Talk:Faggot/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Female Faggots

Resolved

Faggot is not just a name for a male homosexual or effiminate man but also describes a female homosexual or a masculine woman. Article corrected to reflect this. YourPTR! 10:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I've heard it applied to female homosexuals. Without getting into a discussion of gender epithets, the only equivalent term I've heard applied to them is 'dyke.' - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I disagree. If a lesbian can be a homosexual, gay and a queer then it can certainly be a faggot and plenty of Conservatives refer to them as such. A faggot is just a non-PC term for a homosexual. A lesbian is a female homosexual. Do a Google search if you are in any doubt that people don't refer to these evil perverts as faggots. YourPTR! 17:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Please stop trolling talk pages. garik 20:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we aren't going to let you soapbox this. YourPTR, Your. Frankly, I saw your straw man argument coming a mile away. I think I am going to post my comment here, so that way, it can serve as fodder to have you blocked. Enjoy. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I accept that the above comment may not actually be the work of who it claims to be. Unless YourPTR! wishes to claim it, let's assume good faith. With regard to the question of whether a lesbian can be called a faggot, I think we need a good source. garik 00:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Was a good source ever found? Can someone post the source? --MernaSon (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Using, "fag," to mean a cigarette

Resolved. explained in lede. Banjeboi 15:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Metic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.166.156.20 (talk) 04:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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.

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.

yeah, cuz the context in which it was used was TOTALLY acceptable! Coulter is repeatedly, indefensible offensive, and has used the word multiple times. Don't make excuses for her.TrevorLSciAct (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2008 (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)

Respectfully disagree. High-profile uses can illuminate the subject and although we should avoid an endless list of here 's another person who used the term we can find ways of highlighting some of the more notable incidents. Benjiboi 02:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

Not used in British English? I think it is... we really need a cite saying the term is uncommon in UK English.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AdParody-anti-gaySlogan.png

Image:AdParody-anti-gaySlogan.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Photo

What's this "example of a common faggot" business? Why is this here? Who is this person? It really needs to be gone. --64.247.122.178 (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Translation

=ru:Пидор

Added. -- Banjeboi 18:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic photo/caption, non-neutral point of view.

The "fagbug" photo is immaterial to all but one of the uses of "faggot" as slang and is only a weak illustration of the "homosexual" usage. More importantly, the purpose of the caption seems to be to preach (or support preaching) against "homophobia" and not to illustrate the uses of "faggot" as slang. Unencyclopedic.

Use of the word "homophobia" at all in this article implies non-neutral point of view. (See wikipedia's own entry under Homophobia#Criticism_of_the_term)

At a minimum, the caption should be corrected to be straight, to the point, professional, and without an "agenda" point of view. 72.93.183.155 (talk) 05:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Every image in the article doesn't have to illustrate every use of the term. I also disagree with your analysis of the caption, and with your claim that the term "homophobia" is non-neutral. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

For those who interested in creating an "encyclopedic" article, a good way is to pay attention to tone as interpreted by those who do not hold with their own POV. The Wikipedia homophobia entry, does refer to the word as a pejorative. That is, use of the word labels people with negative attitudes toward homosexuality as "merely fearful", it name-calls and belittles their negative perspective no matter what the reason for it. The usage in the caption clearly shows a pov that is not neutral.

The caption also is clearly a promotion for something else (the road trip, LGBT rights, and the film) and does not contribute to description of Faggot (slang). Heck, the word on the side of the car isn't even "faggot", it says "fagbug" instead. Doh!  :-)

As a "tolerant homonegative" person (for various surprising reasons most "homopositives" would approve of), I see "homophobia" as strongly non-neutral. I would hope the "resident editors" of this article would see the value of not alienating those who are not strictly "in their choir" and the value of striving to retain a strongly neutral tone for such a subject. This helps make the article better. It also helps prevent strong reactions and edits by those who are "intolerant homonegative" for all the bad "ill-considered" reasons. As things stand now the lockout accomplishes some of this, but with the side effect of leaving less incentive to root out tones which may be subtle to the the resident editors, but which scream out to others as non-neutral or immaterial.

