Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay lisp: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Pop Secret (talk | contribs) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (47 intermediate revisions by 25 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
<!--Template:Afd top
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
The result was '''Keep'''. [[User:Cbrown1023|Cbrown1023]] 23:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
===[[Gay lisp]]===
:{{la|Gay lisp}} <includeonly> — ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay lisp|View AfD]])</includeonly>
This article should be deleted on the grounds of [[WP:OR]] and that it is offensive. - [[User:Gilliam|Gilliam]] 02:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Line 8 ⟶ 14:
*Whoa. '''Keep''', possibly rename. The article has sources in the external links, which is no longer acceptable, but they are strong sources -- ''The Economist'' a scholarly journal, and an article that references scholarship. It's pretty easy to find more sources, too: [http://www.stanford.edu/~podesva/documents/igala2004.ppt], [http://www.vueweekly.com/articles/default.aspx?i=1883], [http://homepages.nyu.edu/~eml246/context.pdf], [http://www.sdu.dk/Hum/graduateschool/DCameronChap4.pdf]. Summary: not all gay (men) have a lisp, but almost all gay men have shared language characteristics that set them apart. (This is a common social marker in linguistics; see [[Northern cities vowel shift]], [[code switching]].) The ''title'' is a problem. [[Gay speech characteristics]], perhaps, would be an NPOV replacement. --[[User:Dhartung|Dhartung]] | [[User talk:Dhartung|Talk]] 05:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' to [[Gay speech characteristics]] per Dhartung. --[[User:Dennisthe2|Dennisthe2]] 05:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Redirect/merge''' to [[Gay stereotyping]]. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
*'''Merge''' to [[Gay stereotyping]] or rename to something like [[Gay speech characteristics]], but a name that doesn't imply that it's necessarily a characteristic that all or most gay folks share (they don't, or it would be easier to tell who is gay!). [[Stereotypes of gay speech]]? Horrible, I know. [[user:delldot|delldot]] | <small>[[user talk:delldot|talk]]</small> 07:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
*I agree that '''mergining''' to [[Gay stereotyping]] is the best course of action, it should '''not''' be renamed "gay speech characteristics." This is tantamount to having articles on "Jewish nose shapes" and "reasons minorities are lazy." Articles on those subjects, when presented in context of "stereotyping" or something of that nature, can be encyclopedic.--[[User:Dmz5|Dmz5]] 07:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
::Although I wouldn't advocate doing such a merge until [[Gay stereotyping]] is majorly cleaned up.--[[User:Dmz5|Dmz5]] 07:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Redirect/Merge''' to [[Gay stereotyping]] <
*'''Redirect/merge''' per Grutness. [[User:Danny Lilithborne|Danny Lilithborne]] 12:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rename/no redirect''' Although the idea of a lisp is a stereotype associated with gay men, there appears to be some evidence of a sociolinguistic phenomenon. Just as it would be wrong to include [[African-American Vernacular English]] under [[African-American stereotyping]], it is likewise incorrect to suggest that any perception (by gays or straights) of social markers in the speech of gay men is merely repair to a stereotype. [[User:Pop Secret|Pop Secret]] 13:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Redirect''', do not rename or merge. The difference is there really is such a thing as African-American Vernacular English. To suggest that there is a peculiar style of speech that goes with being gay smacks of agenda-pushing. There is no such peculiar style of speech. [[User:Dragomiloff|Dragomiloff]] 14:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
::follow up '''comment''': the [[gay stereotyping]] article is a mess too. Needs serious work. [[User:Dragomiloff|Dragomiloff]] 14:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
