Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homophobic propaganda

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. No particularly valid reasons given to delete, does not look like original research. Do not bring your disputes here, please. Proto::► 10:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is original research of user:Rombik. --Nikolay Kolpakov 21:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Nikolay Kolpakov, can you please prove that it is an "original research"? Why do you call it "original research", if it explicitly cites so many sources? :) And more than that, I can easily prove that you regularly voted in Russian Wikipedia for deletion of just ANY LGBT-related article, calling any of it "original research", irrelevantly how many sources were there, about what was the article, etc. So I'm not surprised with your activity in deletion of this article there :) You also tried to remove LGBT flag from many articles, too. rombik 12:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Rombik, what do you mean? Is Nikolay Kolpakov a homophobe? :-) --the wrong man 21:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean exactly what I said. Not more not less. rombik 21:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm. References are just irrelevant. Term homophobic propaganda is only mentioned in first one. Some are about homosexual discrimination in nazist Germany, some about anti-discrimination (homosexual and common), but not about propaganda. — Vovanium 21:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  They ARE relevant. And the discrimination in Nazi Germany didn't came alone and suddenly, it was the result and culmination of organised Nazi anti-homosexual propaganda. And the anti-discrimination laws are also relevant there as they explicitly prohibit hate speechs, defamations and alike, which constitute anti-gay propaganda. rombik 21:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  No, they are relevant only to discrimination. Moreover, article is just reword anoter articles, like History of homosexual people in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, so I have no idea, why sould exist another article. And... why article is not named Heterosexual propaganda? - Vovanium 21:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  No, they are relevant not only to discrimination, as the discrimination itself results and arises from prejudice and stereotypes, which are widely distributed and supported by this same propaganda. And there IS material about 1) propaganda; 2) its relation to institutionalised homophobia; 3) the connection between discrimination, homophobia and propaganda. And this article ISN'T "just reword of another articles", it's spectrum is MUCH broader than, say, just History of homosexual people in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, so there is no need and no reason to merge these articles. And as to "heterosexual propaganda" - are you joking? :) It is NOT "heterosexual propaganda". At the very minimum, it is heterosexist (heterosexual supremacist, heterosexual chauvinist) propaganda. At the maximally radical end of this spectrum, it is homophobic hate speech. The article is NOT about "propaganda of heterosexual love" or what do you mean under the label of so-called "heterosexual propaganda". Nevertheless, heterosexual propaganda probably exists (not more not less than "homosexual propaganda", which is an usual accusation towards LGBT activists), but it is a distinct phenomenon from heterosexist propaganda. rombik 08:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Propaganda of illness (which is any phobia) is nonsence. — User:Vovanium

