Talk:Hawk tuah

3RR

@MarksmanRifle: you've already violated 3RR, which you were warned about, and now you're edit-warring about the spelling of the subject's last name, despite the sources in the article proving you are incorrect. Please discuss. Seasider53 (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Seasider53 Her name is confirmed to be Haliey Welch, which has been subject to some dispute from different editors. However, this is her name, as her own websites and social media accounts confirm this in addition to these references. [1] [2] [3] I think that changing the good faith vandalism back shouldn't constitute as edit warring, as the edits made by @MarksmanRifle were simply just justified as 'Google said it's spelled this way' despite Welch saying herself that it's the contrary. I was simply removing content that was poorly sourced. Should my previous edit be reimplemented, I will add these references to prove her name, which has been controversial among other editors. BullDawg2021 (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

What's 3RR? 2A00:23EE:1390:3EFA:E8DE:8752:892E:9002 (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:3RR. Seasider53 (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

So whats the verdict, captain? Pickas90 (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Haliey Welch

Profanity and pejorative terminology ..Hawk Tuah Girl Now that Haliey Welch is famous .

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Monica_Lewinsky

in comparison Monica_Lewinsky is just Monica_Lewinsky.. and not the .......... Wikipedia is not censored. Yes, profanity is found on Wikipedia sometimes. But it is only used in articles when it is really appropriate. For example, profanity is found in articles about the words themselves, in titles containing those words, and in quotations. But Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines prohibit the use of profanity as a method of labeling a subject or namecalling. A more neutral term should be substituted in these situations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.10.199.23 (talk) 04:08, August 15, 2024 (UTC)

Date of birth

CostalCal, you reverted my revert, but did you read my edit summary? Per WP:DOB: Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. The citation attached to her birthdate makes no mention of a date and you didn't add any new sources. I looked, and as far as I can tell, it has not been "widely published" by reliable sources or published by sources "linked to the subject". Do you have any evidence of the contrary? C F A 14:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Vulgarity?

Should it be mentioned in the article that this sound is vulgar (compare "fap" for example)? It's obviously divisive among a lot of people by now who react sourly upon encountering it, and it feels tone-deaf not to mention somewhere, if even a few words. Maybe also similar things in the "see also" section. ~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 21:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you cite reliable sources that describe "hawk tuah" as vulgar? 162 etc. (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:SPADE. Come on now. I already googled it, but I'm not even going to link this. ~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 22:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why we need to say the sound is vulgar, especially because, as 162 etc. has said, our sources are not outright stating that. ReidLark1n 23:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay sorry, here's one article by Yahoo (an approved perennial source) which calls it vulgar: Here’s What Fans Had to Say About Hawk Tuah Girl Throwing Mets First Pitch (you replied as I commented) ~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 23:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

As for the rationale, I had thought it would be self-explanatory why the context of this action is considered inappropriate by most people (hence the comedic surprise in the first place; try asking your own IRL family/friends). ~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 23:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this is vulgar but I feel like WP:NODISCLAIMERS is pretty clear on this one. ReidLark1n 23:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Sigehelmus Nope, your rationale doesn't make sense to me: The sound that the onomatopoeia illustrates is per se just that of hawking a logy. You can do that in many circumstances, most basically and frequently to clear your throat of phlegm. WTF is “inappropriate” about that? CRConrad (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Vulgar is subjective, and Wikipedia is an unbiased resource. Flame, not lame 💔 (Don't talk to me.) 00:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 7 December 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close. A seperate Haliey Welch article has been created, and portions of Hawk tuah should be split onto that new thang({{u|Eg224}} sorry for stealing your joke) (closed by non-admin page mover) '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

---

Hawk tuah → Haliey Welch – Haliey Welch is in the news again, this time for the controversial launch of her $HAWK coin. That's now three different things she's done this year which have attracted WP:SIGCOV - see also hawk tuah and Talk Tuah - and at this point we can no longer pretend that this is WP:BLP1E. The article should be copyedited to read as a biography, and retitled to match. 162 etc. (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

If it is decided that BLP1E is no longer met, I think it would be best to create a new article on Haliey Welch instead of reformatting this one. "Hawk tuah" is independently notable as a meme. C F A 23:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with this caveat. ReidLark1n 23:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, opposing the move. 2804:14D:5C32:4673:9895:10D3:9166:36C9 (talk) 05:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

They already have a article on hawk tuah in Wiktionary so, having the hawk tuah article would be like having the article "Hello". It's nice to have but also useless. 47.135.36.167 (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

