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)

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". RobS 11:21, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

"Same-sex marriage"

This is nonsense. It is little more than Conservapedia being used to further the gay agenda. Even the entry at Marriage, which likewise appears written to further the gay agenda, states, "In the U.S. there are over a thousand federal benefits to marriage but none to same-sex civil partnerships", thus proving such an entity does not exist. IOW, there is no such thing as "gay marraige", "same sex marriage", etc. It is a contradiction in terms, and simply is using Conservapedia as a platform to gain recognition or acceptance of the contradiction as a norm. RobS 11:57, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

So, whether or not you agree with it, closing your eyes won't make same-sex marriage go away. It's important to note the movement's progress, which is all the article currently does. And while you may consider the phrase oxymoronic, discussion on the talk page, common parlance, and accepted definitions all seem to prove to the contrary. Please don't take a losing talk-page battle to AFD out of spite.-Speaker 12:03, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

"Common parlance" among gay activists vs a few millenium of recorded history is not much of a match. RobS 13:07, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Apparently this makes you very angry. Why is that? But the fact is that things change: the meaning of the word has changed, despite the fact that the law hasn't caught up yet. Also, I think it's real classy that, since you lost the talk page war AND the AFD war, you decided to "move" the article in a way to express your disdain. Real classy.-Speaker 10:56, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

The line that I would take is that "marriage" is defined by God to be a husband and a wife. If that is correct, then no amount of legislation, court decisions, or popular usage are a high enough authority to override God. Of course many people, presumably including you, will disagree that any God did any such thing, but the point is that the issue is one of who is right about God, the issue is not one of what popular or current usage is. Philip J. Rayment 11:30, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

I think you're confusing "marriage" with "holy matrimony." God didn't say anything about my wife and I needing to sign pieces of paper to be filed at the Vital Records office, but that's "marriage" as far as the civil authorities are concerned. File the papers and you're married, don't file them and you're not married. If you want to file jointly when it comes time to render unto the Department of Revenue, that is.

But in any case, if there is, say, a style sheet or conservative usage guide that calls for placing the words "same-sex marriage" within quotation marks that certainly should be mentioned in the article, and it would be a good justification for using quotation marks that way throughout the article. Or if Conservapedia just wants to do it because the phrase is considered invalid, that should be noted, too. I don't see how that argues for deleting the article, however. Dpbsmith 11:53, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

P. S. "Marriage" just means "joining." Sailors "marry" ropes and chefs "marry" flavors... Dpbsmith 11:55, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Keep

• Speaker 12:04, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Delete

• RobS 11:57, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Kept

• Conservapedia:Articles for deletion/Keep

Deleted

• Conservapedia:Articles for deletion/Delete