Talk:Faggot

Canadian Broadcast Standards Council decision

On 2011-01-13, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, released the results of a complaint, analysis and decision on the use of the word "faggot" in "Money for Nothing" song. It was decided that the song was unacceptable to play on Canadian radio. The full text of that decision is here: http://www.cbsc.ca/english/decisions/2011/110112.php

Please append information about this decision to the section about "Money for Nothing" pradit pheytian

Update for the Television and newsmedia Section

On January 20th, 2011, TV Ontario's (TVO) The Agenda had a very tasteful and thought provoking discussion on the censorship of the word "faggot" (indeed censorship in general) which can give quite a bit of background on the topic if a reader of the article wishes to watch the podcast. The episode page can be found at: http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/index.cfm?page_id=7&bpn=779937&ts=2011-01-20%2020:00:00.0. The episode is entitled "The New 'F' Word"

This article utterly ignores the more common usage of this slur

Yes, we all know about how this has been applied to gay men, but for decades there's also been an alternative connotation of weakness, cowardice, incompetence, and the like without really making any claims about the target's sexuality. I find it curious that any references to this usage have been purged from the article over the past few years. What gives? Vranak (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

You're right that this is a peculiar omission. It may be that earlier references to it (assuming there were any) were poorly written or sourced. Why not add something yourself? The only tricky part is finding sources (which, ideally, are needed even for what seems blindingly obvious) and integrating any addition into the current text. garik (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Linguistics

If you had studied linguistics you wuld know that in the English language male pronouns are given precedence over female pronouns and this often makes inroads into nouns as well. Take for instance the google search for she's a homosexual (86 returns) and compare it with he's a homosexual (9840 returns). the female equivalent has 1% usage to its male counterpart. Does that mean there are 100 times more male homosexuals than female homosexuals?

Also, he's a homosexual (1,160,000 returns) vs she's a homosexual (45,000 returns) meaning roughly 5 per cent comparison usage. Then compare he's a faggot (518,000 returns) with she's a faggot (79,100 returns) meaning roughly 15% comparison usage. This means that faggot is used 3 times more to describe women than homosexual when compared to men. When you google "her a faggot" (243,000 returns) with "her a homosexual" (28,000 returns) you again get faggot used for women 3 times more. Plus the number of search returns are second only to "she's a lesbian".

From my search you get that that faggot is both widely used for women plus it is used more frequently than other synonmyms. I could easily find scores of sources where faggot is used for females, but the point i'm trying to make is that google citations don't often give a consistent definition, and in such ambiguous cases we should take the safe side and avoid giving narrow definitions ourselves.

I doubt that you have studied linguistics. As for me, assume what you want. For the record, Pass a Method is referring to these edits (especially mine):[1][2][3][4][5][6]. As for Pass a Method's above argument, it is quite clear that with regard to men and women and as a slur, faggot most commonly refers to a gay man. The vast majority of WP:Reliable sources, including those by LGBT organizations, show this. This is also clear by the fact that the Wikipedia Faggot article is significantly more about boys/men than girls/women; it's not that way because people were WP:Cherry picking sources. Pass a Method's attempt to use Wikipedia to broaden the meaning of term is more of the WP:Advocacy Pass a Method often shows on Wikipedia. And by the way, Pass a Method should read Wikipedia:Search engine test. Flyer22 (talk) 01:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Whats next, i should study more on mathematics? lol Pass a Method talk 01:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I reverted you because i did not see a rebuttal to my argument, except for a patronizing postuing, lack of focusing on content and linking to guidelines i already know about. Pass a Method talk 02:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Search engine test indeed concerns mathematics, and your failure to see why your Google test is deeply flawed is similar to your failure to see why the significant majority of your Wikipedia edits are deeply flawed; many editors keep seeing that (your deeply flawed editing) and bringing that to your attention, but, as usual, you go about your merrily way. That is why you reverted, in addition to being a known WP:Edit warrior. I reverted you again because of all of that. You claim to know about Wikipedia guidelines, but barely follow them. And that is most relevant to any Wikipedia edit you make. Flyer22 (talk) 02:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, i've interacted with half a dozen editors who use google search engine the same way I do. Are you somehow more enlightened than the rest of us? if so, please share and i will be canvassing all the editors who somehow missed your extraordinary discovery. Pass a Method talk 02:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

If any editor has used Google the way that you have done above to reach a conclusion as to what a term most commonly refers to, then they have also used it wrongly in that regard. And the edit you were most recently edit warring over here is redundant. Additionally, this edit further shows your lack of understanding as to how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Adding "a bunch of reliable sources" for something does not make it the most common use of a term; what you have just done, suspiciously without adding URLs to help verify your content, is the very definition of WP:Cherry picking. Flyer22 (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The editors i have in mind are in fairly good standing so i doubt that they have used it wrongly. But if you tell me how i used it wrongly i will consult those editors and i will see who's correct. Nobody's perfect and i will concede with an apology if i'm wrong. Pass a Method talk 02:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

We should be going by WP:Due weight on this matter, a policy that you often disregard, not what a few editors you favor state...and especially not if they apply the "Wikipedia:Search engine test" the way that you do. You seriously need to read all of that page; it's obvious that you have not. Almost all dictionaries and encyclopedias on the term faggot as a slur, most literature on the term faggot as a slur, put significantly more emphasis on the term with regard to boys/men. And yet here you are trying to present it as equally, and even more so, referring to lesbian or bisexual women. The term dyke refers to them significantly more as a slur than faggot does. I want no apology from you. I want you to start editing Wikipedia the way that you are supposed to edit it, but that continually proves to be too much to ask for. Flyer22 (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that the lede repeats thrice the linkage to men, and once to a neutral "homosexual" and only once to lesbians makes this a faily balanced intro i think. Pass a Method talk 02:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Refer to my comments above. You repeatedly violate WP:BALASPS and WP:VALID (both parts of WP:Neutral/WP:Due weight), and, as usual, you either don't seem to understand that or just don't care. Flyer22 (talk) 02:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Compromise

As a compromise i propose changing the opening sentence to "is a pejorative term used chiefly in North America primarily to refer to gay people, especially gay men". Does anyone oppose that? Pass a Method talk 15:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to become motivated to respond to a proposal headed "Compromise" as articles are not balanced halfway between right and wrong. The proposed wording is less wrong than previous suggestions, but the the current "used chiefly in North America primarily to refer to a gay man" is fine. Notice that "primarily" does not mean "never ever used for anything else". Why is there a need to change the article? Johnuniq (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

"...used to be an urban legend..."???

That urban legend about the origin of the word is still around an in use. The "used to be" needs to be changed to "is." JayHubie (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources

What is the source of this statement? as it doesn't seem to be backed up anywhere in the article.

"Its use has spread from the United States to varying extents elsewhere in the English-speaking world through mass culture, including film, music, and the Internet" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.196 (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

British use of 'fag'

This is military slang. Fag = fatigue, I.e. Any manual labour, e.g. Trench digging, carrying stores. Abbreviated to 'fag.' In written orders.

Schoolboy 'Fags' were young students who served as orderlies for older ones. The relationship was non-sexual, and was designed to teach respect. 121.44.192.134 (talk) 05:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)