We have an article on "Hello". C F A 01:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree (Weak Support) - Haliey Welch seems to be at this point more than just 15 seconds of fame. Especially with how news speeds these days, she seems to determined to stay notable in her own right. However, everything about her "brand" revolves around that catchphrase.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 23:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Support - Welch would be notable as a standalone article, and if it was created, I would argue to merge Hawk tuah into that one. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 23:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose move. Support creation of Haliey Welch. This may come as a surprise to my friend CFA with whom I often have disagreed about the notability of Welch as it pertains to WP:BLP1E, but it's clear that the bell curve of notability now has a second peak. However, how we phrase the led is very important because we don't want to run afoul of WP:BLP and Welch is now notable for two events: 1) a viral meme; and 2) an alleged cryptocurrency scam. However, because I believe the meme itself is notable in its own right, it should have its own page considering a large body of our sourcing is about the meme alone. ReidLark1n 23:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose In the previous move discussion it was decided to make the article about the meme, not the person. Thus moving it to the person's name would go against consensus. A new article should be made instead, and this redirected to it if necessary. It's possible the new article should be called Hawk Tuah Girl rather than Hailey Welch because she is known far better under that pseudonym. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

"would go against consensus" is not a valid argument per WP:CCC. StAnselm (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The move was in 2024, so there is no reason for consensus to change that drastically now. This is simply trying to do an end run around consensus. The proper course of action is making a new article, as others have also noted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose move; support creation of Haliey Welch. We now have a notable person and a notable phrase/meme. StAnselm (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
• Comment In regards to a split: This article was first created as Haliey Welch. It was later moved to Hawk Tuah Girl, then Hawk Tuah, and now Hawk tuah. If consensus determines that Haliey Welch and Hawk tuah both deserve articles, the current article should be moved as proposed, with Hawk tuah being split off as a new article. 162 etc. (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  Given how drastically the article has shifted, a history merge may be a better idea than attempting to shift this article back to being about the person. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think WP:HISTSPLIT is what you're referring to?

  This process is only performed by admins, so perhaps this discussion should not be closed by WP:RMNAC. 162 etc. (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  History merging/splitting moves clearly defined chunks of revisions from one page to another. If the topic of an article shifts gradually then there usually isn't a clear split point (all edits before this diff are about the person, all edits after this diff are about the meme) so history splitting can't be done. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  There is a clear split point - July 19, 2024, which is when the AFD closed and the article moved for the first time. The guidance of the AFD closer was to "make (the article) primarily about the meme rather than the person." Therefore, the history of the article prior to that point is that of the Haliey Welch biography, and the history since that point is that of the Hawk tuah meme. 162 etc. (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  The AfD claimed to do that, but it didn't really, as the implementing edit is actually fairly minor. And that isn't a history split point, as the edits before and after that point have too much in common with each other. A better history split point is September 9, 2024. That point still isn't perfect, but if we end up with two separate articles I'd be willing to split the history there (moving everything before that diff to "Haliey Welch" while keeping everything after it at "Hawk tuah"). I'm far too out of the loop to have a substantive opinion on whether two articles is the right outcome. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  Isn't a move going to create more work for us? If we move then we have to create 2 articles or at least one rewrite plus one article creation rather than just keeping this one and creating Haliey Welch. ReidLark1n 21:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, Split instead. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 11:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Support move Welch probably has enough notability on her own at this point, but there isn't much to be said about the catchphrase that can't be said in a paragraph on an article about Haliey Welch. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose move, support creation of Hailey Welch; the meme and the creator both seem notable in their own right. jolielover♥talk 15:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

"Split" on that thang: Haliey Welch has become enough of a notable figure to get her own article. Hawk Tuah should have its own article as it is one of the greatest memes of all time and it changed the world forever. Doge and Grumpy Cat are examples of other memes to have their own article, and hawk tuah is getting closer to their level. This article could be split off into a Haliey Welch article to talk about her biography and all the other stuff of note. Did you see what I did when I said "split" on that thang? XD Eg224 (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose A new article can absolutely be made though, as was stated all the way back during the AfD. Leave this article here with its history and split off whatever is relevant with the appropriate {{copied}} on the talk page. EoRdE6^(Talk) 05:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Several editors have opposed the move and supported the creation of a seperate Haliey Welch article. If such article is created, this RM should be procedurally closed. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Haliey Welch has been created, this discussion should be procedurally closed jolielover♥talk 09:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, Support keeping Haliey Welch separate. Two separately, independently notable topics.LM2000 (talk) 09:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Time immemorial

Onomatopoeia for spitting sounds have been attested since time immemorial (e.g. the Ancient Greek word πτῡ́ω (ptū́ō, "to spit"), or Latin spuo ("to spit, spew"), cognates from Proto-Indo-European *(ts)ptyew- (“to spit, vomit”), which imitates retching).[5]

Really? Time immemorial? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.223.53.122 (talk) 23:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I attempted to remove the unnecessary history lesson from the article and was reverted by @Sigehelmus. Perhaps we can discuss the usefulness of its inclusion here?

