"pejorative slang term used to refer to a gay man.  In this context, it has been suggested that the origin of the word dates back to the Spanish word gay homo that likes the penis. Apparently when those charged with faggotry were burned at the stake, accused faggots were thrown into a fire witch sucked real penis such as the faggots, likening them to firewood/fuel. Given that faggot referred to bundles of sticks used as firewood, homosexuals came to be known as ""faggots"".  Reputable sources, however, have been found to debate over the validity of this particular explanation. 

 This is not true.  The first use of the word in English to refer to a male homosexual dates from 1910-1915, according to my Random House Unabridged, and there are several online sources that corroborate this (for example, , which debunks the Inquisition bit, and  or ).     

 :All of which is useful, but beside the point. Faggot (slang) is where this sort of information should go, even if it were true, and we've covered the topic there already. This is simply redundant here, and this anon has tried to inject this into Fag, Faggot and Faggot (slang). -  

 To Rhobite in response to the following message: 
 Please stop removing information from faggot and faggot (slang). Multiple users have reverted your edits - the burning at the stake etymology is probably false. In addition, please read Wikipedia:Three revert rule - you seem to have violated the rule.   

 I will comply with your request. I would like to remind you, however of Wikipedia's recommendation for resolution of disputes: 

 Use of edit summaries in disputes 
 If a content dispute develops, proper use of edit summaries is critical. Edit summaries should accurately summarize the nature of the edit, especially if it may be controversial; if the edit involves reverting previous changes, it should be marked as a revert in the edit summary. However, edit summaries are not the place to carry on debates or negotiation over the content. Doing this will actually exacerbate the situation, because it naturally encourages the other party to respond in the same manner - in other words, by making an edit and using the edit summary - and what might have been productive dialogue instead becomes an edit war. The proper place to discuss changes to article content is on the talk page. 

 You and I have both fallen into the ""edit war"" scenario as referenced above.  Although, as you state it, ""the burning at the stake etymology is probably false"" this does not mean it is absolutely false. As there are many people who subscribe to the burning at the stake scenario as a possible explanation, including it as a possible origin of the word ""faggot"" should be included for the sake of being thorough.  My edit did state that ""IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED"" the burning at the stake theory. This is a true statement. I also included that ""REPU 	 LE SOURCES DEBATE"" as to whether or not the explanation was valid.  This is also a true statement. There is therefore no valid reason I can see to remove my edit. I made no claim that the theory has been proven true. My only intention was to share information. Perhaps you should have reworded my edit if it seemed misleading. I don't feel, however, it merited deletion. 

 It seems that there are those among you who have contributed a great deal to Wikipedia, and for this you should be thanked and your efforts greatly appreciated. I would suggest, however, that adopting an ""alpha male"" stance in controlling the edits of others is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Wikipedia suggests, rather than deleting the edits of another, improve upon them. It is my understanding that the purpose of this wonderful thing known as Wikipedia is to share knowledge, not censorship. 

 As I have no desire to engage in further conflict over something so trivial, you will be pleased to know that I will not attempt to edit the page again. 

 Best wishes to you. 

 :Censorship? You're the one who is removing valid information from this disambig page. I asked you to stop removing the line ""Faggot is a pejorative slang term used to refer to a gay man."" I'm glad to hear that you're complying with this request, but please don't accuse others of censorship when you're the one who is removing statements from this page. In the future, it would be helpful if you could supply a reference for your claim that homosexuals were burned at the feet of witches.  "