Talk:Bugger

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Deletion discussions:
CSD A5 declined, 23-02-2009, see speedy deletion nomination. keep, 23-02-2009, see discussion. keep, 20-01-2009, see discussion.

Untitled

Bugger from my findings is better taking to be a man and , or woman who love anal sex.

Whatever. This is a dictionary definition to encyclopediable. Wetman 05:43, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the first. I always was told that "a bugger" was somebody who took anal sex. Also I heard, by watching some program on BBC 2 that it comes from a dutch word, which means anal sex. Peterwill 18:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bugger ! ..... Tony, 7 June 2007 AEST, Oz

I don't really understand the preceding comments, but they do make the point that bugger also refers to someone who practices sodomy, and even if this isn't the most common usage, it's one that most adult speakers of British English will be aware of, so to not mention it at all is wrong. (Also, some mention might be made of the phrase "rugger bugger", a mildly derogatory term for a rugby football player.) --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Shouldn't 'Bugger (alien)' be moved to its own article? --195.92.67.68 16:50, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

inoffensive in the US?

Why does this say that? It seems to me that its less common usage here actually means it retains more of the offensive meaning. -Jcbarr 01:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've never perceived it as having any offensive meaning. It seems more a joke than anything else. Nik42 08:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's very inoffensive here. For instance, if you were to say, "This is a bugger of a problem", most people would assume you were talking about how a problem is like a literal bug. It's also worth noting that among nerds, "Bugger" is most closely associated with Ender's Game.

I have used it as in "This is a bugger of a problem" and "poor bugger". Then again the article does say that it is used more in Canada and also with a parent from New Zealand there is probably some influence. Though it is hardly considered offencive from my personal expeirience. kc4 - the Server Monkey Enforcer 00:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The seeming American translation given in the article at the moment, "Darn it, I've missed the bus!" seems a bit too Ned Flanders. It's certainly not that inoffensive - can an American change the translation to something appropriately strong, and clarify that that's what it would be in American English? Motmot (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had NO IDEA 'bugger' was offensive until I was an adult. And I say this as a well-read individual. The only usage I knew growing up (Idaho and California) is as a synonym for a pesky kid. Thmazing (talk) 04:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an American, I grew up with "bugger" being totally inoffensive. And it was pronounced, and often spelled, "booger". Being called a "little booger" was common as a kid. "Booger", of course, also means "snot", and one could also be called a "little snot". I'm not sure I ever heard the expression "a bugger of a problem". References in the USA always seemed to refer to those semi-solid little bits up one's nose. I lived in the UK for three years in my twenties, and found that UK usage was totally unlike the USA usage I had been used to. I am of the opinion that UK and USA usage developed separately. In common American usage, "bugger" has nothing to do with anal sex, which seems to be usually infered in the UK. Eastcote (talk) 02:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

removed

Removed:

The expression bugger me sideways with a bargepole is jocularly meant to indicate surprise.

Not notable enough. Very low number of independent hits on Google search. Terra Green 21:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bugger me sideways gets more results: it doesn't matter what the apparatus is, really: it's quite popular in England.

"it's quite popular in England." - what are you implying, exactly? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.150.78.48 (talk • contribs).

EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 08:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"a bugger is also a man that puts his fingers in dogs arse's, lol lol lol fag" - Apparent vandalism. I'm not sure who posted this, but how and where can this be reported? Ipso-De-Facto 18:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

etymology

http://www.languedoc-france.info/12011302_sodomy.htm claims that Bulgres were Cathars, the heresy belief that came originally from East-Europe, and especially as a kind of Bogomils beliefs of Bulgaria

POV?

I'd have said this is still a wound that would be considered offensive in many contexts. One would not expect to hear it, for instance, on British Television before 9pm. Indicating that it is still considered potentially offensive. The article implies most of the offence is now gone, I'd disagree. Now, I'm only going from personal observation and opinion, but since the article cites no sources, it is difficult to see the article as in any sense objective. It needs some objective sources.--Doc^g 00:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a native speaker of Australian English, I'd say that the article is pretty accurate about Australian usage. It might be of interest to mention the Tok Pisin word 'bagarap'. Mike Dallwitz 11:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a whole ad campaign in Australia featured around the word bugger, it was repeated throughout the advert on daytime and prime time television.