As I noted in my edit summary, "one sentence on cited historical context is more than reasonable"; referring to the mention in the introduction. Ckoerner (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Objectively speaking, the claim is correct given it's basic human nature. If you really want to remove it, fine. I was trying to seek something more specifically connected to actual sources of a very similar emittance, but given the very wide nature of the term which can be spelled countless ways, it's difficult to find these things.

For the actual intention of the passage per se, I simply believe that this article is little more than a glorified news aggregator (see WP:NOTNEWS) for, frankly, lowest-common-denominator tabloid slop (actually it wouldn't even be TMZ fodder 20 years ago), and it fits the actual spirit of Wikipedia project to actually teach some context to things, instead of insinuating that this whole thing appeared ex nihilo. Nobody just fell out of a coconut tree; there's always context. Obviously there's reasonable limits to this, but I believe if this article should even continue to exist (and certain people have complained, assuming the title isn't moved to Welch herself, that the connotations of this whole article are a bit problematic), it hurts no one and only helps them to make things slightly more academic for the masses (this is now getting almost half a million monthly views while the average page is fortunate to get some thousand). TLDR: I know that we aren't supposed to be purely didactic and an article should stand on its own, but it shouldn't be brainrot slop either. A sentence or two of scholarly context is good. Choose how you want that to happen, but it ought to.~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 23:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

As a side note: Yes, that fits the academic and legal definition of the phrase; check the article. I know it's often used colloquially to mean "a really long time" in a cheesy way because of mass media, but that helps understanding. ~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 23:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree it's a random non sequitur at best. The article isn't about onomatopoeia for spitting in general, and it goes without saying there has been. Nardog (talk) 06:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

In consideration of what I said before: "I was trying to seek something more specifically connected to actual sources of a very similar emittance, but given the very wide nature of the term which can be spelled countless ways, it's difficult to find these things", as well as the essence of the intention for such a passage in the History section, and accounting for the abundant resources you provide on your userpage, are there in fact early attestations of similar onomatopoeias? Of course there are many in modern comics and novels, &c., but specifically pre-modern (and from my searchings it seems pre-1900 it becomes more non-standard)? Again, it seems slightly imprudent and schlocky to leave the event in a vacuum and not even attempt to establish a background. The converse perception, as if this over-intellectualized to the point of seeming absurd (as if the subject matter is properly deserving of reverence?), is improprietously disregardful of what we are trying to establish. The atavistic generality of what I inserted, perhaps to slight detriment of connotation, is precisely because of the challenges of searching such a granular utterance in historical record. ~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 06:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea what any of that means, but in any case the WP:ONUS is on you to establish consensus to include it. Nardog (talk) 07:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, you got me - I felt a little guilty about my responses seeming nonsensical, and I confess I'm just slightly annoyed at this article's existence. As I said, let anyone remove it if they want, and anyone who wants to replace it needs to prove its relevancy, whatever. ~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 07:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It is sometimes annoying that certain topics/subjects have enough RS and notalbity to exist. I hear you. I also think that we shouldn't try and "smarten up" an article on a subjectively dumb topic. Our mindset shouldn't be to assume the readers are dumb or write in an attempt to sound smart, but to summarize RS for general understanding on a subject. Perhaps a compromise would be to end the history section with a link to onomatopoeia? Ckoerner (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay to this: As a lazy bold idea, I shortened my old section to one short sentence that's fairly innocuous. Is this okay? I don't oppose your idea, but this curt background seems harmless. ~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 08:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@47.223.53.122 Yes, literally. Nobody now alive has memories back to when classical Greek and Latin, not to mention PIE, were spoken. So yes, literally time immemorial. HTH! --CRConrad (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Edit to ignore on advice of SineBot Bot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.223.53.122 (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

People changing subject and body

FTC and SEC are likely looking at this very closely. I would advise caution on making changes or unnecessary additions or deletions at this point. The "time immemorial" addition to this page is extremely suspicious. 47.223.53.122 (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

This seems a little melodramatic and irrelevant? ~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 00:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2024

I would love to help make a few edits going towards the hawk tuah article, being a close friend of the creator of the hawk tuah girl I could certainly help add some bits not already on the article. MisterBombaclat (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

You need to provide a complete and specific description of the request, in the form "please change X to Y".