::: The study cited by Dhartung, ''supra,'' suggests that there may very well be distinctive speech features in gay men. I think writing the study off as "agenda-pushing" is a bit unfair, not to mention conclusory. [[User:Pop Secret|Pop Secret]] 14:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', rename if necessary. - [[User:Gilgamesh|Gilgamesh]] 14:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' to [[Gay stereotyping]] [[User:Koweja|Koweja]] 14:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' as by [[User:Koweja|Koweja]] [[User:Alf photoman|Alf photoman]] 14:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' to [[Gay stereotyping]]. [[User:Jeffpw|Jeffpw]] 14:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' and '''Rename''' - I wouldn't merge to Gay Stereotyping as that article notes it is about "common misperceptions about homosexuals". My reading of this article is that it refers to a manner of speech which - the cited references suggest - actually exists. If agenda-pushing is a concern, then the article can be NPOV'd by adding references that suggest that it does not, or that it is not actually widespread among gay males, and that refer to it as a possible stereotype. - [[User:EronMain|Eron]] <sup>[[User Talk:EronMain|Talk]]</sup> 16:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' or '''Merge''' along with [[Gay stereotyping]] to [[Homophobia]]. Lets be honest about what this is. - [[User:WJBscribe|'''WJB'''''scribe'']] <sup><small>[[User talk:WJBscribe|('''WJB''' ''talk'')]]</small></sup> 16:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
**To address the 'sources' of this article:
**# The aticle from the Economist says little and is from 1995
**# The 'encyclopedia article' is non-notable and admits to having data only on ''white middle class American gay male identity''
**# The study from the Cambdridge journal involved a grand total of 25 male voices. In any event only the project abstract and not its conclusions are cited. - [[User:WJBscribe|'''WJB'''''scribe'']] <sup><small>[[User talk:WJBscribe|('''WJB''' ''talk'')]]</small></sup> 16:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
::*If it's homophobia, explain [http://www.out.com/detail.asp?id=16269&t=voices Out magazine writing about it].--[[User:Dhartung|Dhartung]] | [[User talk:Dhartung|Talk]] 17:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
*** Beg pardon, the Economist article says enough, and it's clearly the main focus of the article. What's wrong with being from 1995? A reliable source can be from the 4th century BCE. [[User:AnonEMouse|AnonEMouse]] <sup>[[User_talk:AnonEMouse|(squeak)]]</sup> 17:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
::Am I completely misreading the Economist article, or does it simply not support what the article actually says?--[[User:Dmz5|Dmz5]] 17:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Especially the bit that says: ''Oddly, though, in a range of pitch measurements taken from the actual sound waves of the four gay and four straight men’s voices, there was no significant correlation with the listeners’ judgements. The experiment, then, could provide no quantifiable reason why the listeners’ perceptions about gay and straight speakers were correct.'' That seems to completely contradict the argument in the article.- [[User:WJBscribe|'''WJB'''''scribe'']] <sup><small>[[User talk:WJBscribe|('''WJB''' ''talk'')]]</small></sup> 18:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' it's so obvious it's rediculous. The article is sourced (albeit not not perfectly) and encyclopaedic, so it's not really a candidate for deletion. Merging to [[Gay stereotyping]] may be worthwhile, but probably isn't necessary. [[User:WilyD|WilyD]] 16:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Information has been taken so liberally from GLBTQ encyclopedia it borders on copyright infringement, but it is evidently a real subject. SHould be kept, and it totally different from gay stereotyping. GLBTQ.com suggests it is a scientific thing. [[User:Dev920|Dev920]] (Have a nice day!) 16:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
::Also, am I misreading the GLBTQ article or does it also not support what is actually in the article? This article still smacks to me of original research synthesizing several other primary sources (each of which is, in itself, problematic as a source.)--[[User:Dmz5|Dmz5]] 18:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' and rename per Dhartung. The best source, the Economist article, starts by saying the lisp isn't the main characteristic, it's the voice pitch. Here is another by the University of Toronto: [http://www.newsandevents.utoronto.ca/bin2/020218c.asp], about the same thing. Those are good sources. [[User:AnonEMouse|AnonEMouse]] <sup>[[User_talk:AnonEMouse|(squeak)]]</sup> 17:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep, but rename''' This is a real phenomenom, however the word lisp could be construed as somewhat homophobic. [[User:Nlsanand|Nlsanand]] 17:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. To address why I don't think this content should merge into [[Gay stereotyping]]. At the very least this article needs an overhaul pretty soon, but I also have reservations about the purpose it serves. There are no articles on Wikipedia about:
**<s>'''black stereotyping'''</s> (see below)
**'''jewish stereotyping'''
**'''stereotypes of women''' etc.
:and I think that is rightly so. Why is it that a specific article is needed to cover gay stereotyping or a sub-facet of it? - [[User:WJBscribe|'''WJB'''''scribe'']] <sup><small>[[User talk:WJBscribe|('''WJB''' ''talk'')]]</small></sup> 19:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
::'''Comment''' actually there are pages for other minorities - see [[Ethnic stereotypes in American media]] and the articles link to from it. Gay stereotyping and homophobia are not necessarily the same thing, though there is obviously a strong correlation between the two. However, this is not the place for it. If you do feel that [[Gay stereotyping]] should be removed, then feel free to nominate it for AfD and we can discuss it there. [[User:Koweja|Koweja]] 21:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
::*'''Comment'''. OK, I'm wrong about the bias I point out above. Credit to [[User:Koweja|Koweja]] for pointing it out. There is an article on [[Stereotypes of Africans/Blacks]] and it is presently subject to its own AfD.- [[User:WJBscribe|'''WJB'''''scribe'']] <sup><small>[[User talk:WJBscribe|('''WJB''' ''talk'')]]</small></sup> 23:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
*As per discussion with WJBscribe, I move that this article and [[Gay stereotyping]] be '''merged''' into the [[Homophobia]] article. [[User:Jeffpw|Jeffpw]] 20:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
::I am not sure that I agree that "gay stereotyping" is equivalent to homophobia...also to be honest I am surprised that there are no articles on black/jewish/etc stereotyping, not that I am necessarily advocating they be created.--[[User:Dmz5|Dmz5]] 21:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
:::I really don't think that a gay stereotype is equivalent to homophobic - let's face, a lot of gay men DO act like that stereotype in varying degrees. It's not homophobic to say that, and fuck knows ''I'm'' not homophobic. Really, this shouldn't be merged. [[User:Dev920|Dev920]] (Have a nice day!) 22:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
:What about [[gaydar]]? Should that be merged, too, or is gaydar also equivalent to homophobia? --[[User:Dhartung|Dhartung]] | [[User talk:Dhartung|Talk]] 22:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
::There's clearly nothing wrong with gaydar, which has no link to homophobia. But I suspect that if there were articles about typical ''black speech patterns'' and ''black stereotypes'', these would rightly be pointed out to be inherently racist. - [[User:WJBscribe|'''WJB'''''scribe'']] <sup><small>[[User talk:WJBscribe|('''WJB''' ''talk'')]]</small></sup> 23:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
::: ''But see [[African-American Vernacular English]].'' Nor is it racist. Imagine telling [[Gwendolyn Brooks]] that because her poem "We Real Cool" was written in A.A.V.E. her work was "inherently racist!" The use of distinctive speech forms among social sub-groups is well-documented and an element of sociolinguistic diversity. By no means should we blanche out any reference to this phenomenon in a misguided attempt at political correctness. [[User:Pop Secret|Pop Secret]] 01:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
:::: '''comment''': we already have an article on [[gay slang]] and nobody's accusing it of homophobia. That would seem to be a comparable example to the article on [[African-American Vernacular English]]. Now on the other hand if we had an article taking the claim seriously that Black Americans are genetically prone to speaking a certain way because they are black... [[User:Dragomiloff|Dragomiloff]] 01:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' - Being offensive is not a criteria for deletion. It does seem like there is literature on speech mannerisms which are associated with gay stereotypes. However, there is little support in the literature for the current title and really its just part of the larger stereotype and not notable on its own. [[User:Savidan|savidan]]<sup>[[User_talk:Savidan|(talk)]] [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">(e@)</span>]]</sup> 23:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
'''Rename''' Interesting topic, needs to be expanded with more references. "Offensive" is irrelevant, this is factual and relevant, and people's emotional reactions to articles are not our business. [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 01:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' [[User:BrenDJ|BrenDJ]] 02:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' and probably rename [[Gay speech characteristics]]. [[User:Danbold|Danbold]] 06:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment:''' I hope the people adovcating merges are not advocating merging "Gay speech characteristics" (which renaming is how this debate ought to be resolved) with [[Homophobia]], a course of action that makes as much sense as merging [[African-American Vernacular English]] with [[Racism]] or [[Received Pronunciation]] with [[Anglophobia]]. Those advocating a merge into [[Homophobia]] or [[Gay stereotyping]] have provided no justification for discounting the scientific evidence beyond conclusory assertions that any suggestion of distinctive speech patterns among gay men must be stereotyping. Deletion cannot be justified by so little. [[User:Pop Secret|Pop Secret]] 09:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
**'''Comment:''' The ''Economist'' article and others report that scientists study the human voice of gay males, but do not support the stereotype that the speech impediment of a lisp is a uniquely gay trait. - [[User:Gilliam|Gilliam]] 10:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rename'''. There is plenty of literature on the subject, so a reasonable sourced article could be written. The current name isn't good tho. [[User:Mairi|Mairi]] 18:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', '''Rename''' and '''Cleanup'''. I'd like to see the references cleaned up, but it appears that references to valid research confirming the presence of these speech patterns can be found, or, at least, that this is a valid area for scientific research, so this is not prima facie OR. It's clearly notable, as it documents a phenomenon widely referenced in broader culture. A redirect or merge to [[Gay stereotyping]] should be discouraged: as I understand it, stereotyping is about misperception and generalisation: this article, and the supporting research, do not seem to imply that this speech pattern is present in all gay men, or only in gay men, only that its presence is to some extent correlated with sexuality. As and when the stereotyping article is expanded, it may usefully refer to this article. [[User:WMMartin|WMMartin]] 18:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep, but only if cleaned up'''. If not, delete. This article is a mess. Lots of unsourced POV and conjecture going on there. [[User:ExRat|ExRat]] 02:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>
| |||