Talk:Faggot

Biblical Allusion

I have studied Biblical passages used in the debate on homosexuality extensively. There is no passage about the fires of Hell being stoked by homosexuals. I can only assume that there is a passage that some interpret in this way but without a citation of chapter and verse this is impossible to say. This is an unsupported (and I believe completely unfounded) statement.

To the comment below, the Bible does not use the term 'mortal sin' for any offense. This is a theological term that developed in later Catholic teaching. 24.15.91.98 15:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If I may comment, being a born-again Believer I'd like to add my two cents. According to Romans 1:26-27, homosexuality is indeed a sin because it goes against the natural order God set up for the world. However, it is no worse a sin than any other.

In either case, this statement in the article should either be removed or include a citation. As it stands it is incredibly misleading. I also haven't read Romans 1:26-27, but paraphrasing it doesn't really say much. What is the EXACT reference? For example, if it uses the term sodomy, this is not limited to homosexuals or homosexual acts as noted in most dictionaries and, specifically in Wikipedia: "The term is most commonly used to describe the specific act of anal sex between two males or a male and a female. The term "sodomy" also may include non-coital sexual acts ranging from oral sex to paraphilia." —Smack416 18:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Further to the above paragraph, I believe this is an accurate reference of Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."

Unfortunately, this is out of context. "For this cause" is referring to statements previously made in Romans 1:20-25. (Reference here: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201&version=9;) Regardless, it is not a statement of fact, nor could it be interpreted that the bible states the "fires of Hell being stoked by homosexuals." based on Romans 1:26-27.

As stated in the Wikipedia article: "Alternatively, the Bible is claimed to refer to homosexuals stoking the fires of hell (Sodom and Gomorrah)." Any Tom, Dick, or Priest could back this statement up, sure. It only takes one person to state this claim, technically. But, where is the citation? And is it enough if a single person or small group of people make a statement that has no clear relation to the source material. Really, why is this misleading statement still published in this article? —Smack416 18:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Religious references

For clarity: The Bible and Catholicism do not state that homosexual people are going to hell, but that the act of homosexual intercourse is a mortal sin, falling into the category of lust called "the unnatural vice". Saying that all homosexuals are going to hell would be cruel, since people who are born with the inclination would be condemned from birth, no matter what they did.

EDIT: and this isn't a diatribe on religion, it is an explanation as to why I changed the paragraph under "Biblical Allusion".

Don't give an Ameriflag 21:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Long winded theology aside, many Christian denominations also believe that Homosexuals are homosexual by their actions, and can be "cured" of what they see as a disease. Eedo Bee 16:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Batty boy

Whilst "poof" and "queer" are very common British English terms, I have never heard "batty boy" used outside of rap music. I'm not sure it's fair to say that it's a common British English term… — OwenBlacker 22:34, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

It's actually Jamaican, I think. Tuf-Kat 23:51, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, apparently so, according to batty boy. Tuf-Kat 23:51, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

And while we're on the subject of brit slang, what the hell is up with faggot meaning someone SILLY OR FOOLISH LIKE A BUNCH OF STICKS EH WHAT PIP PIP? Are you people stuck in some kind of 19th century time warp here?

A lot of black british males use batty boy, or "batty boieeee". Take me word for it, I've been called it many a times in Northern England myself (meeep). [date]

It's also been popularised somewhat by Ali G, though it's unlikely people who get it from him use it seriously. I have to say, by the way, that I've never heard or used faggot to mean silly or foolish. To me (except in American films) it's always been a kind of pork meatball; and a fag is a cigarette Garik 14:35, 16 May 2006 (BST)

Discussion on merge with Fag (pejorative)

• Support. Exploding Boy 21:16, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Also Support. --Bcshell 05:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong support - "fag" is the more common usage today, but they are essentially the same word with the same cultural elements that should be documented by WP. -Harmil 12:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Followup: When they are merged, the target should either be Faggot (slang) or Fag (slang), but not Fag (pejorative), since the word is not always used in a pejorative sense. -Harmil 23:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I was bold, and went ahead and did the merge. I chased down all of the old links and updated as well. Since Fag (pejorative) was so short, there was little to merge. Just the mention of current use in the UK, so I pulled that over and redriected. -Harmil 17:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Slang

Slang is a very biased term that implies judgments about the value of a word based on who uses it and in what context. It carries with it a negative connotation about both the word and its users. I think this page should be moved to Faggot (epithet). Any comments? Dave 05:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that while the new page name doesn't bother me all that much, the above makes no sense at all. Slang is simply common usage, and I have no idea what the "value of a word" is. Value in what units or relative to what? "Yo mamma" is slang. That doesn't make it particularly good or bad, but it probably indicates that your expected not to use it when writing in a formal or educational context. "Fag" is also a slang term and the same applies. -Harmil 02:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Using, "fag," to mean a cigarette