  1. The term homophobia is NOT related to phobias, and you should read first what it does mean. Homophobia is NOT an "illness", and this term means negative, intolerant attitude towards homosexuality. And anyway, your argument is void now, because the article is renamed to antihomosexual propaganda. And also, the term "homophobic propaganda" really exists (and antihomosexual propaganda, anti-gay propaganda too) - just look in Google. More than that, the term "homophobic propaganda" was used in scientific works, for example, in the work of historician Stefan Micheler. And also, there are people who at the same time consider that "homosexuality is an illness" and consider that "homosexual propaganda" exists :) So how is it compatible with your words? :) rombik 12:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  In any case there's no noticeable difference with any other propaganda or specifics (just like we will not write articles, named red cars, blue cars etc.) Article consist mainly of common words, which aplly to any propaganda though, like this template: «* propaganda — organised social and political activity (public speech, public behavior, meetings and actions), based on negative and intolerant attitude towards *** ...». Some specific facts is not enough to article, so I now vote to join material with homosexuality, homophobia and propaganda. — Vovanium 20:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, there is a LOT of material, which just waits to come into the English article. Your own language is Russian, so you can easily check how much material is there in ru:Пропаганда гомофобии. So there's no reason to "join" any material with any of these aforementioned articles. Article does not "consist mainly of common words", it cites many sources and will cite more. And there are not just "some specific facts", there are a lot of facts, really. And there IS a difference and specifics. Religious propaganda or Communist propaganda, for example, CAN be different articles, while blue car and red car - not. rombik 20:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge any relevant cited material into propaganda. CyberAnth 00:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  This idea sounds strange for me. If the article about a distinct form of propaganda should be merged with the article propaganda, does it mean that the article about homosexuality, a distinct form of human sexuality, should also be merged with an article about sexuality? :) rombik 12:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. per CyberAnth. Quadzilla99 04:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  See my answer to CyberAnth. rombik 12:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as likely original research.-- danntm ^T _C 05:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you say why do you think that it is an original research? rombik 12:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as likely original research. Vlad2000Plus 06:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you say why do you think that it is an original research? And I should say that I'm not surprised with your vote. rombik 12:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Vovanium. Edward Chernenko 07:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The "argument" of Vovanium became void for now, as the article was renamed. And also, see my answer to Vovanium, see sources, which use the term "homophobic propaganda". And I should say that I'm not surprised with your vote. rombik 12:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it is NOT "original research", and there will be translated much more material. The article has many sources. Many users who now try to delete it, are well known in Russian Wikipedia for their very strong anti-homosexual bias and their regular gay-bashing plus their regular voting for deletion of just ANY LGBT-related article. So their motivation is not encyclopaedical in nature. rombik 08:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this term is used SO frequently: [1], so there should be the article about it in Wiki. --AndyVolykhov 08:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per Rombik and AndyVolykhov. OckhamTheFox 09:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Homophobic wars from russian wikipedia should not be transferred to english part! --Varnav 10:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  See my answer to the nominator, Nikolay Kolpakov. rombik 12:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Homophobic wars from russian wikipedia. --Barnaul 10:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Can somebody check it for originality? I have glanced over it and now there is too many material there for merging with propaganda (if only the half of it wasn't invented by author). In this case I would advise to create in propaganda a subsection with a brief description and {{main|Antihomosexual propaganda}} --D.R 11:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, sourced and verifiable, also please note huge amount of links mentioned by AndyVolykhov. Plainly bad-faith nomination. MaxSem 13:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Needs some work but otherwise is a valid and timely topic. Haiduc 15:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article is Homosexual propaganda. Wikipedia is not tribune. Belomoeff 16:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you argument why the article which is well-sourced, verifiable and based on facts, is called "homosexual propaganda" by you? :) And also, again, I'm not surprised with your vote. And you should remember that it is English Wikipedia, not Russian Wikipedia, and unsourced ideological statements like "it is homosexual proparanda" are NOT valid arguments there. You and your ideological friends from so-called "APE" regularly make such statements about just ANY LGBT-related article in Russian Wikipedia. rombik 17:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Roman Bekker told me by ICQ about this article's advantage. I vote to keep this article. Belomoeff 18:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think the article is well writed. But it must be expand and correct, but not to delete. Homophobia is illness of our days and someone must write about it, to do people more loyal and tolerant --Gavriil 19:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user has not edits in articles, he may be meatpuppet of User:Rombik [2].--Nikolay Kolpakov 19:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that this is English Wikipedia, not Russian Wikipedia, and there only arguments count, not votes. And as to convicted "meatpuppetry", I can very easily prove that most of these Russian-speaking users, who voted to delete this article, are actually YOUR meatpuppets, because YOU directly called Alexey Belomoeff and instructed him to vote to delete this article :) And he doesn't know English so well, and didn't have any better arguments than just a gold standard for ruwiki discussions - an accusation of "homosexual propaganda" :)) So... what? Wanna me to prove that? I can. And also, most of them are from so-called APE, to which you belong.. :) rombik 21:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep as the reason for nomination seems, well, let's be charitable, seems suspect. Otto4711 17:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, bad faith nom; however, the article itself raises some serious and legitimate POV concerns, so relist under appropriate designation. -Toptomcat 17:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Any POV concern means that the article should be improved, made more neutral, more balanced (and it WILL be, I've just started to work on it), it does not mean that the article should be relisted for deletion. rombik 17:48, 28 * December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Vovanium. Serebr 19:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The "argument" of Vovanium is already void, as the article is renamed. See also my answer to him. And also, I'm not surprised with your vote :) rombik 20:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This article is an original research (see Google Scholar). --the wrong man 20:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  By the way, this user, as like as User:Evgen2 is also placed under half a year probation under ruling of our Arbitration Committee: ru:ВП:ГОМО due to his very strong anti-gay POV-pushing, regular gay-bashing, edit-warring, harassment of certain users (mostly me, User:Barnaul and ru:User:ID Burn), personal attacks and incivility. rombik 11:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Anti-gay POV-pushing, gay-bashing, harassment? Are you kidding? You're liar, rombik. According to ru:ВП:ГОМО,

