This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Woohookitty 05:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page exists to push the POV of the creator, who has been asked not to include this information in the homosexuality article. As the creator said when creating the page, "This was placed as a serparate article because homophiles on the homosexuality page wanted that page to be strictly dedicated to promotion of the behavior, not logical repudiation." A discussion has ensued on the talk page and an edit war appears to be in place about whether or not this page is NPOV. Also the external link is someone's personal website, not a scientific journal or anything: "[Homosexual] existence is an embarrassing anomaly for Darwinism." If this isn't POV I'd like to know what is... Francs2000 | Talk 2 July 2005 18:46 (UTC)

• I think the page could contain some good information, if both sides of view are presented. However, it is clear that the author is just trying to push an agenda, as judged not only by his actions in this article, but his history of actions in others. Furthermore, he has repeatedly removed the NPOV disclaimer, and made a statement to the effect of "I will allow the NPOV disclaimer if...". It's clear he's using the article to push an agenda, as shown not only by his actions, but by the fact that he wishes greatly to retain ownership of the page. – Mipadi July 2, 2005 18:48 (UTC)

• Is it possible that a logical argument can exist without proper documentation on the internet? If so, why can't Wikipedia be a trailblazer and include information presented as unbiased iteration of that logical argument? I have nothing wrong with putting more information in the article, such as, "opponents belive..." but there are certain editors who want to remove the knowledge altogether, which, to use their own words, "push[s] the POV of the creator." (Unsigned comment by Intellectualprop2002 (talk · contribs), the article's creator shortly before he left this message on my talk page -- Francs2000 | Talk 2 July 2005 19:08 (UTC))
  • Would an RfC be a good idea? Sonic Mew July 2, 2005 19:13 (UTC)
    • I think it would, though I can't start it as I'm leaving the country within hours and have too much to do to get too involved at this stage... -- Francs2000 | Talk 2 July 2005 19:16 (UTC)
    • I think an RfC would be a good idea in this case. || Mipadi July 2, 2005 19:20 (UTC)
      • For the article or user? I was referring to the user, though I suppose the article could also go through it. Sonic Mew July 2, 2005 19:22 (UTC)
        • I was thinking article, but perhaps both user and article are in order. – Mipadi July 2, 2005 19:28 (UTC)
          • Purely for the record: "Opponents believe..." is always a bad idea. If there are specific opponents who have opposing beliefs, they should be explicitely referenced, not given the generic title "opponents", and references should be added showing where they state these beliefs. If there aren't specific opponents whose opposing beliefs are documented, then these purported opponents and their purported beliefs have no place in an encyclopedia article. -Seth Mahoney July 2, 2005 22:32 (UTC)
• The page could contain some good information, if both sides of view are presented. But I fear that while Intellectualprop2002 is around, that isn't going to happen. Delete for now, and if someone can create a better article later, then so be it. Sonic Mew July 2, 2005 19:01 (UTC)
  • I concur. Given the fact that Intellectualprop2002 continually removed the NPOV notice, it's unlikely that he will "allow" any edits to "his creation." Although, I still feel as though a delete is too harsh; I really think the article is meritous, as long as edits for the opposing view are retained. – Mipadi July 2, 2005 19:03 (UTC)
• Definitely seems to be an agenda behind this, which makes me very skeptical about the veracity of the cite. Delete, unless the specific part of Ridley's Genome book that refers to the "either/or argument" is quoted or further explained; otherwise, I have to assume this is original research. Dcarrano July 2, 2005 19:18 (UTC)
• If multiple references can be added that show where this argument is used in academic fields, then keep. Otherwise, delete. -Seth Mahoney July 2, 2005 21:49 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Even if this turns out to be a legitimate topic, it can and should be discussed in human sexuality or asexuality, and not under this meaninglessly mushy title. -- BD2412 ^talk July 2, 2005 22:00 (UTC)
