Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moonbat

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 no consensus, keep. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moonbat

dicdef and / or neoligism. --Ianb 10:10, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Dictdef, but not a neologism. It's a derived dictdef from an external site. Looks nice, but I suspect it's not ours. Geogre 13:15, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:06, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. How is that not a neologism? The term was coined by some random blogger and there's no consistency of usage in a google search. The so-called "barking moonbat early warning system" is just a political weblog at www.barking-moonbat.com. --Ardonik 08:21, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Point of information: "barking moonbat" is a pejorative that goes back to a British comedian of the 1960's or 1970's. In other words, it's not a neologism anymore. It was a reference to a loony. That doesn't mean that its worthwhile, but the term goes back a ways in British slang. Geogre 13:13, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I honestly did not know that. Maybe we should start a section on slang in British English and add that information there? --Ardonik 17:03, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Dic Def'. Obscure term used by a few bloggers.--JK the unwise 12:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef/neologism. Frankly, I thought it was useful to be able to look it up here, at a trusted site. When it comes to neologisms, this site has the credibility I look for when seeking the definition or usage for a particular neologism. But if we're going to respect the policy that other, wiser people set, we should delete this entry. So sad.... wikidyermaker 04:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC).

• Do not delete! It is used by some of the most widely-read conservative blogs around, and I think I've even seen it used in Wall Street Journal articles at this point. Deleting "moonbat" should immediately imply deleting "wingnut", since they are equivalent insults for the opposite sides of the political spectrum. (Annon user: 157.253.57.75)

• Sorry I'm new here. I didn't even know there was an issue on the term. It is used nonstop on the radio to mean "flaming lib[eral]". I have never heard the term "Idiotarian"; I think that line should read "...Feminazi and Flaming Lib" to be accurate. And the clause should have "but", not "and".

Google result seem pretty consistent to me. Flaming Lib. It is an exact synonym. Before we heard "moonbat", we were all using "flaming lib" as the default term.

• PS to the prior poster: "wingnut" carries no political meaning. It just means a nut. Someone "far out" ("in an -ism"), similar to the original definition of "moonbat" listed here. That said, that definition is OLD - moonbat definited means "flaming lib" in 99.9% of all references you hear these days. To apply it to any ole extremist would be like claiming that "Feminazi" could be similar ambiguous. (Annon User: 66.6.190.33)

• I agree - not at all obscure now.

Should reword, something along the lines of " 'extremist (of any persuasion)' when coined, but almost entirely used for 'Left extremist' now; cf "flaming lib", "peacenik" or in some cases "hippie" or "moon child".(Annon User:66.6.187.116)

Please sign your votes with 4 tiles like this ~~~~.--JK the unwise 07:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. TFox, 2005-08-22

• Keep. Jebur 17:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. People will run across this term and, wondering what it is, will turn to Wikipedia. If must delete, then at least merge into George Monbiot. However, this term has enough content (about origin) and enough references to justify being a separate article now. WpZurp 20:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep. It is largely a dicdef but it has potential, and it would unbalance (and render POV) the George Monbiot article to merge it there. I think the article could be a lot better written though. David | Talk 09:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• I think if this article is deleted, then the political definition on the wingnut page also must be deleted. -- Temtem 02:56, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

• • Wikipedia is not necessarily consistent: deleting one page is not a precedent for deleting another page of similar providence. David | Talk 08:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• • • If the arguements against the inclusion of "moonbat" are equally applicable to "wingnut," how can one be kept and the other be deleted while maintaining neutrality? I understand that not all the arguments for deletion of one term might apply to deletion of another, but when they do, how can we not consider the articles together? -- Temtem 02:31, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I can quote to you this paragraph from WP:POINT (I don't mean to imply that you are intent on disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, just that this particular policy is explained well there):

* Implementation of deletion policy is not consistently applied to marginally suitable articles. The vote-based nature of the deletion process results in decisions affected by the mix of people following Wikipedia:Votes for deletion during any given week. Consequently, some articles that are deleted are arguably more meritorious than others that have been kept. Since marginally useful articles are indeed of marginal value, this doesn't create a practical problem.

You are quite welcome to nominate Wingnut for deletion if you think it unencyclopaedic. David | Talk 10:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I am not a native english speaker; I came across the term in a blog, went to Wikipedia to find out what it meant, and found out. Thats all that I needed. The article does the job without noticeable bias, why delete it? The hint that Moonbat is being used as an insult on liberals was important for my understanding of the text, otherwise I would've thought of a connection to the "Moon (Washington) Times", which would've been confusing. (Annon User:68.149.130.94)
• Keep. This is in use enough that I came here to look for it and found it pending deletion. The definition appears pretty useful and I disagree with the notion above that it is a term applying strictly to "Flaming Libs." In the context I read the term it literally was someone who had foresaken sanity in order to maintain their status quo. Not a dicdef because it has a story behind it that is still developing. Possibly a neologism, but a well established one at this time (remember "laser, black hole, and anime are still considered neologisms). Neospooky 11:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The article is simply trying to overstate the usage of the term in order to give publicity to the few blogs that use it. Look at the external links. The first site linked is the blog of a furiously racist Judeo-Christian supremacist. The article is just here to give those blogs publicity. This article vastly overstates the word's use in common discourse ("but now the term enjoys great currency") when in actuallity the word is only used by a few bloggers. If you needed to find the definition of this obscure slang word, you could have used the Urban Dictionary. Wikipedia articles should not be used to define obscure slang words and promote blogs. (Anon User:68.12.128.91)
• Keep. If there is an arguement on the proper definition of the word then lets hash it out but to remove it completely, even if it is "only used by bloggers" smacks of hypocracy. Especially with the "wingnut" entry being left unmolested. It's not derogitory, inflamitory and attacks no one person or group specifically. That is to say, "PETA is full of moonbats." It's a word in common usage with a substancial subsect of people and should stay. (Annon User:68.43.205.138)
• Keep. Smoth_007
• Keep. I'd hate to see this disappear completely. There are opinions floating that this is a term that has little real usage and was merely defined as a means to propagate the term. If so, it seems to have been successful. I came here for the definition because I came across its extensive usage in questions on an eBay auction.68.99.134.118 01:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. as per WpZurp above. --Smwpu85 17:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've seen this term mentioned enough that it deserves a link, but I think that the links to the blogs on the bottom of the page should be deleted. This is because, while the wikipedia article as it stands is objectively written, at the moment it is advertising a number of extremely politically biased blogs, most of which have little to do with the subject matter at hand anyway.
• Keep, Cleanup. The term is diffused into the wider culture, employed by prominent media personalities. The article should be cleaned up, and the external links which are off-topic could be removed. The "Samizdata" link would be better if it pointed to their glossary entry for Moonbat instead of their home page. Likewise, the "Virtual Moonbat" link should stay, since it's a link to a page pertinent to the term, not a link to the blog itself. (By way of full disclosure, that blog is my own.) The other links seem off-topic to me, or at least too broad in scope, since they are not about the term Moonbat. (Sean Gleeson) 68.12.79.249 13:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I have family that barely use the internet, and only watch CBS/ABC/NBC News and local news. They know the term Moonbat, then the term has spread to more than just a 'few websites.'
• Keep. Many terms are not complimentary. Ludite comes to mind. Holy-Roller, Know-nothings, etc. Wikipedia should not cave in to any form of derogatory term, but some oversight is useful. Really bad stuff should be eliminated.

'

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.