How about "Bugger me dumplings"? skit by Tony Martin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.37.187 (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

gone buggerup

How common is that phrase in Australia? Obviously the Aussies gave "bugger up" to the Papuans, but did the Papuans give "bagarap" back to the Aussies? Serendi^podous 12:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion?

Hello.

When I first came to this article, I saw a template had been posted on it that it's a candidate for speedy deletion. Can anyone provide a valid reason why? Thanks, calvinps (Talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Don't know about speedy deletion but there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bugger which might be useful. pablo_hablo. 15:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found entry for same word on Wiktionary (See wikt:bugger)

Hi.

As I predicted, there is an entry in Wiktionary for this word. I don't believe this article is necessary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I had the same situation with Bint, an article that got deleted because it had already been transwiki'd to WIKT.

I could nominate this article for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#A5 but I have a feeling that this could be unsuitable.

-calvinps- (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the Afd above - if you have any new points to raise you could always raise another Afd. pablo_hablo. 16:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The most possible result for the AfD seems to be "Keep". Looks like it will have to be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A5. -calvinps- (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you're deluding yourself. RasterFaAye (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shut up. -calvinps- (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the thrust and parry of informed debate! How refreshing!! pablo_hablo. 21:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! -calvinps- (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The content of this article

So the argument at both AfDs was that this article is somehow much more than a dictionary definition.

But the article starts off with a definition -- as most encyclopedia articles should -- then continues with an etymology, followed by usage notes for each part of speech (noun, verb, interjection) which the word can represent. The article concludes with phrases in which the word appears, complete with links to wiktionary.

Can someone please explain what part of this article is not suitable for wiktionary? Definition, etymology, usage: all parts of a comprehensive dictionary article. There's nothing else here, that I see.

-- Powers ^T 18:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly all parts are suitable for Wiktionary, feel free to add them. The point is whether the article is suitable for Wikipedia. pablo_hablo. 18:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that if all parts are suitable for wiktionary, then that means this article is nothing but a dictionary definition. The two projects should never have identical articles, because they have different defined scopes. Powers ^T 18:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

offensive term? ... bugger, buggery

Definition 2 from the wikitionary definition in the header is "(British law) Someone who commits buggery; a sodomite." yet that isn't mentioned at all in the Noun section of our article.

What I'd really like to know is, If I use the phrase on the English Wikipedia ("Navboxes are quite versatile little buggers"), are there any English speaking communities that might contain ... umm, buggerers who'd be offended by that? That must be one of the main reasons that this article is consulted ... Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 04:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation notices

Is there a compelling reason these are still up? Thmazing (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Local colloquialism sentence?

This passage needs to be re-written. I don't understand what it's saying: "…the word there now has a 'catch-all', almost humorous, 'Jeez' quality." What's a Jeez? --70.167.58.6 (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote article lead

Hi. I rewrote the article lead just now.

Before:

Bugger is a slang word used in the vernacular British English, Australian English, Canadian English, New Zealand English, South African English, Caribbean English, Sri Lankan English and occasionally also in Malaysian English and Singaporean English. It is derived from Anglo-Norman bougre, which has also given the term buggery, a term originally used to describe either anal intercourse by a man with a man or woman,^[1] or sexual intercourse by either a man or a woman with an animal.^[2] Today, the term is a general-purpose expletive, used to imply dissatisfaction, or used to describe someone or something whose behaviour is in some way displeasing, or sexual intercourse between a man and a woman, though in general British, Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand English the sense of profanity has largely disappeared; the word there now has a 'catch-all', almost humorous, quality similar to a minced oath.

After:

Bugger is a slang word originally used to describe either anal intercourse by a man with a man or woman,^[3] or sexual intercourse by either a man or a woman with an animal.^[4] Today, the term is a general-purpose expletive, used to imply dissatisfaction, or used to describe someone or something whose behaviour is in some way displeasing, or sexual intercourse between a man and a woman.

