Conservapedia:Articles for deletion

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 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? 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. 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

RobS 17:17, 12 May 2007

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)
• Keep as the genus name. --Tim (CPAdmin1)^talk 00:14, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
• Keep --Sulgran 17:08, 13 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)
• Delete. DanH 19:15, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
• Merge relevant material into homo sapiens and change this page to a redirect to that page. 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. RobS 20:45, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

• Merge as per Philip, then Delete the remainder. Karajou 20:36, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Comments

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. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 20:42, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

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. Philip J. Rayment 23:11, 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? --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 00:11, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Kwai nyu rugby

Even Wikipedia deleted this as non-notable. DanH 23:32, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Delete

DanH 23:33, 12 May 2007 (EDT) --Tim (CPAdmin1)^talk 00:14, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Delete. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 03:27, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Kept

• Conservapedia:Articles for deletion/Keep

Deleted

• Conservapedia:Articles for deletion/Delete