Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opposition to homosexuality

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 and redirect. Raul654 17:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opposition to homosexuality

• Delete. This page is a POV fork of homophobia where the same material is covered. Pelease Delete. The Land 20:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Homophobia, original thought, probably just want it to redirect it to homophobia. Yanksox 20:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect. Exploding Boy 21:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. —Mira 21:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per all above. Ardenn 21:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per all the above. — Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 21:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The phrase "opposition to homosexuality" is not in common use and the article offers nothing that isn't available anywhere else in Wikipedia. Swpmre 22:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge. Some of the content here may be salveagable and useful; but we don't need two articles on the subject. --EngineerScotty 22:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge as above CyntWorkStuff 02:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• No opinion but want to express concern. homophobia is a POV term with negative connotations. Arguably, not all opposition to homosexuality is "homophobia" per se. JoshuaZ 00:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  It is homophobia by definition. Some people don't think their hatred of/discrimination against/beliefs in the inferiority of others based on skin colour is racism; it still is. Exploding Boy 03:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  This is not a thoughtful position, but a "kneejerk" reaction. Whether or not you want to admit it, there are those who oppose homosexuality for reasons other than fear or distaste. DavidBailey 19:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  Nonsense. I'm sick of arguing with people who don't understand the definition of the word "homophobia," or who are trying to redefine it to suit their own political ends. Exploding Boy 22:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect — Nathan ^(talk) 03:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, do not redirect. useless search term - CrazyRussiantalk/contribs/email 04:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Reverse redirect - Move "Homophobia" to "Opposition to homosexuality" and redirect "Homophobia" to "Opposition to homosexuality". This uses the more neutral term for the main article. --John Nagle 05:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  Not true. "Homophobia," while it includes plain and simple "opposition to homosexuality," includes a hell of a lot more. Homopbobia is no more "POV" than "racism." Exploding Boy 01:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Reverse redirect Agree with above. Homophobia is PoV and doesn't apply in all cases, but no reason to have two articles. Ace of Sevens
• Reverse redirect per John Nagle and Ace of Sevens or Keep since both Pro-life and anti-abortion movement articles exist. --Facto 18:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  Don't want to get too involved in discussion about article I have started, but I think there is room for both. Clearly homophobia exists as a serious psychiatric disorder, but it is separate matter from opposition to homosexuality. Ros Power 07:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  There is no such thing as clinical homophobia. Have you even read the article you're so urgently opposing? Exploding Boy 16:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Reverse redirect per John Nagle. 'Opposition to homosexuality' is certainly a less derogatory and inflammatory term than 'homophobia'. Tevildo 18:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect. Policy normally states we should use the most common term (and the term used by people who actually use the term). I do not feel it is our place to soften the term homophobia.--Andrew c 01:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I think an article with this title could exist, but it seems that this material is already covered in many other places. I don't think it should redirect to Homophobia, and I don't think Homophobia should redirect here. The current article is poorly written, very POV, and uncited. In its current form I see little worth keeping. If it were a well researched and cited article on opposition to homosexuality, it would not be found offensive by LGBT activists (or by fundamentalists). That is not the case now. As much as I personnally find the discussion about opposition to homosexuality to be offensive, I could imagine benefitting from reading a well written article that outlines the position in an NPOV way. This would require making statements that only cite the postions of others. Thus, there would be aritcles on both homophobia and opposition to homosexuality and they would reference each other as articles about two different points of view on the same or similar phenomena. This is similar to how there is the article racism and an article on supremacism. The point of Wikipedia is to educate, and not to settle debates. -- Samuel Wantman 08:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete We are not editors of a dictionary, but editors of an encylopedia. It is not up to us to redefine words because some people find them more or less POV. Opposition To Homosexuality is a poor search term, the article is original research and over-loaded with POV. 83.217.190.69 09:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This article, as it stands now, is a soap-box piece, with an alterior motive (see the article's talk page). If any of this information can be referenced and presented in a NPOV manner, then I'm sure some of it would be fitting to add to Homophobia. But for now, the contents are simply not encyclopedic. romarin[talk to her ] 13:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  No, it's not a soap box piece, it's an attempt, albeit in its infancy, and incomplete, to present the many reasons why many people oppose homosexuality. Ros Power 13:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This is a useless search term - who would ever look it up? - and is covered on other pages. POV may just about be able to be brought into the fold, but the article is currently propagandist not encyclopaedic. Very much agree with comment about being interested in an educative piece, but this article is not it. Fiddle Faddle 14:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Societal attitudes towards homosexuality has some content overlap with Opposition to homosexuality. Maybe moving some content from the opposition article to the society attitudes article would help. --John Nagle 17:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A huge thumbs up for Samuel Wantman's quote: this is an educative space, not a soapbox. Article offers no insight, no balance: it's a rant. A nasty pice of work all told. BrainGuy 18:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  Assuming I can source the article, which particular aspects or statements do people consider biased and non-neutral. The article, not the author, please. Ros Power 19:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  The entire article, not a passage of it, is tagged as POV: that's a clue. It's also tagged as unbalanced. Provide alternaitve views (for every quote given, most likely someone will have disputed it.) In all honesty, is it worth it? It's still going to contain a large chunk of original research and there seems a very good chance that it'll be wiped for many of the reasons listed by others above. If I were in your shoes, I'd probably be thinking 'stuff it, life is too short' - but I'm a lazy sod and happy to let our gay friends live in peace, so I guess we're unlikely to agree. BrainGuy 19:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  I know it's been tagged POV. I just want to know why. Wikipedia, surely is about ascertaining the facts, not presenting a world view that some people find comfortable.