72.93.176.239 (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The homophobia article does not refer to the word as a pejorative; rather, it says that the term has "been criticized as a pejorative," pretty much exclusively by those who are homophobic. Your understanding of the term's meaning seems incomplete, judging by the definition you give above.

The Fagbug is a pretty good example of homophobia and the use of the term "fag." I'm not sure why you have an issue with this relevant image and link being included in an article on the term "fag(got)."

As for the rest of your post, "tolerant homonegative," "intolerant homonegative..." I'm irresistibly reminded of the AbFab episode where Patsy and Eddie are talking about dating:

Eddie: I mean, no one blinks an eye if an older man goes out with a young girl bimbo, do they? Or what's really sick, listen now Patsy, what is really sick, darling, is when a non-bimbo girl goes out with a really old man. That's sick, isn't it, darling.

Saffie: Mum, what is this world you live in? What does "bimbo" and "non-bimbo" mean? ...

In the end, I see no compelling argument for the removal of the image or the elimination of the word "homophobia" from this article. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Well then, it looks like I'm not going to wrest control away, but that's not my purpose. I simply want to show you how to make a better article that doesn't preach to it's own choir. From my point of view (and others), the assertion of "homophobia" as a neutral word is parallel to assertion of "nigger" as merely "one who is dark skinned". Deny it all you want, but the word carries tone! "Intolerant Homopositives" (if you will) seem to like to use the word as it enables them to assert a superior position by belittling the other class. It's bullying pure and simple. It's overkill and it detracts from efforts to help the world tolerate homosexuality. I tolerate homosexuality, but I don't tolerate bullying. For those interested in promoting tolerance, it can be useful to avoid mixing the intolerable into it so they become inseparable. It's a lot easier to tolerate the tolerable when it's not tainted by the intolerable.

"Homopositives" are human too and are susceptible to human foibles. Rationalize all you want, but believing with all one's might doesn't make something so. If one can't see other points of view for whatever (possibly understandable) reasons, one is less likely to be able write a neutral article on such a subject.

I'm done here. But you really should try to see the photo and caption from the point of view of those who aren't entrenched in your frame of mind. You will make a better article that will have less need to be locked.

Thank you for sharing your concerns. Your issue seems to be the use of the word homophobia but we are only following what the sources and the film state. As a rule we go by verifiability not truth. -- Banjeboi 04:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really. My issue was the non-neutrality projected by the use of the word and by the other unencyclopedic factors pointed out. But, when Exploding Boy simply denied (without justification) the non-neutrality of "homophobia" and later essentially called me "homophobic", of course the focus went to the non-neutrality of the word. It all leads back though, to the unencyclopedic nature of some parts of the article. As far as verifiability goes, Wikipedia's own discussion of the criticism of the word is verification (even better than verifiability! :-)) of the non-neutral tone of the word. And besides, the much-repeated (and dubious) "verifiability, not truth" applies to purported facts in an article, not to perspectives about neutrality of tone.

I really do want to be done here and let the discussion fade into oblivion, but responses have essentially been "no, you are wrong, speak to the hand" without even any supporting justifications for the naysaying. No one likes to be dismissed so carelessly. And no one likes to be called "irrational" and "fearful" of something by someone who only really knows that there is a dislike of the thing and who doesn't even know the reasons for the dislike. Exploding Boy noted that Wikipedia said the word has "been criticized as a pejorative," THEN HE ADDED his own words "pretty much exclusively by those who are homophobic..." utterly dismissing anyone who dares criticize the word and dismissing me for criticizing the word as non-neutral. Can you see now how such attitudes create an entrenched regime that can't see it's own non-neutrality? Heck, he might as well have said "Only niggers don't like the word "nigger"." (This example is extreme, but it illustrates the point well).