Note that all material in the article needs to be supported by a citation to a reliable source. 162 etc. (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The AP (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Fellatio?

@ReidLark1n: Then can you maybe explain why anyone would spit on a penis "during fellatio"? Why would anyone eject saliva onto something they're putting in their mouth anyway? I don't see fellatio or any synonym in the sources cited ([4][5][6][7][8][9]). Some include "oral sex", but a more straightforward reading of them is that they're referring to the spitting alone as "oral sex" because it involves the mouth. Which parts of these sources verify the claim that she was "referring to spitting on a man's penis during oral sex"? Nardog (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're taking issue with but perhaps the below quotes will be sufficient to answering your question:

"[...] one of the most famous women in the country right now: a young, folksy blonde woman advocating for expectoration during oral sex."[10]

"The resulting video, posted June 11, showed the content creators asking various women in Nashville—the unofficial bachelorette party capital of the world—the following question: “What is one move in bed that makes a man go crazy every time?”"[11]

Hawk tuah, the meme currently tearing up the internet, is a reference to a classic bedroom method where a willing partner spits on an erect penis before—or during—fellatio to increase the total lubrication.[12]

Slate glosses “Hawk Tuah” as the “onomatopoeic ricochet effect” of spitting “before—or during—fellatio to increase the total lubrication.” [13] ReidLark1n 19:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I suspect Nardog is trying to make some kind of hyper-technical point that if fellatio means 'sucking on a penis' that the fellatio is only happening during the exact times when the penis is inside the mouth, and thus the spitting action advocated by Welch wouldn't be possible at that precise moment. But we have no reliable sourcing of a definition this super-duper-exclusive, and a trivially easy aggregatated search of online dictionaries [14] shows that most of them provide a more general 'oral stimulation of the penis' definition, and a few even prefer one that doesn't involve sucking at all (i.e., just licking and kissing, during which spitting would certainly be possible). So, we have no reason to entertain the idea that "during fellatio" is wording that is in any way faulty.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm just concerned about accuracy. Nothing in the original interaction indicates Welch was referring specifically to fellation. Nardog (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The sources I have cited above use the exact wording and I think that is good enough to address this issue. I will work on making sure that our citations are more clear. This article is a constant project which requires considerable attention due to its divisiveness in our community. ReidLark1n 16:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Only the last two (which are not currently cited in the article) do, and also say "before" (which makes more sense, but only slightly). That's not "the exact wording". Nardog (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Your original issue was with the word "fellatio" and you now have shifted your concern to the word "during." Is the issue with the word "fellatio" now resolved?

Several sources use the word "during," including the source [15] which was originally cited. Now we have two sources to specifically support the word "during." [16] ReidLark1n 18:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

It's both, if you didn't catch my emphasis ({{em}}). But I can't argue with sources, except that "oral sex" may not be completely synonymous with "fellatio", as I said above. (Actually, Slate is the only RS providing verification to the claim, given WP:FORBESCON.) Nardog (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The question "[w]hat is one move in bed that makes a man go crazy every time" specifically refers to oral sex with a man and is probably why multiple sources use the word "fellatio." I am unsure what the benefit is of using a more ambiguous phrase that some but not all of our sources use. ReidLark1n 13:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

What about that question makes you think it's specifically about fellatio? The very onomatopoeia indicates projecting saliva from a distance, which you wouldn't and couldn't do while fellating, even if you defined it so broadly as SMcCandlish above. It would make far more sense to interpret it as lubrication before manual stimulation to get a good erection ("making a man go crazy"), after which you can engage in any type of sexual activity, oral or otherwise. I'm genuinely confused and not following. Please explain, as you seem so certain. Nardog (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

This is going to be my last message on this issue. The only point I stress is that the article approximately says what the sources say, and they specifically use the two words you have issue with, and I don’t see a reason to depart from that. ReidLark1n 17:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Only one reliable source, Slate, says what the article says, and it's not even cited to support the claim. And it's not even the first choice ("before—or during—")! Just because a source says something doesn't mean we need to repeat it (WP:ONUS), especially if you can't explain it. Nardog (talk) 14:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@ReidLark1n Those sources are idiotic on the face of it: Fellatio is self-lubricating. Spitting for lubrication would be needed for a hand job, not sucking on a dick. (Not that any lubrication is needed for masturbating an undamaged penis, but this is about America, which like some other barbaric places is still very into male genital mutilation.) --CRConrad (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

This issue was solved already. ReidLark1n 19:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Why is it in italics?