  Will you please sign your comments? It is tagged POV because all it presents is a bunch of POV comments, representing only one side of an argument that frankly has been better made elsewhere. Hence also the Unbalanced tag and the Original Research Tag. From the comments offered so far, the only thing the majority of us here seem to be uncomfortable with is the author's unwillingness to adhere to WP protocol. BrainGuy 21:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  Which comments are POV? Ros Power 22:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  Ros, you are not that dumb. Nor am I. BrainGuy 22:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Bad search term, information covered in other articles, particularly Societal attitudes towards homosexuality, Gay rights opposition, and a host of articles on specific issues (e.g., Same-sex marriage in the United States). This article seems to be a soapbox. Fireplace 20:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, for sure, POV fork. That being said, the creator's WP:POINT is somewhat valid, as the original article is somewhat POV in the other direction. That being said, this is clearly not the correct solution. -- Deville (Talk) 18:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This article needs a lot of work, but to call all opposition to homosexuality "homophobia" is overly simplistic. Since the root of homophobia is phobia or fear, it assumes that those who oppose homosexuality do it out of fear, as opposed to those who do it out of intellectual or religious argument, or out of a concern/love for those whom they feel are doing themselves a disservice or hurting themselves by continuing down that path. DavidBailey 19:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  Good grief. If you can't be bothered to read and understand the definition of the word, you really shouldn't be voting here. Exploding Boy 22:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  Good grief. If you can't accept that there are other views than yours of what the world is and should be, you shouldn't be voting here. DavidBailey 15:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  Very funny. The point is, you cannot base your vote on disputing the accepted dictionary definition of a word. See Wikipedia:No original research. Exploding Boy 15:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: And this "concern/love" comes from you being afraid of what will happen to them if they "continue down that path", no? How is this any different? Being against someone who identifies as homosexual, or being against homosexuality in general, is homophobia. Sure, it's not a simple issue, and no one is trying to say that it should be. But adding an article that details a particular POV is not the answer. romarin [talk ] 20:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  Your statement "being afraid" is inaccurate. It may be inconceivable to you that people oppose homosexuality on intellectual, moral, or ethical grounds, but it is true. DavidBailey 20:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  Also, I'm not saying that if the content exists elsewhere, we have to rehash it here. A summary article would be fine with pointers to the relevant content. The article only needs to cover what hasn't been covered elsewhere. DavidBailey 20:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  You're right, it is completely inconceivable to me that a human being can oppose another human being for something as personal as sexual orientation. But this isn't the subject at hand. The point I was trying to make is that even your own language, "concern", relates directly to fear. romarin [talk ] 20:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  "You're right, it is completely inconceivable to me that a human being can oppose another human being for something as personal as sexual orientation." The article points out that objection rarely concerns orientation, it concerns behaviour, which is rarely purely "personal". And whether you can conceive it or not, it is true. Ros Power 20:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I think the talk page explicitely shows that this article was not created for the right reasons (to balance "homosexual activists and militants "owning" all the material on homosexuality on WikiPedia"). As original research, unsourced, biased POV and POV fork it shouldn't be kept. IronChris | (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  I did not create the article because such material exists, (though quite why an encyclopaedia would have what amounts to an "LGBT" subculture is beyond my understanding), but because the article, which could/would summarise a huge body of thought and understanding, is conspicuous by its absence. Ros Power 20:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• It should be noted that this article fails every one of our three main principles regarding suitability of articles: Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability. Voting to "keep" is not a valid option in this discussion; the only question is whether to just delete the article or to delete and redirect. Exploding Boy 01:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Original research, POV, unbalanced and the few good bits are covered elsewhere. It's a soap-box article. And worst of all, but not, alas, a standard criterion for deletion, is that the article is so mean-spirited. ReformedCharacter 08:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Above user is likely a sockpuppet or meatpuppet see his user contributions, the first edit is to this Afd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ReformedCharacter --Facto 04:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or at least redirect to a suitably neutral article on moral and religious aspects of homosexuality. I'm satisfied that this article was created with the primary intention of using Wikipedia to advance and advertise anti-homosexual views. --Tony Sidaway 17:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that homophobia begins The word homophobia means fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. It can also mean hatred of and disparagement of homosexual people, their lifestyles, their sexual behaviors, or cultures, and is generally used to assert bigotry. Given that definition, it's not the appropriate place to put opposition to homosexuality. The reverse, however, is workable; "homophobia" could be a section in "opposition to homosexuality". --John Nagle 20:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It just seems by doing that we would be softening up the term Homophobia, also, I think a note in Homophobia about a person having a consious choice. But I don't think it is in line to just completely alter a term. Prehaps we could alter the term homophobia, but not eliminate it. Yanksox 20:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment To take a well-written artcle and make it a sub-section in this deservedly tag-laden nonsense is illogical. Mercifully, the consensus seems to be that sanity shall prevail. ReformedCharacter 21:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect Delete per Exploding Boy's persuasive argument above and redirect to homophobia. If the creator and primary contributors to this article think that homophobia is unbalanced, they can discuss it on that article's talk page.--Chaser T 20:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Not mentioned above is that there's also Societal attitudes towards homosexuality, which is more balanced than either Opposition to homosexuality or homophobia. Is there salvageable content from Opposition to homosexuality that could be merged into Societal attitudes towards homosexuality? --John Nagle 20:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Turn into a disambiguation page I think both sides of this debate have reasonable concerns. A possible solution is to turn Opposition to homosexuality into a disambiguation page. It could read something like this:

Opposition to homosexuality can take a number of forms. Discussions about the reasons individual or groups object to homosexuality may be found in the following articles:

• Homophobia
• Homosexuality and religion
• Sexual orientation
• Societal attitudes towards homosexuality

This can be fleshed out a bit, and there is probably some other articles that could be linked, but you get the idea... -- Samuel Wantman 01:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This seems unnecessary, a lot of work to go through just to make a couple of people happy. As a few of editors have mentioned, there already exists Societal attitudes towards homosexuality. Opposition to homosexuality is one side of this, no? What does the author of this article think about developing her points in a neutral manner and adding them there, instead of pursuing her fork? She has so far been silent on this particular issue, but it seems to me (as well as to several others, apparently) the most logical things to do at this point. romarin [talk ] 13:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• 'Delete, per listing. Redirect to Societal attitudes towards homosexuality. -Smahoney 01:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - POV Spam created by a probable POV vandal. Davodd 02:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Societal attitudes towards homosexuality; good find Nagle. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - POV fork William Avery 07:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment When does the keep/delete decision get made? We've been talking since 8 June. I only ask out of curiosity. ReformedCharacter 15:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  The debate process will proceed for up to five days (or sometimes longer - basically as long as there is active debate) and then the article will be deleted or kept. -Smahoney 15:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  After 5 days, it's just a question of an uninvolved admin deciding to close it. If I hadn't commented above, I would do it right now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  OK, thanks for letting me know. So much to learn! I'm sure a passing admin will put it out of its misery sooner or later. ReformedCharacter 16:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Happy to have it deleted. I should not have started the article without the time to flesh it and substantiate it, although it would be a fairly straightforward task. I will gladly take it offline, work on it and repost at a later date when I have the time. I do however think that there is a perfectly valid place for it.Ros Power 21:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Well, there's at least a valid place for you to work on it, and I took the liberty of copying it there. User:Ros Power/Opposition to homosexuality It would be prudent to get input from others before reposting it in any form in the mainspace, lest it be deleted again.--Chaser T 22:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Splendid idea. ReformedCharacter 22:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I haven't evaluated the content of this page, but if it isn't meant to be why not copy the content from Homophobia to Opposition to Homosexuality and redirect the former? I believe the second title is better, because Homophobia or Homophobe is often used to insult anyone with a moral back bone. It is impossible to use the word Homophobe in a good way. Chooserr 23:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  You can't use racism or puppy mill or spousal abuse in a good way either; we still have articles on them. Exploding Boy 23:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  It's just a suggestion, but I still would favour it over putting all the content about oppositions to homosexuality on a page title Homophobia. Really it is about opposition to homosexuality not about true homophobes. Chooserr 00:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Chooserr was specifically directed by Ros Power to Opposition to homosexuality[1] based on content Chooserr had created[2]. CovenantD 00:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• This is good to know. Actually, Ros has been trying to recruit others as well. See User talk:Pollinator. Exploding Boy 03:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  And everyone would also like to know how you got here. Seriously now, I don't know Ros. All I said is I'd give the article a look, and I made a comment here that has little to do with whatever the current content is. I didn't even vote save or delete - so please please leave me alone. Chooserr 03:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:LGBT_notice_board if you want to know where the votes are coming from. --Facto 04:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI The Wikipedia:LGBT_notice_board is for the benefit of ANYONE who wants to be informed about what is happening to articles related to LGBT topics. -- Samuel Wantman 06:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Reverse redirect:I hadn't seen this option when I posted my comment so I will vote for it now. Chooserr 03:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• redirect POV fork Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete do not redirect; no one will search for this term - redirection will be pointless. --Strothra 03:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Redirection defers recreation. Yanksox ^(talk) 03:23, 17 June 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.