While my issue initially was one of helping make the article more properly neutral, the dismissive responses have begun to generate a new issue: I now have an image growing in my mind of those stereotypical monkeys with their hands covering their eyes and ears. It seems that custodians of this article just don't want to open their minds enough needed to make the article neutral like it should be. That's the issue I'm beginning to have. But if that's the way it is, I have a life and better things to do, so that's the way it will be. Your article will never be more than a highly defended fortress of careless, non-neutral, unencyclopedic "attitude". You guys just don't get it. For this subject, you have to work very hard to see others' points of view to create a professional, toneless article. You don't have that now.

72.93.176.239 (talk) 04:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, first off WP:TLDR, most editors here, in my experience aren't looking to read lengthy talkpage comments no matter how well-intended or important they are. You seem to have some genuine criticism or points to make but you may want to (i) focus on improving content and avoid commenting on the contributors, even if they started it; and (ii) dial down the heat and aim to dispassionately express what you feel should change and why. In general I would say that other editors don't share your concern that homophobia is being used improperly and ergo should be removed. If you have other concerns please feel free to share them as we are always improving articles. -- Banjeboi 13:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'm heartily sick of the ongoing debate on Wikipedia over the word homophobia, which is led primarily by those who have an anti-gay agenda, hence my comment above. I'm not going to rehash the issue here, except to repeat that the word has a definition which, while it can include "irrational hatred" and "fear" is by no means limited to those particular things. The "reason for the dislike" is immaterial, and the word homophobia does not presume certain preconditions, but simply describes, neutrally, the fear, dislike or hatred of, or discrimination against, people who are or are perceived to be gay, whatever the underlying cause.

So, yes, I do dismiss those who have a problem with the word homophobia (besides its unfortunate construction, that is), because, frequently, they are people who refuse to accept the definition of a clearly defined, often used word in an attempt to make their own... homophobia less distasteful, in precisely the same way racists often claim not to be racist.

If there are specific problems with the article, then let's address them. We've discussed your opposition to the Fagbug image already, which you claim is not a good illustration of the use of the word "fag(got)" and which I've argued clearly is. You've claimed the word "homophobia" is non-neutral, which has been discussed ad nauseam both here and elsewhere. Any other specific points? Exploding Boy (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

P1) If the definition includes "irrational" and "fear" in it's very root words, how can the name-calling nature of the word ever be invisible? Even if some dictionary somewhere contains one neutral definition, that doesn't mean it is suitable for use in a neutral, professional, encyclopedic article. It might be neutral by the standards of your world (the "homonegativephobic" world if you will :-) ), but not in the larger world, and not by Wikipedia's presumed standards. Your zeal here and the examples you give, and your admission of an "ongoing debate" illustrate (with passion!) the obvious non-neutrality.

P2) The word "nigger" also has other "clearly defined" neutral uses, particularly in modern slang inside very particular groups. But, it just can't realistically be used in a neutral encyclopedic context (except in a discussion about the word of course, or in a quote).

P3) There ARE specific problems, and I attempted to address them a number of times, but you blocked and derailed their discussion. The specific problems (again): 1)The caption is an unencyclopedic promotion of a film. and, 2) The caption is non-neutral based largely on the use of the word "homophobia", the non-neutrality of which you have illustrated yourself.

Actually, the photo and caption look like they were copied verbatim from the homophobia article, possibly quickly without paying too much attention to the caption and its possible need for refinement in the new context. Really, take a look. The caption makes much more sense in the other article, not so much here. I suspect the motive for the caption's... um... "controversial wording" might be less "homonegativephobia" and more of a need to get some material quickly.

72.93.177.87 (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC) (same guy, looks like my IP address got changed)

I wrote and added the caption with the image to both articles. The rest of your concerns have been addressed, IMHO. I suggest dropping this issue for now as not going anywhere. Feel free to start a new topic on a different subject wih out the soapbox. -- Banjeboi 02:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Spin off List of usage of the word faggot (slang) in popular culture?