I've lived in England all my life and have only ever heard the word fag used to mean a cigarette. This is the case in both the north and South of England, to an extent that most English people would be confused to hear a person refered to as a fag (at least initially.) In recent years, its use in American films has allowed English people to understand the reference, but fag is always used to mean a cigarette and is inoffensive. In no way would the word be associated with homosexuality, even by a homophobic or homosexual English person. Ian Evans 16 January 2006

That may be the case in England, but, if you noticed, at the beginning of the article it says "In common American usage". This is an article about the American derrogatory term.

Yes, but I think Ian Evans was talking about the British Slang section of the article. I'm from Wales, and I've lived in England and Scotland too. Although I've never heard a Brit use the word to mean 'gay', I think most would understand it to have that meaning if the speaker had an American accent. Garik 18:39, 10 May 2006 (BST)

===I couldn't disagree more with Ian Evans. I grew up in the SW of England where we frequently used the word as a derogatory insult (as well as its common slang term for cigarette). This was and still is the same in London where I live now.

Epithet

An epithet is something like a nickname or a title added to a person's name, such as Alexander the Great. "Faggot" would only be an epithet if it was used in a similar way, such as Alexander the Faggot. TharkunColl 23:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• An epithet is indeed a nickname or title "imposed" on someone, and thus it can be either complimentary or insulting. You've given examples of both. Which one is which depends on your POV. Either way, young Alex was famous among all his men for having the biggest... sword. >:) Wahkeenah 00:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Broadening of Meaning

Lately the younger generation seems to use fag/faggot as a general purpose insult with no set meaning and no care towards sexual orientation at all. How much of such a trend has to go on before it warrants a mention here? Howdoesthiswo 15:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I couldn't disagree more. While straight people who use that word may feel like it is not offending anybody or targeting anybody in particular, that word plays a vital role in the enforcement of heteronormative gender roles in American public schools. In my opinion, while it is easy for straight people to believe that they are not hurting anybody in uttering things like "fag", it is the people to whom this word applies that offense in that word is obvious. Fokion 04:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether it hurts or not isn't the point. The point is that it is used that way, undeniably. A huge number of people, especially younger people, use "faggot" in the same way they use "loser." Many people who use that word, especially people without much experience with gay culture, think nothing of gays when they use it. While it shouldn't be a huge factor in the article, it should most definitely be discussed.--Josh 06:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Simply stating such would be original research, however, if you can find an authoritative source that confirms your understanding, you should cite it in the article. -Harmil 02:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

That's just tangential though, because there are so many things throughout wikipedia and even in this article that do not have citations. Take the sentence "'Fag' and 'Faggot' have historically been two of the most offensive terms that could be addressed to an American man or adolescent boy.", for instance. It seems as though this statement is "pending citation", but has been allowed in without it because no one has come forward who disagrees with it and challenges it. It is quite false to say that one must cite sources on wikipedia. If this were true, the encyclopedia would be much smaller from all the deletions. It is good that we do not delete material without citations that seems credible or widely held to be true, because if no one challenges it, it is like a work in progress, pending citation. And as this usage of fag is very widespread, I think all contributors will fall into two categories: those who are familiar with this usage and will allow a discussion of it pending citation, and those who are unfamiliar with it but do not necessarily believe it not to exist. Thus no one will come forward to challenge its accuracy until someone finds appropriate examples in mainstream communication, which, in any event, should not be hard to find. Of course, you may just reiterate the "policy", but it still seems that wikipedia's articles widely lack appropriately extensive support while nonetheless being pretty accurate, because people will cut out false stuff they "know" to be false and leave in stuff they have no first-hand knowledge of or know to be true. In fact, Wikipedia IS original research, or, rather, we cite our intellects when editing articles. Only obscure or controversial topics have a more urgent need for citation, because in the first case, few people will know anything about the topic, and in the second, different people will have different viewpoints. This usage of faggot is neither obscure nor controversial, and precedent suggests it be allowed in, unless someone believes it to be false152.163.100.8 00:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

faggots come from the english west midlands, a Black_Country(the part of the country where all the black smoke used to be) dish called "faggots and peas", pronounced faggytsunpays its like bits a meat n onions with like a skin, in a brown ball, served with gravy, I dunno how you make em you have to ask the people at the "black country living museum" to get the most authentic recipy. its usually served with gravy, the peas can be mushy. where I live on the south staffordshire black country border we tend to use other worlds like sheartlifta qaya, qayabugga, puffta,, wolly wufta, arse bandit, qayer ba*****, the other words are starting to apppear such as faggot buts thats only because of the jamaican immigrants and on the television, it may of been an old word preserved in american english that wants to reapear in the mother country, maybe americans have forgotten what faggots really are and what they tasted like after they lived in the new country for too long. I've seen faggot in hhhhholliwood movies most the time the people who say it have southern accents, I dont think it origonated from the northen states, or maybe its both, in some small area of ingland the word never completly died out, because where i live faggot for a gay person is quite common, i also happen to live in the place where faggots were first eaten.

-paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.10 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Faggotry

Missing is a section on the art and practice of faggotry.

Uses in Popular Culture

Please add the following: Daily Kos. "Democrats and the faggot problem.", "Who invited the little faggot?", and "When is a faggot just a bundle of sticks?" [[1]] [[2]]--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.232.222.5 (talk • contribs) .

Why don't you add it? garik 17:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Fagging

I have also heard "fag" use as a transitive verb in England. It means to wear out or tire. I think this is why public school boys were said to "fag" for the older boys when they ran errands. They would often serve them sexually. It was also used as a noun for such boys. I think it is commonly thought that a cigarette is a fag because it makes you short of breath to smoke them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.55.201 (talk • contribs) 10:02 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes but its likely the uses of 'faggot' and 'fag' are connected (it also makes sense that cigarettes are called fags on that ground) Like the article points out the words have a number of uses and have a number of ways they are also used to be derogatory. But something I think people might be missing is its likely that there is no completely direct connection to homosexuality; that it was sort of used at different times as more general term and form of derision, and only became narrowed down to homosexuality later when the more general language went out of fashion. Or in a alternatively but in a similar sense there were just a collection of uses that owed to many different derivations into derogatory uses because of the similarity. (words like 'dog' are used in different types of ways for derision)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianshapiro (talk • contribs)

Brian - no; OED sees no connection between faggot (from French) & fag (origin unclear, perhaps from flag in the sense of getting tired, around which most of its many meanings cluster. The cigarette meaning comes from fag-end (see below), coming to mean the whole cigarette. first citation 1888, when they were still supposed to improve breathing etc. Johnbod 02:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

fag-end, faggot-end, faggot-girl, & mutton

I have deleted the following:

• It is also possible that the meaning derives from the use of the word as a derogatory term for street prostitutes, female and male, because of their association with the gutter, where "faggot-ends" (or fag-ends) of meat were thrown by butchers.[3]

(and the ref, which I'll add below)

- because it is not supported by the OED reference given, and the OED has no mention of "faggot-end" at all; it is "fag-end", still in common use in the UK,OED 2: "the last part or portion of anything", deriving from OED 1:"the last part of a piece of cloth". Nor is "faggot-girl", supposed C19 British, in the OED. Reference? Where the butchers throwing meat into the street come from who knows. The mutton quote comes from 1613; the prostitutes supposedly from the late C19 (see below). This non-association seems to have survived any number of edits on this article, but its time has come.

This is a fairly ancient version of the section (lost date,sorry): " Prostitution + "Faggot" - It is more likely this use of faggot was originally a derogatory term for street prostitutes, female and male, because they were associated with "the gutter", where "faggot-ends" of meat were thrown by butchers. The term "faggot girls" for prostitutes is attested from the late 19th century. Often perceived still as gender traitors, homosexual men are still often spoken of as "girls," and there were probably a number of male prostitutes at the same time referred to as "faggot boys". In either case, it would be a short leap from "faggot girl" meaning "prostitute" to "faggot" meaning "homosexual male"—probably starting with male prostitutes who tend to serve primarily or exclusively male customers." Johnbod 01:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

lost the reference of course - but it will be in the history Johnbod 01:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

all this was in the "etymology" section of course Johnbod 01:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

British Meaning?

