Talk:Wanker/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Wanker. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Removed the reference to 'The Paul Hogan Show' and how it showed 'the move towards literary independence in Australia' because it does not make sense and is not relevant.

A relevant reference to Australian usage of the word, either contemporary or historical, would be very useful. When 'The Paul Hogan Show' was shown in the UK during the early days of Channel 4 (early to mid 1980s), there was press comment about the use of the term 'wanker'. The perception in the British press was that the Australian meaning of the word was somewhat milder. As a resident of England I can confirm that the local meanings of 'wanker', and the acceptability of the word in 'polite company', haven't changed in the last 20 years. Rugxulo 20:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The Simpsons, Series 16, Episode 21 uses the word (broadcast May 2005). I'm sure I've heard it in other episodes too.

==A deliberate sideways cultural reference. The Simpsons are very good at it. (In other words, they know almost no American recognizes the word. In six years of living in the States I have never heard an American use the word. Anecdote=anecdote.)Yankoz

Wasn't that just a locally produced piss-take, thought up by some Aussie expats to get a rise out of the unsuspecting Septics? Or is it for real? Can you now really buy it "in many parts of the United States"? –Hajor 21:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect, it was actually a New Zealand idea set up by one of the Vanurk brothers, but yes it was a piss-take - Budweiser bought the company aswell.

You missed one of the major definitions of an Aussie: A successful New Zealander (Russel Crowe) becomes an Australian, by definition. No proclimation is made, it just happens.Garrie 22:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

In American-produced media, British characters sometimes say "wanker" as if it were nothing, as if it were British slang and nothing else. And they don't censor it, either. But in Britain and Australia, it's profanity.

Brought to you by ll SMiles

==Profanity? Please. Yankoz.

having reverted a couple of vandal attacks, I can also see that this has developed in rather a fragmentary way, so i have had a go at copyediting and calming it down a bit. That said, I am not convinced it should be here rather than Wiktionary and I will submit an AFD to that effect. -Just zis Guy, you know? 20:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with the article's assertion that the hand gesture is nearly always used as an aggressive insult. Sample exchange (true story!):

"I haven't had a shower in months."

"What the hell, are you serious?"

"Yeah, I have baths." [laugh]

[laugh] "I bet you sit in there playing with your toys."

"Yeah, 'toys'." [hand gesture accompanying 'toys']

There was no aggressive insult in there; a mild, light-hearted self-deprecative gag, sure, but nothing more. Is this usage really so rare as to make other usages almost exclusive? I'd edit the article if I felt strongly against this notion, but I'm not entirely certain. Does anyone else have an opinion to offer? - 211.28.142.247 10:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

This article was nominated for deletion on October 18, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

— JIP | Talk 18:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

A friend of mine from New Orleans has told me that "wanker" is also used by people from New Orleans to refer to those who live on the west bank of Lake Ponchatrain. Can anybody confirm this user:pjones

I grew up on the West Bank of New Orleans (its the west bank of the Mississippi not of the Lake Ponchartrain), and I've never heard the term. Wikipedia brown 20:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

A stupid or contemptible person. Someone who masterbates, especially a man. - (Aidan Work 05:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC))

I think this is entirely a dictionary definition - Everything here can be put in the Wiktionary entry, and then some. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary I quote:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a usage or jargon guide. If you're interested in working on a wiki dictionary, check out our sister project Wiktionary. Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Dictionary definitions. Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, please do not create an entry merely to define a term. An article should usually begin with a good definition; If you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. An exception to this rule is for articles about the cultural meanings of individual numbers.

2. Lists of such definitions. There are, however, disambiguation pages consisting of pointers to other pages; these are used to clarify differing meanings of a word. Wikipedia also includes glossary pages for various specialized fields.

3. A usage guide, or slang and idiom guide. Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., are used. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a l33t cracker or a Cockney chimney-sweep. However, it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used in order to distinguish among similar, easily confused ideas, as in nation or freedom. In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate.

This is totally inappropriate for the Wikipedia. --DarrenBaker 21:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

There was an AfD debate in which the idea was suggested but not taken up. Generally once an article has reached a certain size (whether or not the extra info is just padding) people seem to feel it somehow wrong to "transiki" it. I thought it might perhaps acquire some validity as an encyclopaedia article but it doesn't seem to me to have done that. It's not an article about the thing/person (wanker) but the word wanker, and the only directly relevant thing it seems to have over a normal dictionary entry is the mention of rhyming slang. Yes, there are some words which are a phenomenon in their own right (someone mentioned nigger) but I don't see that this one is all that noteworthy. Flapdragon 22:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Wiktionary already has wanker. Where Wiktionary already has an article, transwikification isn't an option. (If editors think that the Wiktionary article can be improved, they should edit it directly.) Uncle G 04:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't believe someone's sat here and written a completely serious account of the word "wanker" as if they were a scholar of the English language or something.

