Talk:Gropecunt Lane/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Another Dubious Sentence

. An article was recently imported on our side of the tongues (fr) and I found in it some stylish details to put my keyboard onto. I remained distressed regarding assertions in it but all of it being a translation, I had to check that side out. I came late after the discussion there. Here part of what remains of my misery. "This correlation suggests that these streets not only provided for the sexual gratification of indigenous males, but also for visiting stall-holders."; has been a little bit smoothen by our french translator, yet the dubious suggestion remains.
Considering the structure of medieval towns and what we know regarding rythm of life, it is quite obvious that out of doors prostitution where it existed had to be mostly dependant from visitors. Thus "gratification" is a biased term; as well, "not only" is biased.
I noted that you were, not untypically when it comes to folkloric fancies, attacked regarding sourcing, right on a discussion page! It seems like one would be entitled to do sourcing directly out of anything, as far as it would be refering to printed material, even though it may have been published posteriorily to the success of the WP set of rules. So what could I suggest? Should someone find some sociological discourse explaining that the attribution of a denomination is not necessarily intended as an encouragement, but may be a warning or a restriction? -- Askedonty (talk) 11:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way... would anyone has an intuition concerning an etymological origin for the word "groupie"? Any suggestion (and bib indication) welcome. --Askedonty (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I read through this comment twice and do not understand it. This is a serious question, so I apologize if it comes off as insensitive: did you write your question in French and put it through Google Translator? --Moni3 (talk) 12:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that those funny street names went out of the common knowledge by simply the town councils removing them and changing them. What certainly could not remain traced by local memories was a precise reason for their - ancestral shape, and I know that the mind often does not keep a straight image of the reason for a place's name when there is not a statue nearby illustrating it. Yet the Beatles have produced many songs and some can be considered as inspired by the british landscape, and I do not find a reference to prostitution in them. The Rolling Stones, maybe, but they brought their stuff back from the New-Orleans. I am not suggesting that prostitution was unknown in Britain, but I doubt that a referential to it would have been specified that way. -- Askedonty (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am struggling to understand what you mean. Are you suggesting that places called Gropecunt Lane weren't centres of prostitution in medieval towns? Nev1 (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought I was the only one. I haven't the foggiest idea what he's on about. Parrot of Doom 19:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

@Nev1 - They may and may not. The name is not sufficient to decide it. But I am not opposed to the article as it is anyway a good basis regarding toponymy. In the meantime I do not like much the expression "their gratification" that I find, POV; and a little bit worse, in fact. --Askedonty (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The opening sentence of the article says "...believed to be a reference to the prostitution centred on those areas". It's not presenting it as a certainty, merely that it is thought likely. It isn't presented as a certainty later in the article eithe:

It was normal practice for medieval street names to reflect their function, or the economic activity taking place within them (especially the commodities available for sale), hence the frequency of names such as The Shambles, Silver Street, Fish Street, and Swinegate (pork butchers) in cities with a medieval history. Prostitution may well have been a normal aspect of medieval urban life;[8] in A survey of London (1598) John Stow describes Love Lane as "so called of Wantons".[9] The more graphic Gropecunt Lane, however, is possibly the most obvious allusion to sexual activity.[1]

That makes it clear that it was a possibility rather than a certainty. As for "gratification", I sort of see where you're coming from, but disagree. According to the Chambers Dictionary gratify means "1 to please someone. 2 to satisfy or indulge (eg a desire)". By using prostitutes, customers were satisfying a desire for sex, which is how the term is used in the article. Nev1 (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

A common Mediterranean language now unknown

I removed the sentence "Grose's implied derivation from the Greek and Latin is probably incorrect; the word more likely derives from a common Mediterranean language now unknown, evidenced by the Ancient Egyptian qefen-t and ka-t, meaning vulva." as the citations do not appear to support the rather implausible assertion.

This may be a simple case of the correct citation not having followed this line while the article was being expanded/modified. The best thing to do would be to check its history, it was expanded significantly only a few months before it featured on the main page. I'm in the UAE right now and internet access is crappy, so I won't be able to look at this for a few more days. Parrot of Doom 21:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

When the above text was first added, it was based on the Partridge text; the Briggs citation was added some time after. Google books won't let me see a preview of page 700, but it does at least say the word "cunt" is on that page. Nev1 (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

But not, as far as I can see, the words "Mediterranean" or "Egyptian". Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

This Talk page is archived too aggressively

This Talk page is archived too aggressively. It is very short relative to many other Talk pages, and the last entry in the last archive is not very old as compared with other archived Talk pages. I have no idea how to fix this. David Spector (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that it's archived rather infrequently. What would you consider to be a reasonable cycle? Malleus Fatuorum 00:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Speculative Note should be removed

At the beginning of the References section, there is a Note that contains unsourced speculation. The OED includes the first date for which an OED editor has found an instance in print for each word. The process used for most of the history of OED was a fairly random one of accepting contributions from individual, trusted contributors, storing them on little slips of paper in physical cubbyholes. Therefore, etymologists know that the published date of first use in the OED is highly inaccurate. In addition, the Note speculates that prior to its first attested use, the word did not have the current meaning. That is neither likely nor unlikely, it is simply not known. More often than not, 'vulgar' words retain their meanings backwards in time at least as long as other kinds of words; vulgar words as a class have a perhaps surprisingly ancient provenance. I suggest, therefore, that the Note be deleted as speculation. It also does not seem essential to the article. David Spector (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that supports your view? I'm not saying I disagree, but for better or worse that's the way that Wikipedia works. Malleus Fatuorum 00:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The first part was introduced by me, here, and the second part again, by me, here. There's a straightforward contradiction between that line and what Holt-Baker says. I checked today, and they mention Piers Plowman, and say something akin to "aptly-named Cock Lane", so I'd tend to agree with the above (although I'm not sure what expertise Holt-Baker has with regard to other street names).

So, I'm not sure what I was reading when I inserted that line but as it obviously disagrees with the better sources I'll remove it. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. My mistake. Parrot of Doom 11:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You may be right to remove, but the OP's logic seems rather confused to me. "Cunt" is simply a normal word for the thing it names, albeit now a "vulgar" one, whereas "cock" is a slang term (derived from an animal, like "pussy"). Slang terms do not "retain their meanings backwards in time at least as long as other kinds of words." Far from it, they often come into being quickly, and change meaning quickly, and disappear quickly. It seems perfectly legitimate to raise the question whether "cock" had a sexual meaning at the time, and even if it did, whether it had the same one it does now, as simply a synonym for penis. Maybe it referred to the fact that ity was a place that a man could behave like a cock among hens, having several partners. Paul B (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

At any rate, even before Parrot added the bit about Piers Plowman and the OED, the material about prostitutes on "Cocks Lane" was attributed to the Holt & Baker work. It might be useful to check if it includes any further elaboration about the name or cites another work that does.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The entire section of the book in which Holt-Baker appears is stored in a dropbox folder, I'm happy to allow access to anyone who wishes it. You just have to email me for an invite. Parrot of Doom 15:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

Do any maps exist that actually show the name "Gropecunt Lane"?Honeybadger69 (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Notification of a TFA nomination

In the past, there have been requests that discussions about potentially controversial TFAs are brought to the attention of more than just those who have WP:TFAR on their watchlist. With that in mind: Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties has been nominated for an appearance as Today's Featured Article. If you have any views, please comment at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)