Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay lisp

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 was Keep/Rename. Cbrown1023 23:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gay lisp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article should be deleted on the grounds of WP:OR and that it is offensive. - Gilliam 02:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Gilliam 04:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unsourced original research. MER-C 04:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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: [1], [2], [3], [4]. 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. --Dhartung | Talk 05:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Gay speech characteristics per Dhartung. --Dennisthe2 05:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/merge to Gay stereotyping. Grutness...wha? 06:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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. delldot | talk 07:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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.--Dmz5 07:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I wouldn't advocate doing such a merge until Gay stereotyping is majorly cleaned up.--Dmz5 07:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect/Merge to Gay stereotyping SkierRMH,10:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/merge per Grutness. Danny Lilithborne 12:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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. Pop Secret 13:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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. Dragomiloff 14:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

follow up comment: the gay stereotyping article is a mess too. Needs serious work. Dragomiloff 14:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Pop Secret 14:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, rename if necessary. - Gilgamesh 14:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Gay stereotyping Koweja 14:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as by Koweja Alf photoman 14:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Gay stereotyping. Jeffpw 14:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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. - Eron ^Talk 16:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge along with Gay stereotyping to Homophobia. Lets be honest about what this is. - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 16:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To address the 'sources' of this article:
    1. The aticle from the Economist says little and is from 1995
    2. The 'encyclopedia article' is non-notable and admits to having data only on white middle class American gay male identity
    3. 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. - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 16:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If it's homophobia, explain Out magazine writing about it.--Dhartung | Talk 17:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • 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. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I completely misreading the Economist article, or does it simply not support what the article actually says?--Dmz5 17:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.- WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 18:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. WilyD 16:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.)--Dmz5 18:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 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: [5], about the same thing. Those are good sources. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but rename This is a real phenomenom, however the word lisp could be construed as somewhat homophobic. Nlsanand 17:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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:
  • black stereotyping (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? - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 19:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Koweja 21:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. OK, I'm wrong about the bias I point out above. Credit to Koweja for pointing it out. There is an article on Stereotypes of Africans/Blacks and it is presently subject to its own AfD.- WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 23:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• As per discussion with WJBscribe, I move that this article and Gay stereotyping be merged into the Homophobia article. Jeffpw 20:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.--Dmz5 21:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about gaydar? Should that be merged, too, or is gaydar also equivalent to homophobia? --Dhartung | Talk 22:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 23:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Pop Secret 01:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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... Dragomiloff 01:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Haiduc 01:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep BrenDJ 02:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and probably rename Gay speech characteristics. Danbold 06:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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. Pop Secret 09:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. - Gilliam 10:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. There is plenty of literature on the subject, so a reasonable sourced article could be written. The current name isn't good tho. Mairi 18:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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. WMMartin 18:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but only if cleaned up. If not, delete. This article is a mess. Lots of unsourced POV and conjecture going on there. ExRat 02:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.