Considering the length of the list, should the guidance of IPC apply and the embedded list spin off as another article in its own right? This may result in the section being trimmed down to three or four choice examples with the separate list becoming the obvious dumping ground for drive-by editors.—Ash (talk) 11:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so, the whole article is quite short. Maybe we can mitigate the seeming imbalance. -- Banjeboi 02:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Origin of pejoration against homosexuals

I was taught that during the witch hunts the christians believed the only way to send a witch's soul to hell was to burn her on a pire of homosexuals. They bundled the homosexuals in kindling, much like the original definition of faggot. And later ignorant people who took little care in their speech and/or education chose to use the word faggot to refer to the homosexuals regardless of whether or not they had yet been bundled in kindling. -- 71.195.37.19

Well, whoever taught you that was an idiot, and his or her lunatic theories have no place in the article. Not only is this, of course, untrue, it's not even a significant myth (or a "commonly taught theory" as you put it) that would deserve a mention in the article. It's just one person's original stupidity. -- Zsero (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:Don't feed the trolls. -- Banjeboi 03:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I have also heard the theory that the meaning of the word faggot relating to homosexual derived from the practice of throwing homosexuals onto the fire when heretics were burnt. I would like to know how extensive this theory is and not simply be dismissed with words like – “whoever taught you that was an idiot” and “It’s just one person’s original stupidly”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by W-big-a (talk • contribs)

Hi, W-big-a, please remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes after them (~~~~)! Zsero was perhaps rather harsh in his reply, but he's right that there's no historical basis to this claim. The idea that homosexuals made up the pyre rather than being burnt at the stake themselves is a new one on me too, but I've heard similar claims before, which indeed are mentioned in the article. However, they appear pretty clearly to have no basis in history, and various sources (referenced in the article) specifically debunk the myth. Now, if you can find a good, reliable source (see WP:SOURCES for details of what constitutes a reliable source) that mentions the myth about building pyres of homosexuals, then it might be worth a mention in the article. Otherwise, however, I'm no more convinced than Zsero that it's significant enough to be mentioned. garik (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

The latin word fasces means bundle of sticks and precedes the word faggot. Therefor, I find it much easier to believe that it is the root of the word rather than "finocchio". -- 71.195.37.19

The article doesn't claim that "faggot" derives from "finocchio". garik (talk) 12:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The bit about "finocchio" has, however, been unsupported by any source for over a year and a half now, so I've removed it. garik (talk) 12:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe just a reference to cross-dressing or effeminate dress (as in the first printed reference), fagot/faggot style trim/embroidery - Newest fashions 1908.Hakluyt bean (talk) 07:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Possibly; it is at least an interesting source for a particular obsolete use of the word. It offers no reliable support that I can see, however, for the extension of the use to effeminate men, gay men, or cross-dressers. I agree with your decision not to go so far in editing the article; that sort of leap would be original research, unless we could find a source explicitly making the connection. garik (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't believe speculation should be added to the article (as opposed to this talk space), but it strikes me as a reasonable idea. The word is identical and describes a feminine finish (embroidery) to clothing, and it seems the first use of 'fagot' in the modern/American sense describes men in drag. The embroidery term it turns out is not entirely obsolete, just marginalised. Hakluyt bean (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It certainly is intriguing, and sounds worth following up. But you're quite right that, currently, it's more a matter of speculation. Interesting find though! garik (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Never heard this pejorative used against women

I question the veracity of the assertion in the article that the term is used as a pejorative for lesbians, or for women of any sexual orientation. I have never heard the term used in this way, I think this is a simplification to suit the LGBT category. Hylobius (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Please add new comments to the end of the page! Which part of the page says its used as a pejorative for women? garik (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with original comment. The introduction states "is a pejorative term and common homophobic slur against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people". This need to be corrected as it should read "is a pejorative term and common homophobic slur against homosexual men".
  "offensive term for an openly homosexual man" - TheFreeDictionary.com
  "Used as a disparaging term for a homosexual man." - he American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
  "Slang chiefly US and Canadian a male homosexual Often shortened to fag" - Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged
  "a pejorative for a homosexual or effeminate man used mainly in North America" - Reference.com
  Omniomi (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• I made this change Omniomi (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You think Wikipedia is pro-gay or what?