Sorry if this has already been covered here, but it seems to me like the "British meanings" section needs to be removed from the article.
It has nothing to do with americanizing wikipedia, or anything like that. It's just that this is specifically an article about using 'faggot' as an insult. And while although 'fag' is an entirely valid word for a cigarette, I can't imagine how it could be used as both a cigarette and an insult in the same sentence.
I hope I'm making myself clear here; I might be rambling. The disambiguation page for 'fag' (rightly) includes the link to cigarettes. But the article specifically for the insult really shouldn't. (or, at the very least, shouldn't have an entire section on meat and cigarettes) Bladestorm 18:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No 1) it's relevant for the origins of the epithet, if only to rule out some popular misconceptions - there used to a load of fanciful nonsense on this. 2) the article needs to define the limits of the epithet by covering different meanings Johnbod 18:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

1) No, the etymology section is relevant for the origins of the epithet. 2) Cigarette is not a meaning of specifically the insult. See the difference? Cigarette is a meaning of 'fag'. Cigarette is not a way of interpreting 'faggot' if you first specifically clarify that you intend it as an insult. Bladestorm 04:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

See section below - this article attracts so much nonsense that it is best to stake out the whole linguistic area in an accurate fashion, otherwise you will have (as we have had in the past) that the Uk cigarette meaning comes from burning gays (although using them to light witches is new). Johnbod 02:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuals doused in fuel and burned?

homosexuals were supposedly burnt at the stake in medieval England. More accurately, they were doused in fuel and used in place of sticks for the burning of supposed witches. Surely that can't be right??? They might indeed have been burnt at the stake as heretics, but used as mere kindling to burn witches?--Ramdrake 15:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I find this very odd as well. Now most sources I've read certainly indicate that burning has never been the normal punishment for homosexuals in Britain. And burning homosexuals as heretics is not the same as burning them for homosexuality — particularly as that was made a crime in itself. Has anyone read this Homophobia book? How well-researched does this item appear? Either way, the burning-at-the-stake story is highly unlikely to have much to do with the modern offensive use of the word. garik 15:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This is absolute nonsense. It's a myth, one, and the word didn't mean "homosexual" when people were burnt at the stake, two. Just because some guy repeated it in a book doesn't mean we have to. Grace Note 06:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Faggot to fag

Although this is "original research", after learning the original meaning of faggot, the first connection I made was that gay men are people who put their "sticks" together. Is there any chance that this is a source for the word? 68.166.67.241 01:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No. garik 23:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ann Coulter

This article is incredibly biased towards Miss Coulter. It doesn't include her response to the incidents nor the context in which the word was used.

Written uses

On October 3, a vandal blanked several sections. Later, Bakilas (talk · contribs) restored much of the vandalized content, but seems to have missed some of it. If you look at the diff from before to after, a section was dropped in Balilas's edit. It's not clear if this was intentional, since no edit summary was left. As this was a helpful, and contextually useful section, I'm going to restore it. If anyone has problems with that, please discuss. Note: this is not new content, it's actually quite old. -Harmil 15:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Uses in popular culture dispute

Hey fellas, I'm not sure if anybody is actively editing this article, but I'm going to contend the statement that "The term is often used by young people as a synonym for words such as jerk (i.e. "What a jerk!" becomes "What a faggot!")". Do be honest, I have never heard anybody use this term as lightly as "jerk". In fact, in Oregon, it's quite possibly the most vulgar word period. It's an unspeakable, like Nigger. In fact, I've heard it less often than that. If this is not the case in other places, then the statement needs a qualifier on it, such as "many young people in Australia...", however if it is the case, then the statement needs to be removed. I'll wait around for a day or two, and if nobody responds, or if responses are in consensus, I'll remove the passage. Xeinart 21:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Since nobody has said anything, I'm going to remove the aforementioned line. It was poorly placed in the article anyway. Xeinart 02:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sad that my edits seem to have been come just before an edit war. That said, to go on a revert to an arbitrary version of the article is not an appropriate way of dealing with edit wars. The general policy is for the article to become protected until the issue has been resolved. Now, I'm going to re-implement my edits, with the knowledge that somebody will construe this as contributing to the edit war. If you have an issue with it, come discuss it on the talk page like a civilized editor. Xeinart 22:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Bible?

Your edits to Faggot (epithet), recently, have both increased internal contradiction (e.g. stating the claim that the term stems from the burning sticks meaning, when later sections bring this into question), and introduced a great deal of original research with respect to the meaning of certain passages in The Bible. If you have a point to make, there are many discussion forums on which you could do so. I invite you to contribute to and improve the article, but bringing your own personal debates to the article isn't the way to accomplish that. Thanks. -Harmil 21:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your frankness, but of course the section like anything else here, is one in a state of development. Not to mischaracterise your criticism, but you arent arguing against using the Bible as a source, are you? If you can, can you please identify which statements you think are claims and interpretations. Thanks. I'll see you at the talk page shortly. -Stevertigo 21:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, your edits sought to establish a connection (which is unsourced, and appears to be OR) between a particular passage in The Bible and a particular, hypothetical origin of the word "faggot". You then continue on, in an analysis of the biblical take on homosexuality. The former is, as far as I can tell, not a consensus as you indicated by re-writing the intro. The latter is simply not appropriate for the article at all, as it's an analysis of homosexuality (from a religious standpoint), not information about the word "faggot". -Harmil 21:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Instead of making blanket judgments, please take the issue to the talk page. I will see you there. -Stevertigo 22:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Im moving your comments from my talk to that talk page. -Stevertigo 22:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Harmil, a couple questions for you:

