să tragă cu căcat), or the intense scandals of the 1930s, which involved the surrealist vocabulary of Geo Bogza and other rebels. The endless supply of nonsense needs to be curbed if this article is to head anywhere. Dahn (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"suge clitorisul meu"

No one says that. Absolutely no one.

"găoază"

The word has nothing to do with "asshole". It is a substantive denoting the opening where the wick comes out in a kerosene (Ro: gaz) lamp. Kerosene lamps use a lamellar (blade-like) wick, or burner (google it) which comes out through an elongated opening, similar in looking with female genitals, from which the slang derived. There are pictures of the original device on the web, if you google for kerosene lamps. I still remember years ago, before most of the country been electrified, that the word was very common in daily talk. It was just the "gaură" (hole) or "gură" (mouth) where the wick of the "gaz" comes out, which contracted to "găoază". Interesting how the original meaning is lost, I can't even find it in dexonline.ro, nor wiktionary... Only the slang survived... I guess bad weeds die harder...

Flesh/fleașcă

The statement that "fleașcă" comes from "the same Latin root as English 'flesh'" is surely absurd - did someone just make it up on the spur of the moment? "Flesh" is a Germanic word, like German "Fleisch" meaning "meat" and Danish "flæsk" meaning "bacon". The Latin connection is presumably "flaccus" meaning "limp, flabby" (French "flasque"), which has come into English as "flaccid". One way or another, this article seems pretty unsound!188.203.49.105 (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Really offended

I AM A 10 Y.O ROMANIAN NATIVE SPEAKER AND I AM OFFENDED BY THE CONTENT OF THIS PAGE! I'VE ALREADY MEMORIZED THREE WORDS! DELETE THGIS PAGE NOW OR I WILL CALL THE COPS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.78.135.125 (talk) 10:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

L + ratio + bozo moment + you are ten — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7E:1E63:8200:C849:460C:8BE2:B3AA (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)