8====> <8 colton <3 michael

Nice picture chosen for this article. Completely misrepresents the article while revealing the desperate obviousness of Wikipedia's "LGBT" agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.0.54.27 (talk) 18:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

To which image do you refer? If you think the image does not represent a neutral point of view, feel free to remove or change it and explain why here. Peaceoutside (talk) 01:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

King Crimson

! In the "music" section, it should be added that King Crimson used the term in the opening line of The Great Deceiver, the first track from the album Starless and Bible Black (possibly their finest album). This lyric is delivered rather aggressively and abruptly. This was back in 1974, a full 11 years prior to Dire Straits. Anyhow, the line goes, "Health food faggot..." etc.

You have been misinterpreting the line though. King Crimson's mention of a 'health food faggot' is simply a reference to a well known British food item akin to a meat rissole, but made of healthy vegetables. It would have no place in the sense of this article. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

More recent use

I'm glad to see the mention of a recent south park episode that featured the word faggot, but that episode itself was made to satirise the already changing use of the word. The word 'faggot' is currently being used by today's younger people to refer to people who are overtly self-obsessed, emotional, or simply foolish. I'm afraid to say that I haven't got any references to published information on this subject on me... I'll take a look around the internet later and see if I can find anything. Anyway, due to the nature of this word, I think it's highly relevant to the article. Gigacannon (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I found this blog entry, didn't take much effort to find. http://gawker.com/5216744/judith-warner-calling-kids-gay-has-nothing-to-do-with-gays Gigacannon (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I also found this article, which explicitly mentions the transformation of the word 'fag' from an insult to a 'term of endearment', the opinion of two noted scholars.

http://www.rabble.ca/news/i-am-nobody-anonymity-internet Gigacannon (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The word faggot means someone who is lame

Anyone who regularly uses the word realizes this. I do not appreciate my discussions being reverted. This is a serious issue. Most people who use the term "fag" or "faggot" do not mean it to be a pejorative term for homosexuals. This should at least be discussed in the article. I'm advocating for "faggot". What about you, are you a "faggot"-hater? (this is addressed to the person who reverted this discussion). I must note that I am being absolutely serious about this, despite the intentionally comical wording. Consider, for example George Carlin's famous (admittedly paraphrased) bit where he defines "A fag is a guy who won't go downtown beating up queers".

Anyway, we could say something like "More recently, American youth have taken the word to be more of a generic insult.". -18:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.132.91 (talk)

Firstly please sign your entries with 4 tildes and add an edit summary. Secondly if you don't want to be deleted please be civil and cease throwing around ridiculous defamatory remarks like "Are you a faggot hater?" which are not appreciated.

However, now that you have explained yourself a little better we can address your suggestion. There may be some merit in adding a separate paragraph detailing your alternate uses of the word, but only if you can provide valid and quotable citation and support; without such it will remain original research and not allowable on wikipedia. Try not to be so succinct in your comments (as in your first attempt) as it merely looks like vandalism. Over to you. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 19:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The "faggot"-hater comment was a reference to a very funny daily show bit where Larry Wilmore (and John Oliver) went around asking people about the word "nigger", after which he accused people of being either "nigger" haters or "nigger" lovers. =). I would cite George Carlin's bit as well as the uses in popular culture like South Park. I don't know what constitutes a reputable source for things in current pop-culture, but I should hopefully be able to find such a source if it is well-defined. 67.194.132.91 (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

ROFL Sorry the comment "(this is addressed to the person who reverted this discussion)" made it look like you were addressing me specifically and, being in England, I am not familiar with US TV and radio shows. Good luck with your search for quotable references on the internet. Could I suggest you register a wiki user ID for future edits, looks like you could be a useful editor in the scientific/mathematics fields. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 19:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It is also used in Australia as a generic insult to an extent. It's not really socially acceptable to go around calling people "fags", but amongst friends it may be used as a general insult. edit: haha, didn't realise I had a rainbow signature - no I am not homosexual. Which leads me to the point that I can't vouch for the term's unoffensiveness! Kuliwil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kuliwil 08:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the under 30 crowd often use "fag" as a generic insult (typically closer in meaning to "douche" than anything else though) While my anecdotal evidence is just that, I'm not entire sure how to "prove" that there's a generational divide in the meaning of the word. When I hear the word "fag" from people older than 30, its almost always to insult homosexuals, yet when I hear it from younger people, its generic. Also, in the gay community, "fag" and "dyke" are used similar to how "nigga" is used in the African-American community. 72.219.148.166 (talk) 06:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuals using the terms "faggot" and "dyke" do not have the same impact when a non-Homosexual is saying it. Words have a different power depending on who's using it. Homosexuals cannot oppress another homosexual by using a gay slur, for they are also homosexual. It just doesn't have the same power.

