Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celtophobia (2nd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Celtophobia
Highly POV, unsourced, a neologism, original research, seems to exist because this site englandism.com calls for it to be created (scroll down to Expanding Global Knowledge). It has been deleted before Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celtophobia. There are also comments on Talk:Celtophobia. As far as I can tell this article has not been for deletion review and so was not undeleted. Alun 18:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as above. Rhion 19:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and previous AFD. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, nonsense & previous decision. Pavel Vozenilek 20:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It is a concept, and perfectly deserving of its own article. I won't disagree that the current article is bad though. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- This is just asking to create "XYZ-phobia" article for every nation or large group of people. If it does not exist yet it will get promptly invented here. Pavel Vozenilek 02:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- How do we verify it when it is made up in a fit of pique? Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so a simple definition is not enough. Alun 08:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Bah! Celtophobia ain't a made "up word", and besides, even if it were, the rules by which it is formed are so obvious that it is just a short-hand way of writing a more complicated title. The topic is valid. We have topics like Polonophobia, and if someone wants to write about Brazilophobia then they should be able to. I'm sick of this deletionist attitute on some part of the wiki community. You can have articles on amateur soccer players and college squash players, but not on a topic like this where shelves and shelves of books have been written. This particular article as it stands is but the potential material is limitless - it's a potential FA ;) . Deleting it is little better than vandalism guys. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 09:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- A google of celtophobia produces nothing that can be used for verifiability. All it gives are some lists of phobias,[1] some articles where the word is used to mean a general racism against celts,[2] and some Hungarian sites (it seems to be an unrelated Hungarian word or name!). The top scorer is the wikipedia article, and that has only existed for a few weeks/months. The other site that comes up is the site refered to above, which calls for the creation of this article, apparently for no other reason than as revenge for the anglophobia article. These sites are all very well for the purposes of definition, but wikipedia is not a dictionary. Unless the contents of the article can be properly verified, then all that can stand is the definition, which seems to be accurate. In that case the correct place for this word is in wiktionary. As for deletionism, I have never nominated an article for deletion before, but it must be true that there are a plethora of pointless articles on wikipedia. I note that polonophobia has a long bibliography, and a google search gives much more material for verifiability.[3] Alun 10:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I see Calgacus' point though: whatever the name something like "Celtophobia" certainly exists. I have had some nasty experiences in England myself, but I've never been clear whether it was just anti-Welsh or more generally anti-Celt and in the circumstances it wasn't really feasible to enquire. There could be room for a decent article here, but deleting the current article wouldn't stop anybody creating a decent one later on. Rhion 15:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- For sure it's a word that has been used, but it's not in either of the online dictionaries I have checked. It's the viability of producing a verifiable, neutral and no original research article I think is the problem, not a definition of it's meaning. It's not the scope of an encyclopedia to be a dictionary, defining the meaning is easy. But is there enough material out there to produce anything other than a stub article? Without verifiable material then it is not a viable article. At the moment it's just a lot of POV, none of which is verified and the article contradicts itself anyway. I can't see it getting any better. Just because something is a concept doesn't automatically qualify it for an article. Just because there are British people who are anti-Welsh or anti-Irish and French people who are anti-Breton (presumably) doesn't necessarily qualify them as Celtophobes. Alun 15:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not getting the verifiability stuff. Any advanced English speaker knows the word is a compound and can work out what it means. And as no-one can possibly deny that prejudice against "Celts" has existed and to a certain extent still exists, the article is fair game. That for me is the bottom line. I hope someone will reopen the article in future, and write something "verifiable". - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- You seem to be under the impression that verifiability is the same as definition. Have a look at anglophobia, they are struggling there.Football hooliganism and devolution are just two examples given. Neither of these are Anglophobia, and neither are verifiable as such. How about football-opponent-o-phobia as you think all compound phobias that have a meaning are fair game. The problem is that the