• Do you have a problem with referencing the Bible?
• Are you asserting that the specific word "faggot" has to be used in the Bible for it to be relevant?
• Are you arguing that the Bible is not as relevant as other sources in indicating (at least as a possibility) the meaning of a term?
• Are you claiming that a religious viewpoint is invalid?
• Are you claiming that there is no connection between the religious concept of "hell" and the religious criticism of homosexuality? -Stevertigo 22:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Stevertigo

I would agree with Harmil in that perhaps the entries may be more appropriate for an article on homosexuality under the Christian perspective with citations of point of view. I for one didn't know that the word "faggot" had other meanings beyond an epithet. So, I guess I strongly agree with Harmil. PEACETalkAbout 22:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems reasonable, provided of course that some basic footprint is left here, which points to that article. -Stevertigo 22:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Strongly Agree While you have many interesting ideas, Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own research. If you have a verifiable source for your information, that's different, but we cannot have original research on Wikipedia. Also, it's important to realize that Wikipedia does not attempt, nor wish, to deal with every possible aspect of every topic. Whether there is, in some conservative religions, or not a relationship between hell and homosexuality has little to do with this epithet. Finally, I hope that it is fully impressed on you that the possibility of an origin is original research. If a reliable source said, "this is a possible place the word comes from" you could cite that. At present, it's still original research, which is against the rules. Xeinart 22:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to your questions: 1) I have no problem referencing The Bible when talking about things where The Bible has some pertinence, though it constitutes a [[[primary source]] and according to Wikipedia's policy on the matter, should be cited "only with care, because it's easy to misuse primary sources." 2) I'm not asserting that the word "faggot" has to be used in The Bible in order for it to be relevant, but there would have to be some direct association between the two that's not simply your theory. 3) Possibility isn't terribly interesting, since we don't have a source that backs up the possibility. We can't just say, in an encyclopedia, "The Bible says X, and so that could mean that Y," because we think it's a cool idea. 4) I'm not claiming that a religious viewpoint is "invalid", I'm claiming that Wikipedia isn't a place for viewpoints, but for neutral cataloging of fact and the consensus established by external sources. 5) I made no statement about hell or criticism of homosexuality, other than the fact that this article is not a place for either concept, other than perhaps to suggest that the word faggot is often deeply tied to criticisms of homosexuality. -Harmil 00:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your responses, and agree that this would belong better somewhere else, provided some basic linkage is established. The notion that no relationship exists between religious condemnation and a pejorative term used in the context of said condemnation appears to be specious. In that context, of course the Bible does have "pertinence." "Wikipedia isn't a place for viewpoints," appears to contradict NPOV policy, which insists that major viewpoints be represented. -Stevertigo 01:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

SV

I dislike this characterization of "original research" - itself an easy pejorative that often tries to takes the place of discussion. As for verifiable sources, someone here has to answer my questions: Are you arguing that the Bible is not as relevant as other sources in indicating (at least as a possibility) the meaning of a term? Do you have a problem with referencing the Bible? Are you asserting that the specific word "faggot" has to be used in the Bible for it to be relevant?

"Also, it's important to realize that Wikipedia does not attempt, nor wish, to deal with every possible aspect of every topic." This is somewhat in contradiction to our mandate. Certainly there are fringe claims which can be excluded, but here you seem to be asserting that the Bible is equivalent to a fringe claim. Certainly that can't possibly be a valid argument. Likewise, if you look up the meaning of the word encyclopedia, you can sort of understand the inclusionist viewpoint. Where is Harmil by the way? It seems strange that he's chosen to remain uninvolved in this discussion. -Stevertigo 22:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless you can provide some published analysis that links the word "faggot" with the biblical passages you include, then it does indeed look like Original Research. "The Bible" as a source isn't the problem; it's the extrapolation you make. CovenantD 23:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