Regardless of your opinion on the article title, why is it italicized? It's not the proper name of a piece of media or publication... 209.144.103.186 (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:WORDISSUBJECT and MOS:ITALIC; when a term is the subject of the article, it is italicized. seefooddiet (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2024

Died - 12/5/2024 Aged 21 58.104.132.170 (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Request for Consensus on Meaning of Phrase

I would like to build a consensus so that this no longer needs to be fought over. The meaning of "Hawk tuah" has been debated several times, and now Nardog is steadfast in their opposition. In order to facilitate a more civil discussion, I will compromise on at two of Nardog's several potential issues and propose the following meaning of "Hawk tuah" which has been distilled from the sources cited:

"Hawk tuah" is onomatopoeia for spitting or expectoration on a man's penis before or during oral sex, specifically fellatio, to increase lubrication [17][18][19][20][21]

Because Nardog has pointed to WP:ONUS on several occasions, I would like that they actually refute the sources cited, rather than argue their own personal beliefs. ReidLark1n 17:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Fine, I still contend that the "during ... fellatio" is only supported by the second of those sources, but the wording in the article is ultimately beside the point. The point has been that the statement prima facie makes little if any sense, and the article is lacking as a result. Since you insist on including it, I assume you have a plausible explanation for why it's the case, and I'd appreciate it if you shared it so we can improve the article to the point it makes sense. If that's uncomfortable for you, I totally understand that given the subject, but if you don't actually have an explanation for it, it would seem disingenuous to state something you don't understand in wikivoice without attribution or qualification (e.g. "understood to be" or "described as"). Nardog (talk) 04:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposed Definition

"Hawk tuah" is onomatopoeia for spitting or expectoration on a man's penis before or during oral sex, specifically fellatio, to increase lubrication.

Sources

1. “[Haliey Welch] is a young, folksy blonde woman advocating for expectoration during oral sex.” [22]

2. “Hawk tuah … is a reference to a classic bedroom method where a willing partner spits on an erect penis before—or during—fellatio to increase the total lubrication. The verbiage here is intended to replicate the onomatopoeic ricochet effect of coughing up a loogie.” [23][24]

3. “The Hawk Tuah Girl […] has gone extremely viral over the last week, thanks to a video featuring her evocative description of oral sex. [...] It’s in this moment that Welch’s perfect onomatopoeia eclipses whomever she may be. [S]he’s produced such a rich and accurate sound effect for a specific kind of fellatio. [...] I asked both George and Chad if there was any reason why they thought this video caught fire so quickly. Straight men tend to be fans of both funny noises and oral sex. [...] You’re asking me why did the attractive young woman talking about oral sex, and how it’s her favorite thing, and the answer to every problem go viral?” [25]

4. “She replied with a giggly, obvious oral sex allusion, saying: “Aw, you gotta give him that hawk tuah and spit on that thang – you get me?”” (emphasis added) [26]

5. “Onomatopoeic, imitative of a full spitting sound. The catchphrase went viral after a street interview conducted in June 2024 with Haliey Welch, who stated that her signature move for making a man “go crazy” in bed was to “give him that hawk tuah and spit on that thang”. However, isolated uses exist earlier (albeit without the association with oral sex) [...] To perform oral sex or otherwise suck (on something).” [27]

Elements of definition

1. Onomatopoeia - [28][29][30][31]

2. Spitting or expectoration [32][33][34]

3. Man's penis [35][36][37]

4. Before [38][39]

5. During [40][41][42]

6. Oral sex [43][44][45][46][47][48]

7. Fellatio [49][50][51]

8. Lubrication [52][53]

Arguments Against

• "Only one reliable source, Slate, says what the article says, and it's not even cited to support the claim" - Untrue. See above.
• "Just because a source says something doesn't mean we need to repeat it WP:ONUS, especially if you can't explain it" - this is not a correct reading of WP:ONUS. Looking at WP:ONUS, is provides the following: "For the responsibility to demonstrate verifiability, see WP:BURDEN." WP:BURDEN in turn provides the following: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." WP:ONUS does not mean I have to persuade you personally, but rather, inclusion is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source. This has been done.
• "[T]he statement prima facie makes little if any sense, and the article is lacking as a result" - this is your personal opinion. The sources say what they say and, per WP:Burden, I have provided you inline citations. In terms of the use of the phrase "prima facie:"

"In most legal proceedings, one party has a burden of proof, which requires it to present prima facie evidence for all of the essential facts in its case. [...] the introduction of prima facie evidence is informally called making a case or building a case [...] the prosecution has the burden of presenting prima facie evidence of each element of the crime charged against the defendant [...] If no party introduces new evidence, the case stands or falls just by the prima facie evidence or lack thereof, respectively. Prima facie evidence does not need to be conclusive or irrefutable: at this stage, evidence rebutting the case is not considered, only whether any party's case has enough merit to take it to a full trial.""