Celts are not a discreet ethnic group or nation, so Celtophobia is almost impossible to identify and therefore verify. You cannot claim that every anti-Scottish or anti-Welsh event is Celtophobia, prejudice against one celtic nation is not necessarily a bias against all. Alun 03:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, I never claimed that bias against one "celtic" nation is celtophobia, did I? So let's not be arguing over something irrelevant. Moreover, while the status Celts have as one nation may be disputed, the Scots, Irish and Welsh have been linked with the same "scientific origin" (i.e. common language) since at least the 18th century, and thus have been able to generate collective prejudice. They also share, BTW, the status of the non-English of the British Isles, which implies some kind of identity since the 12th century, when the Normano-Angevin monarch of England had a finger in every part of it. While I admire "football-opponent-o-phobia" as a nice attempt at reductio ad absurdum, it isn't very relevant, since the first part of the compound is not Greek (nor even Latin), football-opponent is itself an English compound, and football-opponent is not an ethnic group, nor any like group - i.e. nationality, racial group, gender group, disability group - that is likely to be subject to the prejudice (etc) that experience of the suffix -phobia tells any advanced English speaker the suffix -phobia would designate. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 10:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think you missed my point. First my point about football is that agression against English football fans was used in Anglophobia as an example, but agression against supporters of opposing fans is not necessarily relevant to their nationality, your comment about football-opponent-o-phobia is the point as I am making. It was an example of how difficult it is to produce good examples, even with something as well accepted as Anglophobia. Secondly the point about bias against one celtic nation is that in order to get good verifiable sources on Celtophobia one has to find examples of bias against all celtic nations, and the source would have to explicitly claim that this was Celtophobic, bias against a single Celtic nation would not be enough for it to constitute a source for Celtophobia. Your grouping together of some of the Celtic nations does not constitute evidence for Celtophobia, and where do the Bretons figure? If you are arguing that Celtophobia applies to these nations because they are the non-English nations of the British Isles, I would argue that this is xenophobia, because they are disliked because of what they are not (ie they are not English), rather than Celtophobia, which would ba a dislike of them because they are Celts. The Normans oppressed everyone, including the English, by the way, and I think 12th century Normans would themselves identify as non-English inhabitants of the British Isles. You don't seem to be addressing my point about verifiability. Alun 12:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Wobble/Alun, what's all this stuff about "bias against one celtic nation is that in order to get good verifiable sources on Celtophobia"? This doesn't seem like an appropriate argument addressed at me, as I haven't been saying the opposite. Anyways, there are lots of books about Celtophobia. Perhaps this is just more obvious to me, having read them. One that comes to mind is the rather good Celtic Identity and the British Image , by Murray Pittock. It's not hard to read Celtophobia in action either, just pick up a few history books written in England (or "Lowland Scotland" for instance) dating from the 19th century, or 50 decades before and after, from your local 2nd hand dealer. Or consider John Pinkerton. This is Celtophobia, addressed against people identified by the author as Celts. Alun, it is not up to me to deal with the Bretons. In British insular culture they are largely irrelevant, just consider the term "Celtic fringe", perhaps itself a moderate example of (British) "celtophobia". Your problem with this article seems to be the content, rather than the topic. Perhaps someone will come along and write decent content, and he won't need to deal then with any of this "verifiability" stuff which you're so concerned with.
- You seem not to understand the proper meaning of the word Celtophobia, though you claim its meaning should be obvious. You appear to be suggesting that it is Celtophobic to dislike only some Celts (eg British Celts), but Celtophobia must include a dislike of all Celts and things Celtic simultaneously. If you exclude Bretons from the list, then it is not Celtophobia, is it? And it is a cop out to evade an answer about Bretons with it is not up to me, because you have chosen to defend the article, so I would suggest that it is indeed up to you. You are talking about Norman/English expansionism, subjugation, cultural domination and ultimately assimilation; and applying an innapropriate label, this did not happen because these people were Celts (as Celtophobia would have it), but because they happened to be in the way, it would have happened to whoever was there, irrespective of whether they were Celts or not. The motivation was a good old fassioned land grab, you are choosing to interpret it as Celtophobia. Yes, you are spot on, my problem is exactly with content, which is what I said right at the start, it is unverifiable and a simple definition is not good enough as this is not a dictionary. It's also worth taking a look at -phob-. The OED online does not have a listing for this phobia, so that's three dictionaries I've checked. Alun 00:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, are you now defining the word? It has to include Bretons does it; well, I'm sure it does, in the same way "celtic fringe" includes Britanny. Please do a little reading too of what I've written. Just because a few dictionaries don't have it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and just because you've not done any reading, doesn't mean that this article has to be a dicdef. Check google books, it has 6 hits. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 07:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think the 12th century is a bit of a red herring - there was no real concept of "Celt" as such at that time, and as Alun says the Normans didn't really care who owned the land if they wanted it. However there is, as Calgacus says, plenty of 19th century material aimed at Celts in general rather than a specific variety of Celt for a fully verifiable article, though whether the appropriate title would be "Celtophobia" or something else is another matter. It's an interesting subject which should be covered by Wikipedia. Rhion 11:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- You make a good point, I don't think it is necessarily celtophobia as much as xenophobia. The 19th century was full of misunderstandings/deliberate distortions of Darwin's model for natural selection. These people believed they were dominant because they were superior, and believed that natural selection proved this. This is what led to vile concepts such as eugenics and of course ultimately to National Socialism and the final solution. It's as much the product of imperialism and and political dominance as anything else. The motivation was to define themselves as superior to everybody, not just the Celts, this is what led to things like apartheid for example, and I bet you can find many instances regarding India as well. Alun 05:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think the 12th century is a bit of a red herring - there was no real concept of "Celt" as such at that time, and as Alun says the Normans didn't really care who owned the land if they wanted it. However there is, as Calgacus says, plenty of 19th century material aimed at Celts in general rather than a specific variety of Celt for a fully verifiable article, though whether the appropriate title would be "Celtophobia" or something else is another matter. It's an interesting subject which should be covered by Wikipedia. Rhion 11:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, are you now defining the word? It has to include Bretons does it; well, I'm sure it does, in the same way "celtic fringe" includes Britanny. Please do a little reading too of what I've written. Just because a few dictionaries don't have it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and just because you've not done any reading, doesn't mean that this article has to be a dicdef. Check google books, it has 6 hits. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 07:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- You seem not to understand the proper meaning of the word Celtophobia, though you claim its meaning should be obvious. You appear to be suggesting that it is Celtophobic to dislike only some Celts (eg British Celts), but Celtophobia must include a dislike of all Celts and things Celtic simultaneously. If you exclude Bretons from the list, then it is not Celtophobia, is it? And it is a cop out to evade an answer about Bretons with it is not up to me, because you have chosen to defend the article, so I would suggest that it is indeed up to you. You are talking about Norman/English expansionism, subjugation, cultural domination and ultimately assimilation; and applying an innapropriate label, this did not happen because these people were Celts (as Celtophobia would have it), but because they happened to be in the way, it would have happened to whoever was there, irrespective of whether they were Celts or not. The motivation was a good old fassioned land grab, you are choosing to interpret it as Celtophobia. Yes, you are spot on, my problem is exactly with content, which is what I said right at the start, it is unverifiable and a simple definition is not good enough as this is not a dictionary. It's also worth taking a look at -phob-. The OED online does not have a listing for this phobia, so that's three dictionaries I've checked. Alun 00:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Wobble/Alun, what's all this stuff about "bias against one celtic nation is that in order to get good verifiable sources on Celtophobia"? This doesn't seem like an appropriate argument addressed at me, as I haven't been saying the opposite. Anyways, there are lots of books about Celtophobia. Perhaps this is just more obvious to me, having read them. One that comes to mind is the rather good Celtic Identity and the British Image , by Murray Pittock. It's not hard to read Celtophobia in action either, just pick up a few history books written in England (or "Lowland Scotland" for instance) dating from the 19th century, or 50 decades before and after, from your local 2nd hand dealer. Or consider John Pinkerton. This is Celtophobia, addressed against people identified by the author as Celts. Alun, it is not up to me to deal with the Bretons. In British insular culture they are largely irrelevant, just consider the term "Celtic fringe", perhaps itself a moderate example of (British) "celtophobia". Your problem with this article seems to be the content, rather than the topic. Perhaps someone will come along and write decent content, and he won't need to deal then with any of this "verifiability" stuff which you're so concerned with.