Some people really need to get out more.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.66.43 (talk • contribs) , at 13:09, 26 December 2005

Absolutely. Much better to stay in and spend the time writing a dismissive comment about someone else's effort. Flapdragon 02:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but the dismissive comment took about 10 seconds - the article must be at least an evening's work. I'm trying to imagine using a precious evening of my time to write an article about the term 'Wanker' - No. No, I can't imagine it.88.105.118.211 22:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you are the right person to start an article entitled Ironic Understatment. If you have the time, of course.(grin)LessHeard vanU 09:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I have always understood the term to mean an ineffectual person or a contemptible person. A wanker is a person who is unable to even perform something as simple as masturbation.

I have also heard speculation that the term originated from the colonial days in Australia with a Captain Wanker I have yet to uncover any more info.

I'm surprised choking the chicken hasn't been mentioned. But You'd call a person a wanker with the intent of meaning they're an annoying person. Nothing to do with masturbation. Well if you'll excuse me I'm off to grease my chicken.

Coming from Australia I regulary here the term "wanker" being used. When used it means that the person your saying the profanity too is a person who often performs acts of masturbation when ever they are able to. But reading your comments on the subject, it has opend my eyes to other ideas of what the term may well stand for. Very good facts put forward by everyone. pizza boy 09:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a very nasty neighbour, who's picture I considered posting in the Wikopedia entry for wanker. I think I had better not. However, since reading this discussion I think what this brings to mind is that this is definitely a matter for wikopedia not wiktionary - because herein there is scope for the element of advice. Muttering to myself that my neighbour is a wanker, because he is making my life a misery (he erroneously thinks I will sell him my property if he upsets me, my wife, or our family enough) is a useful way to relieve stress. Even better is the thought that I could put his image on Wikopedia under "wanker".

It might not be much, but it is probably better than getting into a scrap with him. Whenever he does something to try to lever us out of our house, I can say to myself "J B****r is a complete wanker". And what is more, he is.

Sounds prudent. What's he doing? Burning bag of dog poo on the doorstep? Late-night phonecalls? Aggrivated mayhem? 67.101.87.186 00:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a job for an exorcist. Mackerm 03:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

isnt it used in ireland too?

Is this related to the Microsoft Windows Live OneCare program?

As a South-Londoner, I can't possibly leave "citation needed" next to "jimmy floyd" (hasselbaink) and "Joddrell" (bank); they're common knowledge in at least 4 boroughs. Also "Barclay's Banker" which I would put in if it weren't so near to libellous... wimbledon andy 13:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This does not make sense: specifically where the performer's impression of their own talent and ability manifestly exceeds that of the audience. If it were written in simpler language, or in a more direct manner, it would be easier to read. Rintrah 17:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, the article needs to be made more concise to make it more pleasing to read. Rintrah 17:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I won't add it because it is original research, but I will suggest it. In Australia, it is common in spectator sports, or during casual games of sport, for people to chant "(name) is a wanker", clap, then it repeat it over and over again, when someone is trying put another person off. If someone can verify it in actual research, it should be added to the article. Rintrah 12:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm Australian and its true that we chant (name) is a wanker at sports event. We also use it in everyday terms as an insult but as kind of a less offensive way of saying it. E.g You are a wanker is less offensive than you are a dickhead.

Is it actionable in the UK (slander) to call somebody a wanker? Prince Philip of Greece 13:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There are times it could constitute a criminal offence, but in terms of slander there is often a defence when something is an opinion and not a statement of fact. See Slander and libel. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Calling the judge a "wanker" might be actionable. Rintrah 14:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you wankers improve this article to featured article status? First, the wank needs to be removed to cleanse the article. Then some Brittanica style wanking needs to be added. I would do this, but my hands are busy — not wanking, of course. Rintrah 16:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There is already one reference to this article. It should be used for inline citations so it easier to distinguish sourced and unsourced statements. This kind of article is a magnet for original research, so I think inline citations would be helpful. Rintrah 01:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, everything beyond a dictionary definition in this article is OR.

For example, I am going to need to call User:Reinoutr on his/her apparent reference-padding regarding his/her insertion on January 3, 2006, of Jenny Cheshire, 1991, English Around the World: sociolinguistic perspectives, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521395658. Following is the entire use of wanker in the book:

A number of the formulae ["you wanker" and "fuck off, wanker" (from page 205)] use as a form of address the word wanker. Literally, the word wanker in New Zealand English denotes a male who masturbates. But it is also used as a general term of abuse among New Zealand males. Masturbation is popularly regarded as a sign of sexual inadequacy. Therefore a wanker is one is sexually inadequate (page 206).