I have just presented you with a "prima facie" case for the above definition. Again, please refute the sources rather than arguing your own personal opinions.

This is my last post on this point. Ideally multiple third parties decide whether there is consensus on a definition. ReidLark1n 19:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

This is such an absurdly professional and scholarly reply relative to the subject; I love it and should give you a Barnstar or whatever. Agree to the proposed definition, it's cohesive enough. ~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 06:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I just told you I'm no longer disputing your inclusion and all this is beside the point (though Forbes is not an RS per WP:FORBESCON, and while Vox also provides verification, it's the first time you've cited it, and neither of Vox and Slate, the only sources that use the term fellatio, are still to this day cited to support the claim in the article, and Wiktionary is not a reliable source; and the whole point of ONUS is that BURDEN is not enough). I've just been pointing out as a reader of the article it leaves something unanswered and wanting it to be rectified. If anyone else has an answer for why anyone would need lubrication before, let alone during, fellatio, let alone with saliva, or sources for other interpretations, they're welcome. Nardog (talk) 06:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Your question can be solved by a Google search or asking an AI chatbot. ReidLark1n 22:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

That still doesn't answer why Welch's remark in particular is interpreted as being one specifically about fellatio as opposed to any sexual act. Nardog (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

You keep moving the goalposts. Moreover, this is completely irrelevant. If you want to write an article and publish it in a reliable source discussing your views, you are welcome to do so and add it to this article. ReidLark1n 02:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you share what you found by a Google search or asking an AI chatbot then? Nardog (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

You and I both know that as soon as I answer your question you will raise another issue.

Google Gemini provided me an answer to this question: "why anyone would need lubrication before, let alone during, fellatio, let alone with saliva."

I will let YOU perform your own review and report back here with whether you still need clarification. ReidLark1n 19:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't phrase my questions clearly or you're taking them too literally (or both). It's not inconceivable to me that lubrication with saliva may help fellatio, but that does not help make sense of the claim that Welch was referring to spitting during fellatio one bit. If any type of sex didn't need lubrication with saliva or expectoration, it's oral, because the mouth is involved anyway. So the interpretation put forward by Slate and Vox is the least likely to me. I assume you find it convincing since you've been so adamant about including it in the article. Can you explain why? Nardog (talk) 13:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok so now the issue is with the words "oral sex." As you can see above 5 sources I cited use those words. As to why the sources say that, I think WP:!TRUTHFINDERS covers that. Lastly, I cannot imagine what you personally think Welch was referring to when asked that question if not the current interpretation (for which not only 3/4 editors who have commented here agree on, but also every source cited). Does it seem likely to you that "spitting on that thang" was referring to spitting on a toaster? Sorry for getting sarcastic, but you have to see the humor in this by now. If you really want the answer to that question, you can probably email the authors of the articles and ask them why they interpreted her comments that way. But, at this point, Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth.

Signing off on this issue - please do not interpret this as me saying "you won" or "I concede" as you did last time (when you reverted my edits), but rather, I am done discussing this issue and there's nothing to continue to debate. I really hope you can find it in your heart to just leave this be and search for the truth on your own rather than continue to debate me on why sources interpreted a meme in the way they did. ReidLark1n 14:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

You can't walk away from a discussion and continue to push your version.

Not every source cited describes Welch as referring to spitting during fellatio. Only Slate does, and in fact upon closer inspection, Slate and Vox are in disagreement with each other. a rich and accurate sound effect for a specific kind of fellatio [54] is clearly describing the spitting itself as a form of fellatio, whereas spits on an erect penis before—or during—fellatio [55] describes the expectoration and fellation as two separate activities happening sequentially or concurrently with each other. The former I can make sense of, the latter I can't (for the reasons I've agonized to explain). Is the former your interpretation as well? But the current version of the article does not give readers that impression. How about replacing "during" with "as a form of" or something to that effect? Nardog (talk) 15:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I also can't debate you on this thread for all of eternity when you continue to move the goalposts.

Your clarifying question can literally be solved by you sending an email to the authors of these articles, but not by me (and that is the issue we will continue to have). Clarifying why the authors of several articles interpreted a girl as referring to oral sex after being asked, "“[w]hat is one move in bed that makes a man go crazy every time?” and responding, "[a]w, you gotta give him that hawk tuah and spit on that thang – you get me?” will not add to the article in any way. Don't believe me? See below for a hypo.