How then does the article handle the usage of the word "faggot" by religious extremists? It seems to avoid the subject in an altogether cowardly fashion. Interpretations do vary, but in the religious context, they don't vary so much as to require their exclusion per NOR. Further, NPOV trancends all other policies, and requires the representation of all relevant points of view. The passage "he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned" appears to be explanatory enough without relying on commentary.Im not unwilling to compromise on how the section is worded. Lastly, editing is done by cooperative means, not by LGBT people who violate OWN with respect to particular articles. Most responses have been unspecific and general, and contradictory to NPOV. Considering this incivil remove first, discuss later approach, taking this to dispute resolution seems to be the next step. -Stevertigo 23:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't make assumptions about others. For starters, it makes the conversation too personal and besides, you're likely to be wrong. -Harmil 00:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I was referencing OWN as an example of poor behaviour, not asserting that this was in actuality the improper modus operandi of those here opposed. Though you would agree that its a likelihood in the context of this article. The sticker at the top that claims "this article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues" appears to assert a dominion over this topic. Again the remove first, discuss later approach is prejudicial. -Stevertigo 01:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Material in question

One interpretation is that the term has a religious meaning or connotation. For example, in the BiblicalGospel of John, chapter 15, verses 5-6, Jesus says:

5) I am the [true (from 15:1)] vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. 6) If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

In the context of Christian religious belief, the terms typically have religious and not necessarily literal meaning, where "the fire" refers generally to hell. Whom is considered to have be "cast forth" and "withered" is naturally quite subjective, but in religious context, such judgements are said to be made by God, not by man. But where man does make such judgment, heretics, those who refuse religious conversion, those who practice what is perceived as idolatry, pagans, or anyone outside of the norms for religious and social character (however these are defined, locally or universally) may hence qualify. Effeminate or homosexual people have been standard targets of religious condemnation for since the beginnings of Abrahamic civilization, as Jewish Bible scriptures collectively identify various ethnic and behavioral traits as being the marks of an enemy. For example in the Book of Kings chapter 15 verses 11-12 (Douay translation):

11) "And Asa did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, as did David, his father [...] 12) And he took away the effeminate out of the land, and removed all the filth of the idols, which his fathers had made."

The translation of "effeminate" in the Douay version is not univerally accepted, and varies, most translations using the term "sodomites". Others used the term "male cult prostitutes" or "male temple prostitutes." The Young's Literal Translation uses the term "whoremongers", giving a much broader meaning. The New International Version explicitly (and controversially) translates the term as "homosexual."[3] (See Effeminacy#The_Bible). Hence from the Abrahamic religious point of view, the connotation between a religious condemnation of those "cast away" (cf. "tares") and those engaging in paraphilia is not coincidental. However in modern societies, the direct connotation of "sodomy" with homosexuality may be controversial. In secular terms, the Biblical accounts describe in a historical way how a people's prosperity can bring about a state of decadence, in which people turn to the search of artificial or self-serving pleasures (hedonism) rather than to God or nature. Religions condemn such decadence because they view it as either corrupting to the society, or as a symptom of a deeper spiritual corruption, referred to in religious terms as "idolatry" (hence 'an offense to God').

Responses

There's nothing in the above that has anything to do with the word "faggot"... and that's the crux of the problem, here. Now, if you wanted to say, "The Bible says ... and Christians [...of some sort...] have used this as justification for the use of the word 'faggot'," then you would just have to find an acceptable, published source that asserted that that was the case... almost all of the rest of the text is simply not appropriate for this article. -Harmil 00:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Harmil, WADR, you contradict yourself in several ways: On the one hand you say that the Bible can be referenced, but you claim it to be only a primary source in this context. You say that the term "faggot" doesnt have to be in the Bible for it to be relevant, but then you claim that the quoted sections don't have "anything to do with the the word."

The article talks about an epithet which in its common usage characterizes certain people as being like 'a bundle of sticks,' and yet you claim that a passage from the Bible —one which states by way of an explicit metaphor that people who "are the branches" who are by some action of their own caused to be "cast forth [ie. pruned] as a branch, [..] withered [ie. dried] [..], and cast [..] into the fire, and they are burned" —is too far removed to mention? Ridiculous.

What I agree is controversial is the modern application of the term to homosexuals exclusively. The Jesus quote does not appear to have this meaning explicitly, instead referring to "those who dont abide in me" which some interpret to mean those who reject Christianity while other interpret this to mean those who don't abide in God, where God is (simply) love. In this regard the characterization is not one which is critical of homosexuality per se, but of the perversion of love though sex devoid of love.

The excerpt from the Book of Kings might sort of 'back up' the more discriminatory definition, but that of course is more interpretational and best left for an article specific to religion and homosexuality.