  В месте с этим Арбитражный комитет не умаляет вины участника The Wrong Man, систематически допускавшего в сторону других участников хамские реплики, личные выпады, а также прибегавшего к оскорблениям и двусмысленным намёкам, иногда лежащим на грани угроз. И признаёт допущенные участником действия нарушающими принцип недопустимости оскорблений и агрессии и не способствующими созданию дружелюбной психологически благоприятной обстановки в сообществе. Несмотря на то, что подобное поведение в ряде случаев было спровоцировано действиями других ответчиков. Арбитражный комитет особо подчёркивает, что оскорбления и личные выпады, какие позволял себе участник The Wrong Man, в Википедии недопустимы.

  So I were found guilty of Wikipedia:No personal attacks violations only. --the wrong man 11:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  If you want, I can easily prove any word I previously said (about POV-pushing, about edit wars, about harassment on certain users). I also can translate the whole ru:ВП:ГОМО ruling :) rombik 11:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  No, you can't, little liar. :-) --the wrong man 12:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  About edit wars: anyone can just look into your block log - just recently you were blocked twice for edit warring. About POV-pushing: anyone who knows Russian can just dig into your edits in ru:Шепард, Мэтью Уэйн or ru:Сексуальные меньшинства в Третьем рейхе и холокост to check them for neutrality :) About harassment on certain users: anyone can ask Obersachse (member of previous ArbCom) or Vladimir Volokhonsky (current member of our ArbCom) to prove my words. rombik 12:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  It is NOT an "original research", because Google Scholar is not the only relevant source for any article. There are published books which use exactly such term. Also, I'm not surprised with your vote :) rombik 20:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  This is your private opinion. As you can see, there is the only one scientific article in which the term "homophobic propaganda" was used. I mean "Homophobic Propaganda and the Denunciation of Same-Sex-Desiring Men under National Socialism" by Stefan Micheler. His article concerns the Nazi period in German history, so you can add this information to the History of homosexual people in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. --the wrong man 20:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I also can say that "this is your private opinion" that it is an "original research". And there is NOT "only one" scientific article in which such terms are used. And the topic of the article is MUCH broader than just History of homosexual people in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, so this article shouldn't be just merged to the mentioned article. EOD. rombik 20:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Not an encyclopaedic reasons for moving off. --Azh7 22:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Тhis user has two edits in articles [3]--Nikolay Kolpakov 19:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that this is English Wikipedia, not Russian Wikipedia, and there only arguments count, not votes. rombik 21:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are no convincing arguments for removal. S.L. 22:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The convincing argument for deletion is that the article is all over the place, and more a mish-mash of anti-gay and hate-speech laws than about anything that could plausibly be termed "propaganda" (e.g. the promotional material of certain Christian denominations asserting that homosexuality is "curable" through prayer). Propaganda is by definition legal in its source country, so if there are laws against it, it's hate speech, not propaganda. Ford MF 02:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You have a very narrow definition of propaganda, but according to Webster it is:

  pro·pa·gan·da: 1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions; 2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person; 3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