Let's say we actually could answer your question - why did the authors of our sources interpret this meme the way they did. Here is an example of what it might say: "online media extrapolated that there is only one body part a woman would spit on in bed [do you agree with this statement?] and that, spitting on that body part, as if you are spitting into a spittoon, would drive a man crazy because it is unusual and men often enjoy oral sex [Vox says as much if you don't believe me]. A woman would spit on that body part during oral sex because it would help with lubrication - something that is beneficial before or during oral sex because it lessens friction." Now, how would that add to the article? It is just rephrasing the definition we already have while explaining the deductive reasoning of online editors (like explaining a joke in excruciating detail). If it was important, then it would have been written about. And again, if you are so inclined, you can publish something yourself and interview the authors of the sources - however, we cannot verify the clarifying information you are asking for because it does not yet exist and does not need to exist in order to explain the meme.

We have to have a definition which does explain the meme sufficiently - the definition you reverted to previously said "an onomatopoeia for spitting or expectoration on a man's penis during sex" which actually would require clarification because it doesn't quite make sense. But the current definition clarifies your previous definition.

While you are confused, nobody else has indicated confusion of the thousands of people who have read this article. In fact, the Guardian said it was an "obvious oral sex allusion." [56].

How about you propose a compromise definition and cite to sources which support your definition? You keep changing what issues you have (for example, you had issues with the words "oral sex," "fellatio" and "during" at multiple times through this thread) so it would be good to try to lock down a few words you agree on. ReidLark1n 14:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that it was an obvious oral sex allusion! I have no doubt Welch was referring to spitting onto a penis during (i.e. at any point in time through the course of) sex, and I don't dispute that the act of spitting onto a penis during sex may be referred to as "oral sex" or (less credibly IMHO but nonetheless) "fellatio" (the "more straightforward reading" I suggested at the beginning). I'm at a complete loss as to why you seem to think I do.

Again, only Slate has the words "during[ ]fellatio". All other sources that use the term "oral sex" or "fellatio" do so clearly to refer to the act imitated by the onomatopoeia itself and nothing more, rather than to any activity that may be occurring besides the spitting.

In what way does "an onomatopoeia for spitting or expectoration on a man's penis during sex" not "quite make sense"? What possibilities are ruled out by the clarification you say it requires?

And again, would you object to replacing "during" with "as a form of" or something to that effect to make the article more in line with Vox rather than Slate? Nardog (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what your issue is because it continues to change and I assume will keep changing as long as I continue replying. If you would like, I can list here all the different issues you have raised because presumably you will state that your issue has been consistent since the beginning.

Your question for clarification I have included here:

• "Why fellatio, out of all sex acts? It's the last type of act that could need lubrication by spitting."

You just said:

• I'm not disputing that it was an obvious oral sex allusion!
• I have no doubt Welch was referring to spitting onto a penis during...sex
• I don't dispute that the act of spitting onto a penis during sex may be referred to as "oral sex" or "fellatio"
• I'm at a complete loss as to why you seem to think I do.

Do you see why I'm saying you're contradicting yourself and shifting positions?

If you agree that you will succinctly and clearly state an issue with the current definition, and will not continue to raise more issues, then I will try to come up with a compromise (please keep in mind that I already added the words "before or during" previously to appease you). If you don't agree that you will not be concise and clear or that you will not continue to raise new issues then I can't help you I'm sorry. ReidLark1n 18:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@ReidLark1n What seemed utterly obvious to me was that she was referring to spitting on “that thang” before wanking it off. That's when lubrication (of a typical American mutilated penis) would be needed, not during oral sex. -- CRConrad (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

This issue was already solved. Moreover, you are not a reliable source. ReidLark1n 19:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

No, I don't. I don't see how those statements you quote are contradictory.

My problem with the statement that Welch was referring to "spitting on someone's penis [before or] during oral sex/fellatio ... for lubricatory purposes" has been, from the beginning, that it defies logic and common sense because if you're fellating you're going to get saliva on the penis anyway and it would make much more sense not to limit the activity done before or after the spitting to fellatio and instead interpret the remark as referring to spitting on the penis before or after any sexual activity, be it manual (as I and Cullen328 suggested), penetrative, or what have you. One might call the spitting itself a form of fellatio, but that's not what "[before or] during fellatio" means. "Spitting during fellatio" means you're fellating, you stop fellating, you spit on the penis, and then you resume fellating. Nothing in the original video AFAICS indicates she was describing such a sequence of events. So if the article says "during fellatio", I'm naturally unsatisfied as a reader because it's quite a jump in logic and I want to know the information required to come to that conclusion that I'm clearly missing. If that information doesn't exist, then I'd argue the statement shouldn't be included in the article, especially when (as I only recently came to realize) only one source (Slate) presents that interpretation while there exists another (Vox) that clearly provides a more straightforward explanation of all the sources that describe Welch's remark as an "oral sex allusion", namely that they are indeed calling the spitting itself a form of oral sex/fellatio.

