Talk:Leviticus: Faggot

Requested move 15 January 2015

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

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Leviticus (song) → Leviticus: Faggot – "Leviticus: Faggot" is the actual name of the song but it is on the title blacklist, so I can't move it myself.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 05:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  Oppose , it is not surprising that it is on the title blacklist. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX for prejudice and WP's action is in proportion to action taken elsewhere. The song was widely refused to air without edits.  Billboard, for instance, used the title 'Leviticus' in its headline title[1] WP has done likewise.  "Faggot" is a pejorative, value laden label and should not be used.  Does the article have the notability to remain in Wikipedia?  It is the creation of one editor[2].  GregKaye 07:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * agree, as below, that this case is not a soapbox issue. GregKaye 08:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the point here. This is far from a soapbox issue; there is an entire Category:LGBT-related songs. Besides, the song is a charted single, Wikipedia is not censored; and despite the title, the song is actually pro-LGBT (Meshell Ndegeocello is bisexual herself). And you state that the article is the creation of one editor...um, is there a way for more than one editor to create an article now?  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 07:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support if the song is actually pro-gay. "Faggot" is not always an insult, although it's been used to attack others. There is Faggots (novel), written by a gay writer/activist. --George Ho (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * When I was at school a faggot was a tied bundle of wooden sticks, or occasionally a Lancashire food item. I weary of words becoming yet another slang word for something sexual and thus becoming unusable in their old proper meanings. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. The song should be at the title of the song. It's not WPs job to censure, comment, opine or otherwise on the title. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

'Commit' suicide
Suicide isn't a criminal offence. One doesn't 'commit' it. The word's usage is also considered stigmatizing because of its association with 'sin'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.74.247 (talk) 11:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this is an issue you have with the use of "commit suicide" on Wikipedia as a whole: best to take it up at Talk:Suicide. There are plenty of other instances of this on here, and targeting one use of it isn't going to accomplish what I think your issue with the wording is. Ask a question there, like "Should we stop using 'commit suicide'?" Personally, I don't think most people think of "commit" in this sense as being akin to committing a crime. In its simplest, dictionary definition, "commit" means to "perpetrate or carry out". It is a connotation that "crime" follows said word. Again, the best place would be the suicide article talk page.  Ss  112   16:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. I'll do just that when I get the chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.194.101 (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)