Now, as for the other issue, "faggot" being used in place of the term "lame", still refers to homosexuals. Homosexuals are still looked down upon and mocked. Thus, "faggot", is a put down. It means something bad. For most of society, homosexuality is bad. You can't go around saying, "Don't Jew me down", and try to tell someone that you don't mean Jewish people, just "frugalness". It's that simple. People who use it don't think about what the word actually means. Thus, they hide behind their statement saying, "We don't mean homosexuals." The term still refers to homosexuals, thus, the reason why we still have organizations as: "God Hates Fags". The term still means what it means.

98.225.205.138 (talk) 11:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Fagin from Oliver! the Movie Adaptation

Is it possible that he was an 'inspiration' since he was an old weird man with boys [to get the negative stereotype]. Are there sources supporting it? --212.54.222.41 (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Inspiration for what? Alatari (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess he's suggesting that he was the inspiration for the word "fag". Either this is a joke or our anonymous poster hasn't bothered to actually read the article. In case it is a serious question: no, it's not possible. garik (talk) 11:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I was using WP:ASSUME... Alatari (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Use in the song "Tony" by Patty Griffin

Please consider adding this to the Music section of the article.

{{Editsemiprotected}} Patty Griffin uses the word 'faggot' in her song Tony. The song is about a classmate of hers from high school who committed suicide.

 Done. You had a reference so I added it to the bottom of the section. Chevymontecarlo 06:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Remove FagBug reference

This is obviously an attempt to promote her film. A picture of the "fagbug" is not required to describe the slang term faggot.

Recommend its immediate deletion.

It's important that it be there to show its colloquial usage and how it has actually been embraced by some homosexual people. It should stay. I was also going to add that you should sign your messages with four tildes, but you have posted without signing in...... might I suggest that you still sign it with that anyway? Kuliwil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kuliwil 06:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuliwil (talk • contribs)

Edit request from Kkkguy, 14 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} i need to change some wrong on info. Thank you

Kkkguy (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Please specify what needs to be changed, and what it should be changed to, and then replace the edit request template. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Focus on etymology

Why is it that articles such as Wanker state that the word ORIGINALLY meant 'one who wanks', but now is just a generic insult that usually "conveys contempt, not commentary on sexual habits", whilst Faggot states that the word IS a derogatory term for homosexuals?

In my experience (which is admittedly biased by not hanging out with biggots), 'faggot' is just a generic insult, which no more NECCESARILY means "I think you're gay and that's bad" than wanker NECCESARILY means "I think you masturbate, and that's bad" (actually, it also has a specific, non-homosexual meaning).

iow, why is the article 'wanker' about the use of 'wanker' as an insult, whereas the article 'faggot' is about it's use as a homophobic insult?

Barring any complaints, i'm going to re-write this article to focus on faggot as a generic insult, with etymology sections and a section specifically focusing on it's homophobic usage, and an 'other uses' section (no deletion, just addition and refactoring). --Arkelweis (talk) 03:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's actually as much to be done as you imply. You're right that "faggot" doesn't necessarily imply homosexuality, but it very frequently does and the comparison with "wanker" is a little misleading. "Faggot" is still frequently used to denigrate gay people (even if it's also used with no reference to them), while "wanker" is very rarely used to actually imply that the target masturbates a lot. However, I so think we could do with adding a good source for its wider pejorative usage (which definitely exists). And we could certainly do with saying more about that in the other uses section. All the same, I think this falls far short of a rewrite, which would be quite unnecessary. garik (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, OK, not a re-write, just a slight refactoring to focus less exclusively on it's 'homophobic slur' aspect. Will keep my eyes open for a reference as to it's wider pejorative use --Arkelweis (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Biased Wording

