Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 8:
Line 8: − == [[Homo]]==+ − *(1) factually incorrect; this ''is not'' a definition of the word, "homo"; Gr. "homo" simply means "same". − :::Nope, that's wrong. I don't know Greek, but in English, the American Heritage Dictionary (online) gives three entries for "homo." − ::::The ''first entry'' for [http://www.bartleby.com/61/56/H0255600.html homo] is "Noun: A member of the genus Homo, which includes the extinct and extant species of humans." − ::::The [[http://www.bartleby.com/61/57/H0255700.html second entry]] is "''Offensive Slang'' Used as a disparaging term for a gay man or lesbian." − ::::The entry for the ''prefix'' (not word) [http://www.bartleby.com/61/58/H0255800.html homo-] is, indeed, "same." − ::::I'd like to make a request: due diligence really requires checking a dictionary before saying what a word "means," if it's an important element of a debate. (The dictionary is ''prima facie'' correct. If the dictionary is wrong, fine, but in that case one should both state what the dictionary says and then explain why it's wrong.) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 12 May 2007 (EDT) − :::::Dictionaries ''do not'' give definitions, they give usage. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:15, 12 May 2007 (EDT) − ::::::What dictionaries give ''is'' indeed a definition. It sets boundaries for a meaning of a word. You can talk about whether it is a correct or an incorrect definition, but it's a definition. Dictionaries do, as you say, claim only to document the meaning of the word ''as it is currently used'' by most educated people. However, one of the reasons I like the AHD is that in cases where usage is uncertain or controversial, the definition or definitions are followed by a paragraph or two summarizing the opinions of their usage panel as to how it ''ought'' to be used. There's no such paragraph here, so they've judged this is not a term where the usage is disputed. − ::::::But in any case I'm not sure what your point is. What authority do you suggest we should use for the meaning of words? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:10, 12 May 2007 (EDT) − − ::::::P. S. "homo" may mean "same" in Greek, as in homogenized, etc. but surely it means "man" in Latin, as in "Ecce Homo!" and the French ''homme'' and, well, the English ''human.'' [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:28, 12 May 2007 (EDT) − − *(2) this misuse of the term appears to be a end run around the various [[evolution]] amd [[homosexuality]] articles − − [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:17, 12 May 2007 − ===Decision === − === Background === − ===Keep === − *'''Keep.''' Rewrite if necessary to include whichever dictionary meanings are relevant. Edit if necessary to attain whatever sort of balance of viewpoints Conservapedia deems appropriate. Protect if (and only if) necessary to prevent abuse. It may or may not have been created in bad faith, but it's a legitimate entry. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 12 May 2007 (EDT) − *'''Keep''' as the genus name. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim <small>(CPAdmin1)</small>]]<sup>[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]</sup> 00:14, 13 May 2007 (EDT) − *'''Keep''' --[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 17:08, 13 May 2007 (EDT) − − ===Delete === − *'''Delete.''' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:17, 12 May 2007 (EDT) − *'''Delete.''' --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 17:51, 12 May 2007 (EDT) − *'''Delete.''' [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 17:55, 12 May 2007 (EDT) − *'''Delete.''' [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:15, 12 May 2007 (EDT) − *'''Merge''' relevant material into [[homo sapiens]] and change this page to a redirect to that page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:59, 12 May 2007 (EDT) − :*It seems there is a difference of opinion on the truth; the current [[Homo sapiens]] article twice says "humans have been around in anatomically modern form for approximately 130,000 years". This article says "only the last 80,000 years or so". Given that at the core of this dispute is much of what the definition of facts and truth is, granting the evolutionists this unfair advantage of not having to state '''''anything''''' of a factual or reliable nature, while at the same time granting the ability to disclaim anything they claim, yet holding creationists ''to a different'' standard, is not acceptable. This is particularly important, given at root we are discussing the methods used to discern factual knowledge. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:45, 13 May 2007 (EDT) − *'''Merge''' as per Philip, then '''Delete''' the remainder. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:36, 12 May 2007 (EDT) − − === Comments === − [[Category:Articles for deletion]] − − Brian and Philip....did you not see the other article on Homosexuality? We are not talking about doing away with anything other than this redundant article, misnamed. Of course anything in the present example, not included there, would be merged. --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 20:42, 12 May 2007 (EDT) − − − − *Philip, make it so. The point is, it is a stub, and would be better off incorporated into those existing articles. I just assumed, wrongly I guess, that everyone would understand you save the relevant parts, and get rid of the rest. And this isn't even my nomination to delete! Everyone is so picky over things that should be a given. Nothing is ever easy here, is it? --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 00:11, 13 May 2007 (EDT) − :I would be for a '''merge''', too. However, there is very little to merge because what we see is evolutionists at odds with themselves, or weaseling away from being pinned down on any relevent "facts". The mainspace "homo" should be little more than a wikitionary version of the Greek term, and perhaps something of a disamibiguation page. What is clear, however, is the creation of this page not only was an end run around several other articles, it changes the rules of debate, because it does not hold to same positions articulated elsewhere in the evolutionist viewpoint while at the same time attacking and impugning creationism with alleged "scientific evidence". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:21, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Conservapedia:Articles for deletion (view source)
Revision as of 10:34, May 19, 2007
, 10:34, May 19, 2007→[[Homo]]: Move discussion into a template, for easier disposition
=Current discussions=
=Current discussions=
<!-- new listings on top please -->
<!-- new listings on top please -->
{{Conservapedia:AFD Homo}}
:Apart from a reference in the first sentence, what does the [[Homo]] article have to do with homosexuality? Most of [[Homo]] is actually talking about [[homo sapiens]], which is why I'm suggesting merging the relevant parts of this to that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:11, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
==[["Same-sex marriage"]]==
==[["Same-sex marriage"]]==