Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homonationalism


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  05:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Homonationalism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article was created by the same editor who created the Heteropatriarchy article, and I was unsure whether to bundle the deletion nominations. Articles for deletion says "If you're unsure, don't bundle it." My argument for the deletion of this article is the same as the one for the Heteropatriarchy article. This article falls in the neologism territory. And, per WP:NEO, I'm usually not for neologism articles on Wikipedia. This term is covered in some WP:Reliable sources (see, for example, the Google Books search), but I still question its WP:Notability, and whether it should be a standalone article even if it is WP:Notable; see the WP:No page section of WP:Notability. I argue that this topic can be covered in an existing article with no need for a separate article and that our readers will be better served that way regarding the topic as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a major term in critical theory — an interdisciplinary field that crosses philosophy, political theory, gender studies and more. It grows out of Lisa Duggan's scholarship on the homonormative, and was developed by the scholar Jasbir Puar.This is not a neologism. Is is an important, operating concept with a growing bibliography behind it. It isn't unique to Puar's work, but can be found in the work of diverse scholars. (A simple google scholar search affirms this, producing 2,415 results on a search conducted just prior to posting this.) Note: Jasbir Puar's page has been subject to homophobic and racist vandalism. This query isn't, I hope related to that. Note: Homonormative has an entry, as it should. Judyholliday (talk) 03:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If it is a major term in critical theory, that should be fairly easy to prove. Perhaps you could provide more sources to show its relevance? Also, you assert that it is an "important, operating concept", but what makes it so important? I don't get that from the article itself. Of course, it was just created a few days ago, so perhaps it just needs a bit more time. I'm asking these questions before !voting here because I'm not sure how I feel about this AFD. I like the article, and I think a case can be made for the significance of the term, but as it currently stands, it does seem to go against WP:NEO. -- Irn (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Some references — just work with "homonationalism" in the title (excluding Puar's many publications)


 * Cameron Greensmith and Sulaimon Giwa, Challenging Settler Colonialism in Contemporary Queer Politics: Settler Homonationalism, Pride Toronto, and Two-Spirit Subjectivities. American Indian Culture and Research Journal: 2013, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 129-148.
 * Paolo Bacchetta and Jin Haritaworn, "There are Many Transatlantics: Homonationalism, Homotransnationalism and Feminist Queer-Trans of Color Theories and Practices" in Mary Evans, ed. Transatlantic Conversations: Feminism as Traveling Theory (Routledge, 2016)
 * Gianmaria Colpani and Adriano José Habed, "'In Europe It's Different': Homonationalism and Peripheral Desires for Europe" in P.M. Ayoub et. al. (eds), LGBT Activism and the Making of Europe (Palgrave Macmillan, 2014) -- note, "homonationalism" appears in the title of other articles from this volume
 * P Hubbard and E Wilkinson, "Welcoming the World?: Hospitality, Homonationalism and the 2012 Olympics" in Antipode: a Radical Journal of Geography (2014). Full article available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/anti.12082/full


 * See also, for more mainstream use:
 * Christiaan Rapcewicz's "Homonormativity, Homonationalism and the Other 'Other,'" Huffington Post Feb 2, 2016. Full article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christiaan-rapcewicz/homonormativity-homonatio_b_6889606.html
 * Tyler Lopez, "Why #Pinkwashing Insults Gays and Hurts Palestinians," Slate June 17, 2014. Full article: http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/06/17/pinkwashing_and_homonationalism_discouraging_gay_travel_to_israel_hurts.html


 * The term is used by Sarah Schulman in "Israel and 'Pinkwashing,'" New York Times, Nov 22, 2011. Full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/opinion/pinkwashing-and-israels-use-of-gays-as-a-messaging-tool.html — there, she cites Puar: "What makes lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and their allies so susceptible to pinkwashing — and its corollary, the tendency among some white gay people to privilege their racial and religious identity, a phenomenon the theorist Jasbir K. Puar has called 'homonationalism' — is the emotional legacy of homophobia. Most gay people have experienced oppression in profound ways — in the family; in distorted representations in popular culture; in systematic legal inequality that has only just begun to relent. Increasing gay rights have caused some people of good will to mistakenly judge how advanced a country is by how it responds to homosexuality."