Source here.

Just how much of this article is this user attempting to source by this book's mere dictionary definition?

CyberAnth 00:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I created a version of this article supported only by the references on the page and removed all of the OR. As you can see, what is left is a dictionary entry. WP:WINAD.

CyberAnth 01:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Lets again look at more reference-padding.

The following is included as a reference in this article:

Anthony McEnery and Tony McEnery, 2005, Swearing in English: Bad Language, Purity and Power from 1586 to the Present. Published by Routledge, ISBN 0415258375.

As with the book above I evaluated, I again searched the entire digitized book for the term Wanker.

The word appears once in the book, on page 36, within a list that categorizes British "swear" words from "Very mild" to "Very strong". There under the "Moderate" section we find the word Wanker in its sole mention in the book.

The mention was so minor that Wanker does not appear in the book's Index on page 275, where it would appear otherwise between "VALA" and "warrants". This can be verified here.

So once again I am left to conclude more reference-padding. Certainly, the reference verifies nothing in the article beyond what a dictionary does.

CyberAnth 05:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Above I demonstrated by evidence that the reference in the article, Jenny Cheshire, 1991, English Around the World: sociolinguistic perspectives, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521395658, verified nothing in the article except a dictionary definition.

I again have uncovered what appears to be more reference-padding.

The following is included as a reference in this article:

Anthony McEnery and Tony McEnery, 2005, Swearing in English: Bad Language, Purity and Power from 1586 to the Present. Published by Routledge, ISBN 0415258375.

Just as with the book, I searched its entire digitized contents for the term Wanker.

The word appears once in the book, on page 36, within a table that categorizes British "swear" words from "Very mild" to "Very strong". There under the "Moderate" section we find the word Wanker in its sole entry in the book.

The mention was so minor that Wanker does not appear in the book's Index on page 275, where it would appear otherwise between "VALA" and "warrants". In contrast, the word fuck is discussed in some depth in the book, and appears in its Index as such, on 40 of the book's pages.

Page 36 of the book, other pages, as well as the book's entire index can be viewed at here.

The reference verifies nothing in the article beyond what a dictionary does.

CyberAnth 05:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

In Wanker, the sole pertinent reference cited in specifically the reference section is:

Cameron, Deborah "Naming of Parts: Gender, Culture, and Terms for the Penis among American College Students", in American Speech Vol. 67, No. 4 p372.

In the entire journal article, the word wanker appears only once, indicating nothing more than the fact that college students in the researchers study group used the word wanker as slang for masturbation. Here is the exact sentence:

Apart from the two fellatio-related terms above, there are two references to anal sex, rectum wrecker and anal intruder; and one to masturbation, wanker.

This is the full extent of the coverage of wanker in the reference. No further discussion or mention is made.

Wanker claims,

Wanker...is also a slang term for penis used by American college students. This usage implies that the penis is primarily a tool for masturbation.[1]

Obviously, based on the cited source, the claim that wanker is a term for penis is not verifiable, patently false. This speaks nothing of the ludicrous Synthesis/OR claim that follows, "This usage implies that the penis is primarily a tool for masturbation."

The specfic page entry for page 272 of the journal article is at here. The entire journal article is here. You need JSTOR access.

In conclusion, the journal article referenced in the article provides nothing but a dictionary definition for wanker while saying college students sometimes use it.

CyberAnth 05:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added a request for a citation in the line which starts "Similarly, "wanking" can describe any showy activity that mainly pleases its participant", as someone who has lived in the UK for 21 years I've never ever heard the word used in this way. Is it a regional variation? Or is it used like this in another country? If someone could add some actual research that would be good. Paulfp 20:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I cannot cite research, but I know that usage is common in Australia. The idea is, the activity gives more pleasure to the performer than the audience, hence "wanking". It is also an extension of the meaning of wanker as a person who is "egotistical or indulgent" (definition from the pdf reference.)

Although you could argue that in some cases masturbation (especially when done by females) gives as much pleasure to the audience as to the performer. Hence the popularity of female masturbation in pornographic material... Paulfp 13:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You are wandering a little off topic (read "wanking"). Rintrah 14:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What about when someone has got something new that they love too much. You could say Q, Where's John, he said he'd be out tonight. A, He's probably at home wanking over his PS3 Thats a closer meaning from the uk

Great. Find a source for it. Rintrah 01:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Clean up this page from sabotage. How can you edit a page that doesn't show the sabotage in the source? 84.231.184.13 19:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? Prometheus^-X303- 22:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)