The term is used in the vernacular British English, Australian English, Canadian English, New Zealand English, South African English, Caribbean English, Sri Lankan English and occasionally also in Malaysian English and Singaporean English. It is derived from Anglo-Norman bougre, which has also given the term buggery.

In everyday British, Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand English the sense of profanity has largely disappeared; the word there now has a 'catch-all', almost humorous, quality similar to a minced oath.

^ R v Wiseman (1718) Fortes Rep 91
^ R v Jacobs (1817) Russ & Ry 331
^ R v Wiseman (1718) Fortes Rep 91
^ R v Jacobs (1817) Russ & Ry 331

I think the new version is better. People look up this term to get the definition. A good lead will get to the point in a short sentence or two. The old lead included a lot of extraneous noise that's better left for the people who want to know more. Serve the reader, &c.

I happened to change "In general ... English" to "In everyday ... English". I think this is acceptable, though maybe others disagree. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bugger all

The article tells me it means "nothing", but it's not sourced. As an Australian I have the impression that, while it can and often does mean "nothing", it can also mean "very little", i.e. a close approximation to the definition given, but not quite the same. Interested in others' thoughts on this. HiLo48 (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very little would be - nine tenths of bugger all. HTH 2A00:23C8:3B87:B801:B876:1E42:226A:7EF2 (talk) 05:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Far too much weight given to the sexual definition?

I've removed claims as to the "originality" of the sexual definition in the lead, as I do not believe for a second that the cited sources support such claims. It looks like those court cases are just early examples of the sexual definition, and as such deleted as original research. I've also removed poorly-sourced claims as to the commonality of a particular definition from the "Noun" section.

We have a clear etymology of the word, and I'm seeing no evidence whatsoever that it evolved from "Heretic" into its inoffensive usage by way of the sexual definition. No evidence that the two forms of usage could not have evolved concurrently. Claims that one came from the other need to be supported. Rubiscous (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Given that you deleted them, it's helpful to either link the diffs (one, two), or paste copies of the references, here, if you want to discuss them. Otherwise editors arriving months hence, will have a hard time finding what you're talking about.) –Quiddity (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Most of the "verb" examples illustrate the use of "buggered" as an adjective, not a noun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.214.134 (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning the use of the word bu**er as a slang word

Bu**er is a swear word to some and a slang word to others. The term is a general-purpose expletive, used to imply dissatisfaction, or to refer to someone or something whose behaviour is in some way displeasing or perhaps surprising.

Surely the above text is correct that it is a slang word to some yet an offensive word to others? A user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bretonbanquet disagrees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.216.181.166 (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're making a subjective claim. The article already explains that it's an expletive, and that is sufficient. I strongly suggest reverting your censorship of other users' user pages as well, as this is not permitted. I also wonder why you're censoring a very minor expletive and allowing others to remain untouched. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

only slang?

It is most commonly used as slang, however isn't the literal meaning a formal term, and shouldn't the article reflect that? The verb form is a synonym of sodomize and the noun is a synonym of sodomite. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Booger

Say "see also Booger" I say... Jidanni (talk) 01:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. The fact, that in US English especially, the word is pronounced very similarly to "Bugger" does not justify such a mention. The two words have very different meanings, and articles are about meanings.

If it was not so, the article for "Beach" should include a mention of the word "Beech", and vice versa. And that's just one of many instances where two or more words have different meanings but the same or similar pronunciation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:EA01:1090:806:9EDB:7F9F:751C (talk) 10:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bugger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150810053756/http://bogomilism.eu/Studies/Bugger%20case.html to http://www.bogomilism.eu/Studies/Bugger%20case.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.stuff.co.nz/southlandtimes/4689466a26572.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All sexual connotation deleted??!

above mentions deletion of sexual connotation citing too much importance given. Now it doesn’t mention any sexual meaning anymore, which makes the whole “offencive in Britain vs unoffensifr in the USA”-thing wildly confusing. This article really needs fixing. 2A02:3030:803:631F:8931:9956:1DB4:718D (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] R v Wiseman (1718) Fortes Rep 91

[2] R v Jacobs (1817) Russ & Ry 331

[3] R v Wiseman (1718) Fortes Rep 91

[4] R v Jacobs (1817) Russ & Ry 331

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]