More leftist propaganda on wikipedia. "pejorative term and homophobic slur" should be changed to "pejoritave term and slur towards homosexuals" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.87.131.75 (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm interested: what's the difference between 'homophobic slur' and 'slur towards homosexuals'. And is one term more objective than the other? (i'm inclined to say 'homophobic slur' is fine, but you've piqued my interest) --Arkelweis (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I would say that a homophobic slur is one used as an insult towards anyone (regardless of their sexuality) that cast being gay in a negative light, while a slur towards homosexuals is an insult directed at gay people that is not necessarily about their sexuality. Therefore, I would say that homophobic slur is more appropriate because you don't have to be gay to be insulted by or described using the word faggot. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 13:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, "slur towards homosexuals" would be deprecated per Wiki terminology policy. AV3000 (talk) 14:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I would have to agree that there is no difference between homosexual slur and slur towards homosexual besides the obvious grammatical/semantic error.

I do agree with Gaia Octavia Agrippa. The changes should not be made because the term is used to insult someone's sexuality as an ad hominem attack. Although I would like to add something to that, the change should not be made for the simple reason that a person who says "leftist propaganda" is obviously a bigot and said person would obviously be biased regarding the topic matter and their proposed changes could degrade the value of the article by adding a bias. The word faggot is not just used to denigrate gay people, although it does denigrate a person's sexuality. SaiferPhoenix (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Slur is fine but ... "of homosexuals" (would have better than "against (or towards) homosexuals") would have been more correct. Its sometimes meant to be descriptive, not necessarily derogatory. --71.245.164.83 (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused that you think "slur of homosexuals" is "more correct" than anything. It sounds like the sort of thing a non-native-speaker would say. garik (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that the expression "a pejorative term and common slur" is very emotive and POV. The first part may be right, but the second is too emotive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Please add 'British'

At the end of the 'Use in Britain' article, there is a reference to "House of Commons" (linked). Would someone please insert "British" in front of that reference. Yes, I know it's in the "Use in Britain" section, but it doesn't hurt to be clear about it. Canada has a "House of Commons" too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.55.180.101 (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think "British" has to be put in front of "House of Commons" in the "Use in Britain" section. I mean, isn't it obvious that the House of Commons the "Use in Britain" section is talking about is British because the nation we're talking about is Great Britain? (It's just my opinion, folks) --69.248.1.200 (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Origin issues

The etymology section should mention the notion of bundles of sticks: in essence, "kindling" (thus, a "flaming" homosexual male). This is evident in "fag" as british slang for cigarrette, and faggot/faggotto as the german and italian (respectively) terms for the musical instrument bassoon, which resembles a bundle of sticks. Faggot as kindling is a very old meaning, attested before the 19th century in the Oxford Englsh Dictionary. As a slang word, there should be a a Folk Etymologies section to contain the plethora of popular guesswork of the word's origins. This would provide an encyclopedically correct venue for popular wisdom many wikipedians want to contribute.