-Stevertigo 01:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Stevertigo, and Harmil, and really everybody else involved, let's try to deal with this like rational people. If you'll cooperate with what I'd like to do, I'm sure that we can reach a solution in which one side backs down, or a compromise in which both sides are satisfied. I'd like to ask a couple of questions, and see where things go from there. If we find that we are unable to reach a solution on our own, then we can involve others. I'll admit going in to this that I do have a bias, which is clearly toward Harmil. That said, I don't want to tell either of you what to do. I simply want to pose some questions and let you two work the issue out on your own. I'd like to remind you both to remain civil. Manners are a part of what separates us from wild animals. The first question I'd like to pose is to Stevertigo. What text would you like to add, where would you like to add it, and how do you think that it improves the article as a whole? Xeinart 02:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you propose? -Stevertigo 03:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to start things off by asking you what exact text you would like to add to the article, where, and how it improves the article as a whole. It's possible that once you've explained all that, this entire issue will disappear. If not, we can move on from that point. I'd like to thank you for showing maturity in being willing to work with me on this. Xeinart 06:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Stevertigo has already injected the text in question, and pasted it above. There have been three separate users who have reverted that text (I was only the first). I realize that SV's penchant for re-formatting discussions and sectionalizing has made it difficult to follow, but read the text above. It's not as if the desire hasn't been clearly stated, it's just that there's never been any response to the concerns about relevance. The tenuous connection between the fact that faggot can refer to kindling and the Bible passage in question is not sufficient to support its inclusion. We would have to find some author who published in a venue that's considered an acceptable source, and actually made that connection. THEN, we could cite that source, and say that, "so and so claims that there is a link between the Bible and this usage of the word faggot." Until then, I'm not sure what we could possibly do within the scope of Wikipedia's policies other than not include the suggested text. -Harmil 18:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

OFF TOPIC: "Sectionalizing"[sic] doesn't make discussion more difficult to follow, and Ive not 'reformatted' anything.

"There's never been any response to the concerns about relevance." Ive responded in detail, whereas your responses have contradicted themselves, in the ways that I've listed above. The issue of relevance for the Book of John quote is obvious, while the your "NOR" argument appears ridiculously overstated, claiming that someone has to publish what is obvious connection between a metaphor and a pejorative. The topic is a pejorative, not some scientific method or historical event.

That said, I agree that any extrapolations beyond the basic similarity is a stretch. As a compromise, I propose that the only the first two paragraphs be included, (the BoJ quote) and some of the rest will belong on a more appropriate article. As someone who understands Wikipedias policies and its history of development, I assure you that establishing connections and relationships between concepts is not OR. "NOR" on the other hand appears to be used here as a means for censorship. -Stevertigo 20:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sectionalizing (definition) certainly does make this harder to read, since it's much harder to follow the flow of the conversation. On the point about re-formatting, if you didn't reformat my comments, then why is my comment at the head of this section, not where I put it (in response to your comment)?[4]

You've made vague responses to the concerns about relevance as you do here. You said, "The issue of relevance for the Book of John quote is obvious." Frankly, no it's not. You leap from (my paraphrase) "faggot has an alternate definition which means 'a bundle of sticks'" to (again, my paraphrase) "a quote from the Bible which happens to involve both a bundle of sticks and (arguably) homosexuality should be included here." I'm not following that leap of logic, and apparently nor are at least two other editors. It is that leap of logic which must either be patently obvious to all concerned (e.g. "faggot is a word") or cited from a reliable source. You don't just add to George Washington, "and another man from American history, who was famous for being on a river at once point, is Mark Twain."

You can't overstate the problems related to original research. Original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. Period. There's no debate there, and it simply cannot be overstated. It's not a rule that you can ignore once in a while as long as you're good. Frustrating though we all may find that sometimes, that's the deal we edit Wikipedia under. Again, you rely on the word "obvious." If it were obvious, we would not be having this discussion. I don't find anything obvious about the need to include a quote from The Bible that just so happens to involve burning sticks and homosexuality. You mean "obvious to me." That's not the same thing.

Please don't complain about censorship. No one is censoring your ideas. You can paste them all over the Web, but in order to include them here, there is a very simple test: did you include a reliable source? You cited The Bible for a quote. That's good. Now, just cite the idea that that quote relates in any way to the modern or historical use of this word other than by pure coincidence, and there will be no one stopping the inclusion of the quote.

Finally, please don't take this personally. I'm sure that you're a fine person, and I'm not questioning your integrity. I just patrol this and many other high-traffic articles, and your edit was one which simply didn't meet any criteria for inclusion that I could find. -Harmil 23:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We need not only the Bible quote but a source that actually relates this to the modern use of "faggot". Otherwise it's very clearly original research. garik 01:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont respond well to deletionists, and for that I apologise. I happen to be someone who was around at a time when there were only a relative handful of dedicated editors, and view Wikipedia according to an inclusionist framework - one that assumes good faith, allows time for material to be sourced after the fact, and frowns upon the deletionist - the one who thinks pruning is more vital than planting. There is a difference between knowing what it takes to build something from nothing, and claiming to know what is fit for inclusion.