I came here because I saw someone on a community I'm a part of say "hawk tuah on that thang then putting in your mouth makes no sense. It will automatically receive hawk tuah as the action is performed" and other people agree with them (if "☝🏾☝️ 5" is anything to go by) and it solidified my bemusement I had had since first coming upon this article.

It's a routine occurrence on Wikipedia that someone goes on a talk page, "Hey, I don't understand this part of the article", someone else explains it to them, and the article is improved by reflecting that feedback. When I'm editing an article, I never put in wikivoice a statement I personally don't understand, even if it can be cited. I either exercise my editorial discretion and not include it—because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and verifiability does not guarantee inclusion—or attribute it to the author. This is important because if you put something you don't understand in wikivoice, you risk misrepresenting the source. So while it is important to be able to point to sources, so is being able to explain it in your own words. That way if someone says they don't understand something I wrote, I can explain and help them understand it, or, if I erred, they can correct my understanding, and either outcome will lead to a better article. That's what I was expecting to happen when I pinged you.

But you refused to explain your understanding, so in my desperate attempts to make you see where I was coming from, I restated my problem in various ways, while also, partly through your persuasion, my understanding of minute points did indeed change—like whether Slate and Vox say exactly the same thing and whether anyone might ever need lubrication during fellatio (which allowed me to refine my question as how plausible that interpretation is)—even though the overarching issue has remained the same. You seem to have taken that as a bad-faith gesture to argue for the sake of arguing, and by the time you did explain your understanding, we had drifted so far apart that you were explaining something I had no problems with. It is not my intention to make you feel I've been "moving the goalposts"—I'm really sorry that you do—and I assure you all my questions have been sincere efforts to come to a mutual understanding and improve the article in earnest and in good faith. You seem to have misconstrued my position and intention early on, and I honestly don't know what I can say to dissuade you at this point.

I've already suggested a compromise. For a third time, I ask you what your opinion on it is. Nardog (talk) 22:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

If changing the definition to the following is sufficient for you then I will agree:

"Hawk tuah" is onomatopoeia for spitting or expectoration on a penis as a form of oral sex, specifically fellatio, to increase lubrication.

However, I'm only agreeing if this achieves consensus and solidifies the definition unless and until a reliable sources redefines it. ReidLark1n 22:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

We've already been over this. The fact that one person here (and maybe in the entire world) wants to re-define fellatio to mean "exactly and only 'penis inside mouth'" (a situation in which directed spitting would be a challenge) is simply immaterial. This is not what dictionaries and other sources indicate the word means, so this WP:1AM stuff needs to come to an end, like now. We should not waste another second on this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree but my edits keep getting reverted and I am constantly having to debate with Nardog about a new issue they have every time I write a comment. ReidLark1n 02:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

You've had your way with the wording, so why can't the tag stay? They are the ones putting forward this notion, not me, I'm struggling to make sense of it, and none of you are helping. So I'm highlighting it so someone else stumbling on it can save the day (the whole point of {{clarify}}). Nardog (talk) 03:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, I'm just trying to figure out how the sources that describe Welch as talking about fellatio came to that conclusion. Is it the most obvious or plausible interpretation of the interaction to you? If so, can you explain your reasoning? Nardog (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

When I first saw the video, I thought she was referring to a hand job but I am not a reliable source. Cullen328 (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Here's a video where Haliey Welch and Jax refer to Hawk Tuah as involving "tying back your hair." I'm not using this to support any definition but to persuade you that Vox, the Guardian, Slate, and Rolling Stone were probably correct in their interpretation. ReidLark1n 22:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@ReidLark1n Everything after “expectoration” is superfluous for explaining the onomatopoeia. Spitting sounds the same whatever you do it for or onto. -- CRConrad (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

That's not how an encyclopedia works. We don't omit information from reliable sources to make articles as short as possible. Moreover, this was already solved. ReidLark1n 19:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2024

Change “for ostensible lubricatory purposes” to “ostensibly, for lubricatory purposes” 2600:1017:B8B5:CD5E:CDD:ACE1:6FC9:70ED (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done - the adverb does appear to be more appropriate here, though I don't think the comma is necessary. Thank you and merry Christmas! ObserveOwl 🎄 (talk) 00:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)