Talk:Fag bomb

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fag bomb article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 February 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Military history: Technology / Weaponry

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Untitled

Feel free to expand this article; I'm in the midst of wedding preparations, and can't stick around to "gloss it up" past stub form. Shem^(talk) 19:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Distinctly dubious about the encylopaedic worth of this. What's the importance of some random graffiti? --Khendon 19:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because the AP yanked the photo from circulation; again, I hadn't had time to explain it yet. To the LGBT community, it was quite significant. If you think it not important, put it up for a VfD, and we'll see if it survives. Shem^(talk) 21:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For what's its worth (and, in keeping with the US military's spirit), I pre-emptively express support for keeping this article, as I remember reading of the controversy in the NYT (which article I will work to find somewhere free). Xoloz 05:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be silly to put it up for VfD before I've understood. Can I ask; do you think anybody will think about this again in, say, five years time; or is it just a passing news item? --Khendon 07:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, speaking as trained (if somewhat dumb) historian, wars often serve as lenses through which social historians reflect on the tensions in a society. The "fag bomb" is very likely to deserve mention in any account of the war's homefront perception, especially given that a major theme in American political science of the early 21st century seems to be the stark, geographically-pronounced, relatively equal contrast between "red America" and "blue America." Besides the GLBT community, the "fag bomb" made more press (and raised more alarm) among liberal Northeasterners, and actually received support from some midwesterners and Southerners -- and I know because I was living in "red America" at the time. So yes, the incident is likely to be recalled as a small indicator of a big cultural difference. Xoloz 15:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Canada and I support it! --75.155.135.134 (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Not up to our standards" "Shouldn't have got through" more like oppression on our freedom of speech... it's things like this that NEED to be shown 24.22.213.167 (talk) 08:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

See the AfD discussion as a first stop to look for sourcing. Sportfan5000 (talk) 10:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has less than zero to do with homosexuality

The message was an insult, not against gays but against jihadists. The use of the word “fag” was not meant to literally imply that the jihadists were LGBT; it was just a general-purpose insult, which has long since become the primary usage of the word “fag”. The alphabet people were concerned that bigots would use it to justify discrimination against gays (either in the military or in society at large), and that is why they essentially made it about them. Originally it wasn’t about them at all. 2600:1016:B127:26E0:D099:9044:B93F:D3BC (talk) 15:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]