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 No consensus to delete Angr (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoplophobia[edit]

Hoplophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable pseudo-scientific pejorative neologism; anything of actual value here could be included in the article on gun advocate Jeff Cooper, who coined the term and popularized it. See recent discussion on talk page. Orange Mike | Talk 02:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It should be deleted and added to the entry for Jeff Cooper. This is just a stub. It is not a medical condition or mental illness, as described on this page. It is covered in as much useful detail in Wiktionary, and repeating essentially the same information in Wikipedia is redundant and a waste of resourcesWP:DICTIONARY. It is a politically-charged term, and the entry is subject to vandalism for political purposes. It was originally intended for use as a political smear to label people in favour of gun control as being "mentally ill," or, as Cooper has stated himself, to anger proponents of gun control. It is only notable within the context of the gun culture in the United States; for the other 95% of the world it is not notableWP:N. References to its use in this discussion point to gun magazines, gun owner websites, or gun aficionado books. The majority of these references refer right back to Jeff Cooper. Wikipedia should not be used as a vehicle for legitimizing a particular point of viewWP:SOAP. Moving "hoplophobia" to the Jeff Cooper page will put the term in its correct context, and healthy discussion and debate can resume in that context.StopYourBull (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)StopYourBull (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re your recent additions: whatever Jeff Cooper intended the term to connote in 1962 is irrelevant now, half a dozen years after his death; it's now akin to the world homophobia with a wide range of uses, right down to the latter being used as a political smear against the subsets of those who oppose certain measures without fearing or disliking homosexuals. As for notability, for the English Wikipedia is the fraction in the largest native English speaking nation significant? If so, it's at minimum 47% of the nation, according to a Gallup poll as of a year ago (weasel word since many gun owners refuse to tell strangers who call them up on the phone that they own guns...). Almost all of them are members of the US "gun culture" (many notable pro-gun control figures own guns, including Sarah Brady (can't source my memory of her owning a shotgun, but she bought a rifle for her son)), with the usual distribution of more and less active. Hga (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This afd is for "hoplophobia" not "homophobia." If you believe that "homophobia" has been coined to be used as a political smear, and that it is not notable and not used as a genuine phobia or legitimate condition, then you should take the appropriate steps to have the Wikipedia article changed or merged into a suitable context. You may be correct. Once again, with all due respect, you cannot confuse the "world" with what takes place in the United States. This is something that is peculiar to US gun culture and that is particular to Jeff Cooper, even if he is dead. Other countries do not have the same outlook on gun culture. "Hoplophobia" has never been anything more than what Jeff Cooper intended it to be: a pejorative to degrade and anger proponents of gun control. It is certainly part of the gun culture debate in the US and, as such, should be preserved as part of Jeff Cooper's contribution to that debate, but not as a word of any note with any use divorced from US gun culture.StopYourBull (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a non-notable neologism. Urban Dictionary is thattaway... ---> Carrite (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Jeff Cooper, per nom, and article's talkpage. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Still Merge. There is 1 opinion column that discusses the term itself (in 30 words), and all other citations currently in the article are footnotes/dictdefs or primarysources from Jeff Cooper. The suggested links/refs below are correctly analyzed by The Red Pen of Doom, as not supporting the independent notability of the term. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• merge and redirect to Cooper i found a few primary source uses of the term, mostly as simply entries of the word in "completely exhaustive lists of every ___-pobia" or in self published pro gun lit. the only third party analytic/encyclopedic coverage of its usage has been solely in connection with its coinage by cooper and the joke nature thereof. there is not anything about its current (mis)-use in the progun literature to attempt to attach a nonexistant clinical disorder to people who oppose guns being everywhere. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Cooper - I'd argue about the claim by the nominator that it's "perjorative"; I've encountered people who do indeed have an utterly irrational (per the defintion of "phobia") fear of guns, to the point they become jumpy and nervous at merely having them be mentioned around them. That said, though, this isn't notable enough (yet?) for its own article, so it should be covered in Cooper's article with a redirect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's written up in books such as this and generally these. Hoplophobia is like homophobia, but for guns is a significant coverage source on the topic. Can "hoplophobia" be cured? is another significant coverage source on the topic. The source Tales from the turkey shoot contains source material for an article on Hoplophobia. The article has some reliable sources in it as well. The term's popular usage in sources may have begun around March 2007: "Now, thanks to gang violence, school shootings and general hoplophobia, kids can't really run around the street pointing gun-like objects at each other and screaming."[1] The other sources I found mostly are letters to the editor, so the term hoplophobia mostly seems to be used by people who like to write letters to newspapers for publication. Second to them in usage are those who write editorials for news papers. Given that it is an article about a word, perhaps it also needs a reliable source discussion how the word is use in popular culture (e.g., many letter to the editor writers and editorialists like to use the term hoplophobia). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC) P.S. In August 2012, a Nebraska school asked parents of three year old deaf boy Hunter Spanjer to change the boy's name because the hand gestures the boy used for his name looked like a gun and it violated the school's zero tolerance on guns.[2] (Uzma Gamal's comment: Further on The Bushranger's comment above, the term hoplophobia can be used without out being perjorative. For example, years of hoplophobia would seem to be part of what led to an outcome such as in the three year old deaf boy Hunter Spanjer situation.) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