• Delete this user is creating MULTIPLE articles on ONE author's views of homosexuality. See Reduced Gene Pool Argument and vote as well. And also see Homosexuality's section on changeable and permanent and talk page discussion to see how much of a fringe minority this view is. NARTH being 1000 psychologsit while APA, China, EU, representing hundreds of thousands contradicting their view. 67.41.236.211 2 July 2005 23:38 (UTC)
• Delete as a hopelessly POV fork of Homosexuality. --FCYTravis 2 July 2005 23:44 (UTC)
• Delete. Sole source does not appear to support the article. Therefore I'd call if original research. -Willmcw July 3, 2005 00:09 (UTC)
• Delete Original Research. Tobycat 3 July 2005 00:48 (UTC)
• Delete an obvious POV fork, based on the early edit summaries in the history. CDC (talk) 3 July 2005 01:19 (UTC)
• Delete original research, POV fork --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 3 July 2005 07:49 (UTC)
• Delete either a hoax or POV pushing or both. Ref to Matt Ridley seems like a way of warding off deletion, not a real ref. David | Talk 3 July 2005 10:33 (UTC)
• Strong Keep "Wikipedia's goal is to create a free, reliable encyclopedia--indeed the largest encyclopedia in history, in terms of both breadth and depth." from Wikipedia. If everyone can agree on that statement, the idea is to include all rational information in this encyclopedia, NOT to exclude it because it goes against what some people believe. We can state that there IS a school of thought that agrees with this argument, however small and however source-less it is. To exclude it from Wikipedia, despite the amount of sources, would be counter to the goal of Wikipedia. To my knowledge, there is no shortage of storage space for the website, and we do not need to start pruning ideas that aren't known by EVERYONE. After all, what knowledge truly is known by everyone?Intellectualprop2002 3 July 2005 19:07 (UTC)
• Francs2000 was the one who put this article up for deletion because it, "exists to push the POV of the creator." The deletion of this article, however would, in turn be pushing the POV of the deleter, Francs2000. After some research, it appears that Francs2000's sole purpose in his Wikipedia endeavor is to promote homosexuality, and reject ideas that are contrary to what he believes. Every article of his creation that I looked at (about 15) involve actors in a pro-gay television show, homosexual police commanders, types of sexual procedures (cottaging), and even a tremendously insignificant thing such as a "glory hole." A glory hole, evidently, is a device mostly used by homosexual men to engage in sex while maintaining their anonymity Francs2000 began that article, yet he wishes to delete an article describing a logical argument contradicting the genetic probability of homosexuality. It's easy to see what's going on here. This person wants to censor any arguments that do not coincide with his agenda. Wikipedians must realize this and defeat this close-minded behavior. It can lead only to mental prison. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Either_Or_Argument"
  • Non sequitur. Glory hole really has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. – Mipadi July 3, 2005 19:16 (UTC)
    • Perhaps my clarification changes your mind on the non sequitur statement.
      • Not really. If you have a problem with Glory hole, take it up on the Glory hole talk page, not here. Simply listing its existence, or the alleged "agenda" of one of its editors, does not justify the existence of Either Or Argument. – Mipadi July 3, 2005 19:50 (UTC)
        • My goal was to admonish the voters on this article that point of view is relative the person who is reading it. The initial proposal for deletion was, in itself, "pushing a POV," which undermines the argument against the article's existence. It's a very challenging proposition, but if you thikn about it for a moment, I trust you will come to the same conclusion. Intellectualprop2002 3 July 2005 20:05 (UTC)
          • You act as though an NPOV notice is something novel and new on Wikipedia, and we can't possibly understand its implications because we're treading in new waters. This is not the case. NPOV disputes have come up before, and the community is settling them in the prescribed manner. – Mipadi July 3, 2005 20:23 (U
        • It's new to me, that's why I admittedly overreacted, initially. However, your initial requests for corrections to produce a neutral article were followed and still you maintained a NPOV warning. For the amount of emotion involved in this issue, it's unlikely that any attempt to document these ideas will be met open minds. The first instinct will be to delete, delete, delete. That is a shame and is the reason why google will remain a better encyclopedia than wikipedia. There is NO censorship on search engines.