  From this definition, it's absolutely obvious that propaganda includes hate speech as spreading negative stereotypes against LGBT people.--Antanta 17:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. This article has been put to delete in Russian wikipedia on 26 Nov 2006 and has been kept later on. The same persons from Ru-wiki voted here to delete it. Also, it should be renamed back to Homophobic propaganda, because the term is much more widely used than Antihomosexual propaganda (792 000 vs 31 500 search results).--Antanta 17:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Puppet-show? By the way, your search results are incorrect, mr. Soularis. A search in Google gives 2360 results for "homophobic propaganda" and 240 results for "anti-homosexual propaganda". --the wrong man 22:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  What show? I don't have time for shows. Your search results still don't prove that the term antihomosexual propaganda is more widely used. You better think harder of other reasons besides this and "Original research".--Antanta 07:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User without contributions in articles [4]--Nikolay Kolpakov 19:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that it is English Wikipedia, not Russian Wikipedia, and there on AfD only arguments count, not votes. So it doesn't matter if he has contributions on en-wiki or not - he can even be an anonymous user, but with arguments. rombik 21:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. And dare I point out that the reasoning of many who wish to delete this article seems to smack strongly of "Antihomosexual propaganda"? CyntWorkStuff 03:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, good use of sources. The article is interesting and adds to wikipedia. --Duke of Duchess Street 04:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, worthwhile article which should be given time to expand. Title disputes aren't the purview of AFD. Bearcat 08:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep En-wiki is not place for ru-wiki`s "homophobic war"Ergil 08:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reasonable article, seen worse than this on Wikipedia. PatGallacher 09:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete do you want 100k long article as it is now in Russian that is really AntiPro-homosexual propaganda ? --Evgen2 09:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  This user is well known in Ru-Wiki for his very strong anti-homosexual bias, regular POV-pushing, gay-bashing and accusations of "homosexual propaganda", "homosexual lobby" etc, was regularly blocked by administrators for personal attacks, incivility and finally was placed under half a year probation under ruling of our Arbitration Committee: ru:ВП:ГОМО. rombik 10:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  well, rombik is well known in Ru-Wiki for his very strong homosexual bias, regular POV-pushing, etc. As well as Rombik is well known liar and cause and/or member of almost all conflicts in Ru-Wiki --Evgen2 10:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Hehehe. No comments. rombik 10:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: rombik-related ru-requests for arbitration: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] --Evgen2 23:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, for those who don't know Russian: only one is ruling which issued "warning" against me (and this ruling was issued by very "objective" ArbCom, two of its members were openly calling us words like "fags"). Two are MY requests for arbitration for severe and systematic violations of en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry by some of your friends ;-) And one is my appeal to the new, more objective, ArbCom about this old "warning". And one "request for arbitration" against me is refused by ArbCom, because the user who wanted so, was a sockpuppet :)) rombik 08:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  As well, your main purpose is to use wikipedia as tribune as clearly can be se in your words: "I have put interwiki and have started to translate this article to English to beat out last trump from hands of the certain misters." --Evgen2 15:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Hehehe, hahaha. Yes, yes. Wikipedia is not a tribune for unsourced antihomosexual bias. Sorry for that. And yes, I ascertain that I am regularly beating out last trumps from hands of certain misters who would like to delete just ANY LGBT-related article or to prevent them from becoming GAs (excluding offensive ones or POV-forks made by themselves) :) If you have better arguments, you have to tell me them. Now "there's no interwiki" became a void argument :) rombik 18:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete because it's POV fork and original research. Track83 13:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you please prove your words? :) rombik 13:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, a nice newly registered suspected meatpuppet of well-known Nikolay Kolpakov: [11] :) rombik 14:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The article is a POV Fork and stems from POV Pushing. Even the very term "homophobic" and "anti-homosexual" is utterly POV. I think homosexuality is grossly deviant behavior that is bad for those who do the action and societies, and I do not want openly homosexual people around my kids. And I openly say all this to homosexuals. Is my view POV? Of course, just like this article. Yet now we have an article that says that when I tell people this it is "propaganda" and I am being "homophobic" or "anti-homosexual". Pure nonsense! I am being intelligent. The very premise of this article is POV and is not a truly encyclopedic article. It needs to be merged into articles without POV premises and titles, such as propoganda and/or Societal attitudes towards homosexuality. CyberAnth 00:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  According to this, the article named Homophobia needs to be deleted immediately. The title is also "utterly POV".--Antanta 06:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No, because right in Homophobia's Intro it clearly sates, "The word homophobic, when when used to describe someone prejudiced against homosexual people, can be a pejorative term, and the identification of a group or person as homophobic is nearly always controversial." This asserts right from the get-go that the term is POV. CyberAnth 09:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  We can add the same sentence in Homophobic propaganda, however this needs to be proved by relevant sources - and I haven't seen any of those yet. So there's no real need to delete the article only because of absence of one statement.--Antanta 10:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - no adequate reasons demonstrated for deletion (and I can't be the only one now seriously fed up with Eastern European feuds spilling onto this Wikipedia).HeartofaDog 15:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is mostly written by me in Russian wikipedia in the form of review which is not an original research according to the rules:

...research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

Now this article is in the process of translation and adaptation for English wiki with help of user Rombik and others. In particular, the need to translate most of the facts on homophobic hate speech from Russian politics is desputed.--Antanta 07:23, 31 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.