So there's really no connection between 'fagging' in British public schools and the American usage? Let's see... boys, away from home in a single-sex community, with older, adolescent boys demanding 'service' from their pre- and pubescent juniors. Yeah, I'm sure there was nothing going on there. This usage - very common in English literature - doesn't even make the 'Use in Britain' section? How can that be? I'm not adding it in without citations, because it would be OR, but I've certainly seen this explanation for the origin of the term in writing in the past. MarkinBoston (talk) 01:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable citation for it, put it in. I have a feeling it was mentioned in an earlier version of this article, but removed for being unsupported; articles like this attract unsupported claims. Bear in mind that coincidence is a much more common explanation for similarities between words than people imagine (consider German haben and Latin habere. Both words in Indo-European languages that mean "have", yet the similarity is coincidental). In this particular case we also have the problem that US fag is an abbreviation of faggot, while British fag is not. garik (talk) 03:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was very surprised not to see 'fag' in the public school sense included - if you want a citation, the first volume of Roald Dahl's autobiography Boy has a whole chapter on his experience at Repton in the 20s. Hard to tell how influential this was on the US usage, but certainly a substantial enough parallel to cite. Of course, the article as it stands is quite right to classify 'fag' as an Americanism. As an Australian, I would say fag(got) is certainly more offensive than poof(ter) or quean (depends how pretentious you are, but many pedants would consider the spelling queen and American degeneracy), as it seems to convey a class connotation (I don't know to what extent this could reflect British public school usage, though - only a few eccentric Australians like Tom Wills and Alexander Downer ever copped a British public school experience). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.5.248 (talk) 05:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Boy is the wrong kind of source to use. It says nothing about the connection of the British term fag with the American term fag(got), and would be an unreliable source if it did. However, I notice that the Online Etymological Dictionary mentions the possibility of a connection, so I've included a mention here too. garik (talk) 06:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from , 22 October 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Not mentioned at all on this page is that the word Faggot is in coomon use in the UK as the name of a food http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_(food) Koppert79 (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is. garik (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC) -And at the top, there's a hatnote-link "For other uses, see Faggot and Fag."  Chzz  ►  00:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)  Not done

It isn't an Americanism. It's an English word. Almost all words in the English language in use including in the US are therefore "Britishisms". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morganson691 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Question about Redirect

• I wanted to mention that the term "fag" actually derives from the Yiddish word "fagala" to refer to a male homosexual. This may have become associated with the term "faggot" with a bundle of firewood, particularly when this term applied to a cigarette and shortened to "fag."
  • Yeah, sure. This is what Zohan says. Lothar Klaic (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Yiddish derives a lot of its vocabulary from German. Fagala is a back formation from there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.180.217 (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Why does the term "faggotry" redirect to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_(slang) instead of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality? I would have thought that someone searching for the term is looking for an explanation of the latter, not the former.Tang Weijun (talk) 08:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If someone wants to know about homosexuality (under any name) and speaks English well enough to understand the article, they're most likely to search for "homosexual" or "homosexuality". If someone searches for "faggotry", I think they want to know what "faggotry" means, and this article is better suited to their needs. garik (talk) 15:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not so sure. I often search for terms using their informal names, and expect to read the article to describe the thing itself, not the origin of the term. For example, a search for "church key" takes one to an article on can openers. The reason I am writing is that I was surprised to land on Faggot_(slang), not Homosexuality. Perhaps it would make sense to have a disambiguation page and let the user decide which article he wants. Tang Weijun (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing to disambiguate. And the article about homosexuality is just one more mouse click away. And (the non-slang equivalent of) faggotry is not the same as homosexuality. Lothar Klaic (talk) 02:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I only know faggotry to mean male homosexuality such as Issa Atta. What is the non-slang equivalent? Tang Weijun (talk) 02:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You got it right: "male homosexuality" is the non-slang equivalent. In wikipedia we separate slang-relelated articles from non-slang ones, for a number of reasons. Lothar Klaic (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

In any case, dismayed though you may be that faggotry doesn't link to homosexuality, niggers doesn't link to Black people, and popery doesn't link to Catholicism, it ain't gonna change. garik (talk) 13:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Why are there no faggot pictures?

Most articles have a relevant picture at the top. A faggot model car is really not the same as a picture of a faggot. Could someone replace the car with a picture of a faggot? Thanks!70.176.239.63 (talk) 09:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Your "humor" isn't appreciated here. PureRED (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

Blacklisted Links Found on Faggot (slang)

Cyberbot II has detected links on Faggot (slang) which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/should_south_park_get_away_with_using_the_f-word

  Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Faggot (slang). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080725085424/http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/current/archive/2007/12/19/driven-by-desire-and-her-fag-bug.aspx to http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/current/archive/2007/12/19/driven-by-desire-and-her-fag-bug.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Faggot (slang). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111105154626/http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article to http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091107225343/http://www.thrfeed.com:80/2009/11/glaad-protests-south-park-fbomb-episode.html to http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/11/glaad-protests-south-park-fbomb-episode.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)