 * I could go on. It is not in widespread popular use, but it widely used in scholarship and appears in op-ed pieces in mainstream publications. This makes it a technical term in wide use by specialists (working esp. in political theory and LGBT studies), and available to the reader interested in related issues. Other technical terms with decent entries include performativity, posthuman and transhuman. Homonationalism shares some aspects of its profile with these terms, but it is in more popular use because it is so handy — thus its appearance in the Slate and New York Times op-eds. It is meant to describe the moment that LGBT gender/sexuality becomes absorbed into nationalist discourse, usually to signal a distinction from non-Western "ways of life." It is really important in LGBT studies because for so long, the inclusion of LGBT people within nationalist discourse was almost unthinkable. This has changed dramatically in the past twenty years. Hope this helps. Judyholliday (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Reluctant keep it's awful stuff but I know some reputable philosophers who take it seriously. She has quite a following in certain places. Peter Damian (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Judyholliday, given how neologism is defined, how is it that "homonationalism" is not a neologism? If "a relatively new or isolated term" applies, newness is not the only aspect. Furthermore, when one is talking about what is new in the literature, "new" can refer to things that that only came to be 20 or 30 years ago. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep and clean up. Some of the references aren't really references – for example one seems to be an announcement of a conference on the topic, not research related to it. Some of the styling grates – string of seven footnotes on one sentence shouts "shotgun approach" to me. But at least three of the five references I read are legit. It is a neologism, but then so are Ashoroa, Sphingobium japonicum, and Anthe (moon). Academics like naming new social theories just as much as new natural discoveries. Cnilep (talk) 05:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

It's a useful term in use across a range of scholarship and within communities trying to understand, for example, how to navigate national response to the Orlando shooting — in which the vulnerability of LGBT people becomes a site for nationalist identification. There is a reason we are talking about the term right now. In any case words, at some point, were new. Words grow in meaning and importance in different ways — sometimes by common, wide use and sometimes by intense use within specific communities (academics, fans, technical workers etc.). Political pressures will mark some words, however, as less important than others: "homonationalism" grows from its use by people committed to thinking from queer-of-color-perspectives, thinking and working at the intersection of power dynamics re race, sex, and nation. Anyway, yes, at one point it was a neologism. At one point the word neologism was a neologism! Homonationalism is used by a large enough community which understands what it means that it is now a technical term of some importance, useful, in particular, for talking about pressing political issues in contemporary politics. Judyholliday (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Appears to be a real subject of serious academic study. See for example these sources I found with Google Scholar:
 * Puar, Jasbir K. Terrorist assemblages: Homonationalism in queer times. Duke University Press, 2007.
 * Puar, Jasbir. "Rethinking homonationalism." International Journal of Middle East Studies 45.02 (2013): 336-339.
 * Morgensen, Scott Lauria. "SETTLER HOMONATIONALISM Theorizing Settler Colonialism within Queer Modernities." GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 16.1-2 (2010): 105-131.
 * Zanghellini, Aleardo. "Are gay rights Islamophobic? A critique of some uses of the concept of homonationalism in activism and academia." Social & Legal Studies (2012): 0964663911435282.
 * Bacchetta, Paola, and Jin Haritaworn. "There are many transatlantics: Homonationalism, homotransnationalism and feminist-queer-trans of color theories and practices." Transatlantic Conversations: Feminism as Travelling Theory (2011): 127-44.
 * SJK (talk) 09:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep or Merge to LGBT conservatism, which looks to deal with some similar themes already. what are your thoughts on merging to that article? To be clear, I'm not proposing that they are synonymous, nor am I saying that this concept is not notable, but that this may be better covered under that larger topic (per WP:NOPAGE). &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 13:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per SJK and others. This appears to be a significant subject of study within critical theory. Graham (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2016 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.