But given the success of this site it is of course a natural consequence that newer waves of contributors view their self-appointed tasks in a different light. In that context the subjective venemosity of what sources are "reliable" or not has brought us to certain paradoxes. One example of which is a culture that is free to wax poetic about a term's "Usage in popular culture" for example (all of it unsourced and and certainly unreliable, or at least unimportant), but is unable to allow for the Bible itself to be referenced in a direct way which leaves the interpretation up to the reader.

You say that you don't see how the relation between the "I am the true vine" passage can be called "obvious," but I find this answer to be specious at best. There is no matter of interpretation or extrapolation. There is only the matter of including a Biblical reference in relation to a term, which itself has no real scholarly meaning. Garik unwittingly sums up the gaping hole in your exclusionist argument by bad example: "we need not only the Bible quote but a source that actually relates this to the modern use of [the term]." "Modern use" is of course a ridiculous limitation to assert for any word, let alone a Biblical passage, and contradicts what you (Harmil) and I agreed above to in that the term "faggot" need not be used in the Bible itself for there to be relevance. Naturally the article is not just about a word (epithet in this case) but a concept in which people are deemed destined to be discarded inflammatorily. -Stevertigo 04:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Administrative Involvement

Since you guys have established that you have no desire to actually work through this issue in any kind of constructive manner, leastwise not to make use of my services as a moderator, I see no option outside of administrative involvement. Unless one of you objects, rather strenuously and eloquently, I'll be putting in a request. I tried to get you guys through this. You didn't take it. Xeinart 03:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

First off, I take objection to being characterized as someone who has "no desire to actually work through this issue." Were that the case, I would not have been here, practically begging for an answer to the central question of relevance (to which no answer has yet been provided, other than the establishment of coincidence and, "it's obvious.") Since others have reverted since I did, I could have simply shut up and reverted him two more times if he tries to put it back, without violating the 3RR rule. But, I'm not that kind of guy, and I wanted to find out what the source of relevance was to see if there was a kernel of a good edit here.

I'd also be somewhat concerned about expanding the scope of involvement (and thus consuming valuable community resources) when this user has, thus far, been unable to state his case in a way that has resulted in any other user issuing support for the edit in question. In fact, the number of users expressing opposition has simply grown. It just seems a waste of everyone's time to say that every time someone really wants to put something on a page that no one else agrees is relevant, we need to involve the larger community to "work through the issue." Rather, I'd say that even grudging support from someone, or some outright abusive treatment would have to occur before we consider it an issue at all.

All that said, I won't try to stop you from doing what you think is right. If you feel involving yet more people is the way to go, then have at. -Harmil 14:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Usage in popular culture

Some concerns were tangentially brought up about the "Usage in popular culture" section, above. While those concerns were not entirely accurate (it is in fact, one of the most heavily cited sections in the article), there are some problems with it. For starters, the whole section is mostly a list of events. The relative importance of these events is never established, and no sense of the broader issues is developed. I'm sure that someone has written a book that brings these concepts together in a way that we could draw on to discuss the evolution of the treatment of the word "faggot" in popular culture. Does anyone have any thoughts on how this section could be improved? -Harmil 18:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it could and should simply be deleted. I don't much care for sections that basically boil down to "All the times that I can think of that someone with a modicum of celebrity said this word." It's never going to be comprehensive and it's generally more to do with the person who said it than the word itself, particularly in cases such as Ann Coulter. Grace Note 06:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent origins edit

Recent edits to the origins of the term have attempted to simply remove the phrase:

"It is often claimed that the derivation is associated directly with faggot meaning "bundle of sticks for burning", since homosexuals were supposedly burnt at the stake in medieval England."

While I agree that the statement needs to be sourced or otherwise dealt with, simply removing it in the way that it was, leaves the next section without context. I've tried to edit it so that this is not as much of a problem, but the correct solution really is to get more, and more authoritative sources, not to chop up the article when the sources that we do have weakly support the initial premise (that this origin is often cited) and strongly support the subsequent premise (that this origin is incorrect). -Harmil 19:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It is utter bollocks though. Encyclopaedias do not necessarily need to traffic in tittletattle. Grace Note 06:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Bassoon in norwegian

Could someone please ad to the article that the norwegian name for Bassoon, the musical instrument, is Fagott, pronounced just like the english insult. This is good to know, english people turn their heads when they hear it in norwegian sentences.