there are many points where I disagree with your analysis - for example this editorial [3] there are several WP:REDFLAG's for one is the claim "A single word can change the nature of an entire national debate, and hoplophobia is just such a word. " for a word coined almost 50 years ago, it is entirely lacking in sources outside of the gun community and so a claim of 'changing the entire nature of the debate' is quite absurd. Second americanhandgunner does not have a reputation for being knowledgeable about medical facts, and it is basing its content upon a paper by Sarah Thompson (i doubt that an actress, a centuries-dead countess or a fictional character is a recognized expert on phobias/medical conditions) however, it fails to provide any details to be able to check on its source (the website where the paper was supposed to be house no longer has it). the editorial goes on to make this analysis "Hoplophobes are afraid of their own inability to control themselves. ... This explains the never-ending nonsense arising every time a new carry law or gun-rights bill is enacted." yet another REDFLAG content.

the fact that "holophobe" appears in google searches is well known arguement that shouldnt be given any weight in AfD discussions as there is no proof that the hits are in reliable sources or that the content is significant or otherwise encyclopedic.

and I am not seeing any reliable sources that show the example of the deaf child's signed name as being "holobia" - thats pure WP:OR-- The Red Pen of Doom 12:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It does not duplicate very much at all of the material in Wiktionary. The term, while coined by Jeff Cooper in 1962 and who died in 2006, has taken a life of its own, and as Uzma Gamal points out there are plenty of clear cut examples of it in the real world that are not particularly "political" (how else do you explain a school asking parents to change a boy's name ???). It could of course be further fleshed out, but it's already pretty solid. Failing that, obviously merge with Jeff Cooper. BTW, does Wikipedia has a policy of deleting entries that are "politically-charged [and] subject to vandalism for political purposes"? If so, why didn't the powers that be simply delete Mia Love's entry after her 2012 Republican National Convention speech to spare everyone the trouble of fighting the vandals? Hga (talk) 12:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  To your question at the end: No. That editor is stating something that is Not supported by policy/guideline. Articles are kept/deleted based on Notability, and the reaction to severe vandalism is protection. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - changing to keep after reading the convincing arguments above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete* WP Not a dictionary. Neither is this a notable word. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 22:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete (and no redirect, either). Stupid neologism invented for self-promotion. EEng (talk) 03:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • These comments are relevant circa 1962 when Cooper came up with the term; I'm pretty sure he didn't invent it for self-promotion, although he certainly used it in material some might consider self-promoting (he didn't obtain his stature in the field without "self-promotion", although by definition that ended no later than 2006). As Stalwart111 notes below, it may be "stupid"---I certainly thought it was a bit silly at best when I first learned it many years ago (then again my study of war starts after the Greek period so it has no resonance for me) and I almost never use it---but since its coining it's undeniably become part of the debate per all the references and it does with one word describe an clearly observable phenomena. Which was a reason neither "stupid" or "self-promoting" to coin it in the first place.... Hga (talk) 11:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable term. It does not duplicate material, and it is wrong to censor WP. Yaf (talk) 06:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It may be true that the term is "stupid" and originally "self promoting" but that doesn't change whether or not it is notable or whether or not its notability is verifiable. Whether we like it or not, the term has now become an accepted part of the debate around gun ownership and gun control (see here and here). Stalwart111 (talk) 06:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

those are not reliable sources about the term, merely primary examples of primary sources attempting to (mis)-use the term. -- The Red Pen of Doom 10:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; just pointing out it's use in the context of the debate. I think that the term itself is perhaps a misuse of -phobia but it doesn't really matter what I think... :-) Stalwart111 (talk) 10:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

but until we have reliable third party sources talking about the term and the use of the term it fails the WP:GNG for having a stand alone article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 10:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For sure, and to be fair I haven't really seen much analysis of the existing references (just debate about the term itself). My inclination is to assume good faith on the part of the editor who added the references but if they are no good then that should be made clear - it would certainly alter my view. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 11:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• KEEP - If people realize they may have an unfounded fear of someone's simple exercise of our Constitutionally guaranteed natural right to carry the means to defend ourselves, if necessary, it may give them a reason to give their fear a second look. There are people who have a fear of the weapon because of its misuse by someone they knew when they were much younger and they can then pin the fear to the person, not the weapon. Also, if they are afraid in that way, they can know they are not alone in that fear, but rather than act on that fear, they have an alternative in dealing with their own feelings and how they affect their own lives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semperloco (talk • contribs) 01:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A stellar example of an ILIKEIT argument... Carrite (talk) 18:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, of course. Delete this and you must in fairness delete Islamophobia, Homophobia, and all other political neologisms that tack -phobia on the end. Since none of the naysayers would consider deleting Homophobia or Islamophobia, this really just comes down to bias. Apply the same standard to all. Deep Candle (talk) 03:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A stellar example of an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument... Carrite (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contribution. Deep Candle (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2012 (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.