Talk:Bitch

"read mos:dab pls"
you may want to look at style-guideline, included at the very top of the mos:dab page you keep linking to. Especially note the link to WP:UCS. Also, if you insist on waving about with guidelines, you might at least condescend to point out which paragraph or section you feel is being violated. I've been active on Wikipedia for four years, so I do hope you'll believe me when I say I know perfectly well what a disambiguation page is for. dab (𒁳) 08:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * re : so where on mos:dab does it say a disambiguation page should not link to the main meaning? You invoke the guideline to justify the removal of the links to bitch and dog from bitch (disambiguation)? I'm sorry .... don't you have some exams to prepare for or something? This doesn't look like a very promising discussion. But just to show some good faith, did you know that this guideline page you keep invoking states (I quote) It is recommended to place the link back to the primary topic at the top? It is debatable whether dog (the animal) or bitch (the insult) is the primary article, but you just removed both links, invoking the very guideline that asks you to "link back to the primary topic at the top". What the hell is going on here? Are you trying to be funny or something? dab (𒁳) 08:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well no actually I'm not being funny but I am trying not to laugh. Bitch is clearly the primary topic and primary article so it must be the intro line which is where I had put it originally; you made a good point - I thought - that the article "bitch" is about the insult rather more than the female dog. It seemed to me that the best solution was | this one] which rather neatly (I thought) encompassed both meanings in one and at the same time linked to the primary article ... sadly I forgot to put the link on "bitch" which I agree rather spoiled the effect. Have a look at at now and see what you think ... I really do suggest that headers are not user friendly on such a short list and mos:dab (note longer lists) seems to agree. Abtract (talk) 11:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

i know how you feel but whatever you say duh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.170.243.1 (talk) 04:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Primary topic
I agree with this one the most. Why does it have to be changed? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually think the other one appears clearer and more concise. Also, you say that bitch is slang, but you do not say its meaning. Artichoker (Discussion) 18:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? I'm simply saying that Mikkalai's edit makes the most sense and is the most accurate description. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I prefer the other version too. It is more elegant and more directly relevant to assisting readers (our customers). :) Abtract (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's hear what AnmaFinotera has to say. If she agrees with me, then we have no concensus, therefore, Mikkalai's revision stays. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I do agree with Mikkalai's version. A bitch is first, and foremost, a female dog. That is the proper and appropriate definition. Its use as a slur or slang term is secondary and should, as such, not be given undue weight by becoming the primarily term. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have changed it to "A bitch is a female dog, and sometimes a slang offensive term meaning "woman".". This agrees with AnmaFinotera by not giving the slang term too much weight. Artichoker (Discussion) 19:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Settled. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Artichoker, a significnt step forward. I still feel that this doesn't sufficiently recognise that the slang (bitch=woman) meaning is the topic being discussed at Bitch. Only the first line is about the dog ... I won't fight you on this but maybe you might reconsider having read Bitch? Either way, thanks for a helpful intervention in choppy waters. :) Abtract (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Always happy to help. But this could have been settled without my intervention if you were maybe a little less stubborn and more able to discuss things before edit warring (just something to keep in mind.) Also, this is the Bitch disambiguation page, so it should display both meanings of 'bitch' equally. Artichoker (Discussion) 19:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sadly one has to be stubborn when Sess is around. Thanks for your help. Abtract (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Artichoker is correct. Abtract, this is exactly why there is a RfC report filed against you. You often prefer edit warring and incivility before actually joining in on a discussion. Things will get much more troublesome for you if you don't change your ways, and calling me "stubborn" only makes it worse.

Anyway, we could go for a more literal wording here:


 * A bitch is the female of a canine species, though the term is sometimes used as an offense.


 * Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The above is almost verbatim of this one, which is why the whole discussion was started. As I have said before, this says that the term is offensive, but it does not give its meaning. Artichoker (Discussion) 19:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * A little longer, but how about: "Bitch is the technical term used to refer to the female sex of canines. The word is also sometimes used as an offensive term to refer to a unpleasant woman or a submissive male." While I see Abtract's point that the Bitch article is 99.9% about the offensive slang, we should give the actual definition first before going into that. --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Not for me; I prefer Artichoke's compromise version which is short and to the point in an elegant way. Remember this is an encyclopedia not a dictionary. Abtract (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sessomaru: You reverted to bad version:  (a) "bitch is a female dog" is wrong definition (b) "bitch as offensive means woman" is incorrect, ses disctionaries: "a malicious, unpleasant, selfish person, esp. a woman.". In the future please don't revert without clear explanations. While I understood your intention and was not insulted, is a disrespect to fellow wikipedians. My edit was fully commented. You did not explain why my two points in the edit comment were wrong. Heck, you didn't even say they were wrong. "RTFM"-type edit summary is very bad answer. Mukadderat (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The revision was pretty clear according to me. I do not understand how it could be disrespectful to revert someone's that was clearly wrong and against consensus. Have you even read this entire discussion? Please read it. In the mean time, I have reverted your edit. Please do not change this again until you get consensus. As has been said the official definition of a bitch is a female dog. It can be used as slang, where it is an offensive term meaning woman. Artichoker (Discussion) 16:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You did not answer my explanation. I explained that this version is wrong. PLease explain what is wrong in my reasoning. Once again, (a) bitch is not a "female dog", see bitch and (b) bitch is not only a woman, see dictionaries. Please read and respond to people's reasoning before reverts. Mukadderat (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have read the bitch article. Tell me, what part of This article is about the insult. For other uses, see Bitch (disambiguation). at the very start of the article do you not understand? The formal definition of bitch is a female dog. A bitch, when used as slang means woman. Artichoker (Discussion) 17:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * False. the formal definiton of bitch is "female of a dog or of a canine generally". A dog is a canine. When slang it means, as dictionaries say, "a malicious, unpleasant, selfish person, esp. a woman."  Mukadderat (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Checking your link, the very first definition I see for bitch is "a female dog." However, I agree with changing the slang part to something more broad. What do you think of "offensive term usually denoting a woman."? Artichoker (Discussion) 18:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The "offensive... usually" part will be OK with me. But as for "dog" please keep in mind that dogs are canine subspecies, so the definition in the form "female of canine species, esp. of a dog" is a more general and thus more informative. Mukadderat (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But remember, this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Dog is clearer, and more to the point. Anyways, you agree about the offensive part, so I'll add that. Artichoker (Discussion) 16:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we suggest locking this page? It seems people add obvious vandalism on a near-daily basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Network57 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Linking to the primary topic
Regarding this edit and summary:

The article bitch has nothing to do with dogs. It's not about female dogs; it doesn't say anything about their physiology or their psychology. Nothing about their role in a pack, nothing about their gestation period, nothing about them at all. Just that "bitch" is the word used to refer to them. The article bitch is about the word "bitch" -- its history and current usage.

Now, that article is at the base name, because we assume that when someone searches for "bitch" that they are looking to read about the word. In the event that's not what they want to read about, we provide a link to this page, the disambiguation page. To account for people who want to read about actual female dogs (a subject that is covered in the dog article), this disambiguation page needs to have a link to the dog article.

So I put one in. The reversion of this item means that the person looking to read about female dogs cannot get to the correct article via our disambiguation page. Please note carefully the difference between
 * "Bitch" is the term for a female dog.

and
 * A bitch is a female dog.

If you do, you will understand why the second line needs to be on this page.

-- Powers T 23:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You make a good point; apologies for my rather hasty edit previously. Abtract (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding of a song
Please, add there a song "Bitches" by Hollywood Undead from their EP Swan Songs Rarities, thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.98.49.131 (talk) 02:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Station1 (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2016
74.78.86.142 (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Blank request —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add The Bitches
See above


 * ✅ Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  16:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2019
This entire post is offensive. Referring to human females as bitches reveals your true agenda. CHANGE IT Mixitcat (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: there is no hidden true agenda - it is clearly states that it is a vulgar term for human females, and is supported by sources (eg, ) if you would like to make a request for a change, please format it as "change xxx to yyy". Finally, I disagree that the entire post is offensive - what is offensive about the entry The Bitch, an alternative title of Jean Renoir's 1931 film, La Chienne? DannyS712 (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)