Talk:Serving cunt

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 22:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that in an effort to reclaim "the most offensive word in the English language" as aspirational, some people describe being "powerful in an unapologetic and feminine manner" as "serving cunt"? Source: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/c-word-is-everywhere-lgbt-tucker-carlson-1234735324/ for "most offensive", https://lifehacker.com/the-out-of-touch-adults-guide-to-kid-culture-why-is-e-1850452383 for "unapologetic"
  • ALT1: ... that some people serve cunt?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Moira Pollock
  • Comment: I was very surprised to see Lifehacker highlighted in red on WP:UPSD; this appears to be an artefact from when it was owned by Gawker Media and seems fine now (a dictionary definition is as mundane as it gets). Also, this would make an excellent International Women's Day hook.

Moved to mainspace by Launchballer (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 279 past nominations.

Launchballer 07:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC).

• This article, moved to mainspace on the 21 Feb, is new enough, long enough, well-sourced, and presentable. I have added a little to the background section. QPQ done. Both hooks cited and in article. I like ALT0 better. Good to go. Tenpop421 (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

As this was not selected for International Women's Day, I suggest instead running it on 31 March, which is Trans Day of Visibility.--Launchballer 10:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Objection to proposed deletion

An anonymous user, 147.161.224.166, suggested deleting this article. I personally object to this, as I suspect that move to do so is purely on the basis of the rudeness of the title and as such would go against WP:NOTCENSORED. ISD (talk) 10:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I reverted it.--Launchballer 10:19, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Black Sexual Politics

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2026 and 6 May 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Efren.rodriguez851 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Faythe F, HJDimick, BriannaSchultz.

— Assignment last updated by HJDimick (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@Cjcarney and Brianda (Wiki Ed): Let me know if you do anything trans related. I suggested at WT:DYK that we run a themed set for Trans Day of Visibility.--Launchballer 01:38, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

This article is written with deliberate immaturity and should be deleted

No other slang article on Wikipedia repeats the subject phrase as many times as this one does, and the variations of the phrase are overemphasized. Given the comparative insignificance and obscurity of this expression, it should be relegated to an article that lists slang phrases, such as Glossary of 2020s slang. Robertjhennigan (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

"Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." So, since it doesn't break ANY rules and the thing I listed above, it shouldn't be removed even if it is "Immature" and, it is woman's history so removing a piece of history from wikipedia is just dumb. ~2026-24342-77 (talk) 00:13, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Let me be clear when I say I am not protesting the existence of an article detailing "objectionable or offensive" content. This is an online encyclopedia, not a Church. Conversely, this article is not written in an encyclopedic tone in the slightest. That is my issue. No other article covering slang is written in this manner. Furthermore, I didn't suggest erasing this information completely, ergo why I suggested moving it to another article instead of having an entire article dedicated to it. Robertjhennigan (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2026 (UTC)