Revision as of 23:10, May 12, 2007

Archives: 01

When this page gets too big, we can archive it. Once a month is probably good enough.

Current discussions

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 homo is "Noun: A member of the genus Homo, which includes the extinct and extant species of humans."

The [second entry] is "Offensive Slang Used as a disparaging term for a gay man or lesbian."

The entry for the prefix (not word) 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.) Dpbsmith 18:11, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Dictionaries do not give definitions, they give usage. RobS 18:15, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

What dictionaries give is indeed a definition. It is, as you say, a definition of the word as it is currently used by most people. However, one of the reasons I like the AHD is that in cases where usage is uncertain or controversial, it's followed by a paragraph or so 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? Dpbsmith 19:10, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

(2) this misuse of the term appears to be a end run around the various evolution amd homosexuality articles

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. Dpbsmith 18:11, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Delete

Delete. RobS 17:17, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Delete. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 17:51, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Delete. CPWebmaster 17:55, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Comments

Kept

Conservapedia:Articles for deletion/Keep

Deleted

Conservapedia:Articles for deletion/Delete

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 ::::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 is, as you say, a definition of the word ''as it is currently used'' by most people. However, one of the reasons I like the AHD is that in cases where usage is uncertain or controversial, it's followed by a paragraph or so 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)
 *(2) this misuse of the term appears to be a end run around the various [[evolution]] amd [[homosexuality]] articles

Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia:Articles for deletion"