Talk:Motherfucker

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2022
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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 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
The lead claims: "The word is usually considered highly offensive. "

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 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 . --62.166.252.25 (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * In my opinion, the statement that profanity is considered offensive is WP:COMMONSENSE, and better sources may be needed, but removal is inappropriate.  (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 done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 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)