- I think you missed my point. First my point about football is that agression against English football fans was used in Anglophobia as an example, but agression against supporters of opposing fans is not necessarily relevant to their nationality, your comment about football-opponent-o-phobia is the point as I am making. It was an example of how difficult it is to produce good examples, even with something as well accepted as Anglophobia. Secondly the point about bias against one celtic nation is that in order to get good verifiable sources on Celtophobia one has to find examples of bias against all celtic nations, and the source would have to explicitly claim that this was Celtophobic, bias against a single Celtic nation would not be enough for it to constitute a source for Celtophobia. Your grouping together of some of the Celtic nations does not constitute evidence for Celtophobia, and where do the Bretons figure? If you are arguing that Celtophobia applies to these nations because they are the non-English nations of the British Isles, I would argue that this is xenophobia, because they are disliked because of what they are not (ie they are not English), rather than Celtophobia, which would ba a dislike of them because they are Celts. The Normans oppressed everyone, including the English, by the way, and I think 12th century Normans would themselves identify as non-English inhabitants of the British Isles. You don't seem to be addressing my point about verifiability. Alun 12:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, I never claimed that bias against one "celtic" nation is celtophobia, did I? So let's not be arguing over something irrelevant. Moreover, while the status Celts have as one nation may be disputed, the Scots, Irish and Welsh have been linked with the same "scientific origin" (i.e. common language) since at least the 18th century, and thus have been able to generate collective prejudice. They also share, BTW, the status of the non-English of the British Isles, which implies some kind of identity since the 12th century, when the Normano-Angevin monarch of England had a finger in every part of it. While I admire "football-opponent-o-phobia" as a nice attempt at reductio ad absurdum, it isn't very relevant, since the first part of the compound is not Greek (nor even Latin), football-opponent is itself an English compound, and football-opponent is not an ethnic group, nor any like group - i.e. nationality, racial group, gender group, disability group - that is likely to be subject to the prejudice (etc) that experience of the suffix -phobia tells any advanced English speaker the suffix -phobia would designate. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 10:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- You seem to be under the impression that verifiability is the same as definition. Have a look at anglophobia, they are struggling there.Football hooliganism and devolution are just two examples given. Neither of these are Anglophobia, and neither are verifiable as such. How about football-opponent-o-phobia as you think all compound phobias that have a meaning are fair game. The problem is that the Celts are not a discreet ethnic group or nation, so Celtophobia is almost impossible to identify and therefore verify. You cannot claim that every anti-Scottish or anti-Welsh event is Celtophobia, prejudice against one celtic nation is not necessarily a bias against all. Alun 03:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not getting the verifiability stuff. Any advanced English speaker knows the word is a compound and can work out what it means. And as no-one can possibly deny that prejudice against "Celts" has existed and to a certain extent still exists, the article is fair game. That for me is the bottom line. I hope someone will reopen the article in future, and write something "verifiable". - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- For sure it's a word that has been used, but it's not in either of the online dictionaries I have checked. It's the viability of producing a verifiable, neutral and no original research article I think is the problem, not a definition of it's meaning. It's not the scope of an encyclopedia to be a dictionary, defining the meaning is easy. But is there enough material out there to produce anything other than a stub article? Without verifiable material then it is not a viable article. At the moment it's just a lot of POV, none of which is verified and the article contradicts itself anyway. I can't see it getting any better. Just because something is a concept doesn't automatically qualify it for an article. Just because there are British people who are anti-Welsh or anti-Irish and French people who are anti-Breton (presumably) doesn't necessarily qualify them as Celtophobes. Alun 15:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I see Calgacus' point though: whatever the name something like "Celtophobia" certainly exists. I have had some nasty experiences in England myself, but I've never been clear whether it was just anti-Welsh or more generally anti-Celt and in the circumstances it wasn't really feasible to enquire. There could be room for a decent article here, but deleting the current article wouldn't stop anybody creating a decent one later on. Rhion 15:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- A google of celtophobia produces nothing that can be used for verifiability. All it gives are some lists of phobias,[1] some articles where the word is used to mean a general racism against celts,[2] and some Hungarian sites (it seems to be an unrelated Hungarian word or name!). The top scorer is the wikipedia article, and that has only existed for a few weeks/months. The other site that comes up is the site refered to above, which calls for the creation of this article, apparently for no other reason than as revenge for the anglophobia article. These sites are all very well for the purposes of definition, but wikipedia is not a dictionary. Unless the contents of the article can be properly verified, then all that can stand is the definition, which seems to be accurate. In that case the correct place for this word is in wiktionary. As for deletionism, I have never nominated an article for deletion before, but it must be true that there are a plethora of pointless articles on wikipedia. I note that polonophobia has a long bibliography, and a google search gives much more material for verifiability.[3] Alun 10:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Bah! Celtophobia ain't a made "up word", and besides, even if it were, the rules by which it is formed are so obvious that it is just a short-hand way of writing a more complicated title. The topic is valid. We have topics like Polonophobia, and if someone wants to write about Brazilophobia then they should be able to. I'm sick of this deletionist attitute on some part of the wiki community. You can have articles on amateur soccer players and college squash players, but not on a topic like this where shelves and shelves of books have been written. This particular article as it stands is but the potential material is limitless - it's a potential FA ;) . Deleting it is little better than vandalism guys. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 09:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. {{db-repost}}--Fuhghettaboutit 22:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. per Fughettaboutit. Cool3 12:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. db-repost: CSD G4 per Fughettaboutit. --Starionwolf 03:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Caveat lector 03:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete this was already up for AfD abd delete was the vote, also it appears to be own research Fabhcún 18:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