Google is a search engine, and since when has Wikipedia and Google been competing? UkPaolo 3 July 2005 21:30 (UTC)

Since many wikipedians have started using a google search to determine if certain articles are legitimate. Google's mission is "to organize the world's information and make it unversally accessible and useful." That says encyclpedia to me, though, I may have been too poetic for your strictly literal mind, UkPaolo. 66.74.196.5 3 July 2005 21:56 (UTC)

But Google isn't an encyclopedia at all. A collection of information != an encyclopedia. Google makes no attempt to verify its information, and it lists plenty of things, such as personal webpages and corporate webpages, that are not encyclopedic. It also makes no attempt to keep points of view out of its information. Finally, the information contained in Google is not written to nearly the same standards as an encyclopedia. Google might attempt to organize information, but not all information belongs in an encyclopedia. A perfect example is the About page on my personal website, which is catalogued by Google, but is hardly something that should be placed in an encyclopedia. – Mipadi July 3, 2005 23:35 (UTC)

You will learn (probably later than sooner) that all information is a point of view. You cannot get away from bias in information. The best one can hope for is a summary of all the points of view out there. Sure, Google isn't an encyclopedia, by definition, but why do wikipedians use it as a source to legitimize articles? Could it be because it is the closest thing to a summary of all knowledge out there? Again, that says 'encyclopedia' to me, but that's just semantics getting in the way of truth finding. 66.74.196.5 4 July 2005 15:24 (UTC)

All information may be point-of-view, but no encyclopedia (including this one) would ever wish to incorporate the idiosyncratic views of every person. You hold this theory, and doubtless find its logic compelling. We have no evidence that anyone else does. Surely, other people do support various anti-gay "theories," might have formed similar notions, and might agree with you -- even they, though, probably couldn't claim to have heard of this specific "Either-Or" theory prior to meeting you. Evidence suggests this particular formulation is yours alone; and, as such, it doesn't belong here. Xoloz 6 July 2005 05:40 (UTC)

If you have a problem with any of the above articles that you have listed, please bring this up on their respective talk pages: I do not own any of those articles, they are products of the community. If you have a problem with any of my actions please bring this up with me directly (without insulting me or comparing me to a "Nazi book-burner" to reference the last message you left for me) and if you feel you are getting nowhere talking to me you are more than welcome to bring it up in another forum for discussion. Please bear in mind that this is not an appropriate forum for the discussion of someone's actions outside anything in relation to the article being discussed. -- Francs2000 | Talk 22:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - original research. UkPaolo 3 July 2005 20:01 (UTC)
• Delete, POV pushing, at least borderline original research - Skysmith 4 July 2005 09:41 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:NOR and POV pushing. Axon 4 July 2005 12:23 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. Xoloz 5 July 2005 06:11 (UTC)
• Delete - obvious POV pushing article. --Dejan Čabrilo 5 July 2005 12:23 (UTC)
• Delete. Poorly conceived original research. For all intellectualprop2002's attempted eloquence in defending it, the article is itself so fuzzily worded that I'm not even quite sure what the "either or" theory is. carmeld1 6 July 2005 01:42 (UTC)

Summary This is a farce. Justice is being flogged on this website. A band of wikipedians (most of which constantly contribute to pro-gay articles with their POV), yet won't allow a separate article explaining a logical theory in a neutral tone contesting the natural (as opposed to cultural) existence of their beloved behavior. It appears that I have no chance in opening minds on this subject, but I am better for it, while this website and the little band of deleters above IS WORSE OFF for it. They will continue to wallow in their ignorant misery, while the rest of us continue to search for the truth, not a medical "mainstream", google-proved, politically correct shade of the truth. Good luck in prison, little book burners. Intellectualprop2002 4 July 2005 18:16 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.