Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States


 * 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. default to keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 08:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Supporters of traditional marriage in the United States

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Original research whose references consist entirely of dictionary definitions. No demonstration of notability. Perhaps an article of this type could exist under a different name if it were rebuilt from the ground up; current framing implies the POV that supporters of same sex marriage would be hostile to opposite sex marriage. Durova 306 02:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  —Nat Gertler (talk) 04:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral on this article, others may find the related, and well referenced, Supporters of marriage equality in the United States an interesting read. It could mean that this article has a future if brought up to similar standards, or it could mean that both articles need deleting.  Or it could mean nothing at all, but it seems germaine to the topic at hand.  -- Jayron  32  03:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If it were brought up to similar standards I'd withdraw the nomination. Durova 306 14:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A different name was under discussion on the talk page and there are references out there that show where Opponents stand on the matter.Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2009 (AT)
 * Keep as Opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States.I am happy that a better title was put in place. There are lots of references about Opposition to same-sex marriage, and I feel this article has potental to reflect where they stand on the matter.Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2009 (AT)


 * Keep and tag for clean-up. I initially expected that I would recommend to delete, however, this could be a good companion article to Supporters of marriage equality in the United States if brought up to similar standards. Location (talk) 04:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as Opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States. This and Supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States are companion articles, although this one is currently not well referenced. Per Alansohn here and Mrdthree in Articles for deletion/Supporters of marriage equality in the United States who have drawn attention to the Pro-Choice/Pro-Life labels, I would be OK with renaming the former to Supporters of traditional marriage in the United States on the condition that the latter is renamed to Supporters of marriage equality in the United States. Location (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Same-sex marriage in the United States, where there is better coverage of the issue. There really isn't any meaningful content in this article besides the list of organizations that support traditional marriage, and substantially the same list already appears in the "See also" section of Same-sex marriage in the United States. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I do like the content in the same-sex article. It could probably use its own article though. My major concern is there is nothing in the article (or any of the proposals) to identify supporters of traditional marriage. Instead every effort is made to reframe this self identifier with the tag "opponent of same-sex marriage". Well this strikes me as POV. How does one make the editorial decision to change a self-identifier? Are you judging the entries of an editor or the beliefs of a group? Mrdthree (talk) 13:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Traditionally blacks and whites were not permitted to marry in many U.S. states. Needs some more cites to flesh out, but no doubt the group described in the article exists and is not small. --Milowent (talk) 05:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY Hekerui (talk) 07:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Title and content imply there is only one kind of marriage that is "traditional" in the United States. That isn't true, so using "traditional marriage" to describe that type of marriage is inconsistent with WP:NEO. Better coverage of this material already exists per Metropolitan90 above, and this is a WP:POVFORK. See also the discussion at Articles for deletion/Traditional marriage movement.  Creation of this article does not address any of the concerns raised there. (sdsds - talk) 08:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Provide a citation to the claim. There is only one kind of marriage that is traditional in the United States vis-a-vis the sexes. Traditional does not mean obligatory, it means customary. The dictionary uses the phrase 'traditional marriage' and it has a common, understandable meaning in English. Mrdthree (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Same-sex marriage in the United States. If we find enough content for an article on this topic, rename to Opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States, as a more accurate title. --Alynna (talk) 11:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How is this unlike retitling the "Pro-life" adn "Pro-choice" movements? To retitle a self-label introduces POV. Mrdthree (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well last point is now obsolete.Mrdthree (talk) 14:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Same-sex marriage in the United States. If this can become more than a WP:POVFORK, then it can be recreated as something more accurate (such as Opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States). --Lithorien (talk) 11:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If it could be shown that traditional marriage is as much a coin of the political realm as marriage equality, or pro-choice, or pro-life then according to your rationale, would it still be POV to write an article about it? Mrdthree (talk) 14:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep the article is in development. I think I should get at least two weeks to flesh it out before having to address deletion boards. Mrdthree (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is some stuff I will try and summarize. Maybe this can address notability/neologism issues. I will see if there is anything to address POV concerns. Mrdthree (talk) 12:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As I develop this article, it is useful to consider the arguments being made atWP:Articles_for_deletion/Supporters_of_marriage_equality_in_the_United_States for additional reasons to keep the article. Some of which are provided by the editors here. Mrdthree (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As to POV concerns about the title it should be noted that there is a Pro-life movement not an Opponents of abortion page, there is a pro-choice page, not a supporters of abortion page. Probably other cases of controversial political issues too. I think if the trend in wikipedia is to allow reference the groups' own labels, then to change their labels introduces a POV bias. Mrdthree (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed 100% as to how we should label opinions and movements, and a similar argument is reflected in my vote below. Alansohn (talk) 01:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I made some small changes. See if your votes are changed yet. Mrdthree (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Article is redundant and the title and text is biased. The same goes for Supporters of marriage equality in the United States, which clearly spawned this unneeded article. I would support deletion for both articles, both of which are terribly strung together. VoodooIsland (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * But this AfD is NOT about the article Supporters of marriage equality in the United States also this article had been in development at the time of being marked and a new title was being discussed that could have helped the article in a good direction. Other stuff existing is not a good arguement for a delete. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2009 (AT)


 * Delete - Not only is that article full of bold and uncited assertions about this supposed movement's relevance, it also boldly implies that "traditional marriage" is not a neologism and has a universally agreed-to standard amongst supporters, if not the uninitiated. Keeps arguing for the article's potential can put the article in userspace, or merge it into a bigger article until it can be turned into a useful, neutral resource. Wikipédiste Consommé (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I dont understand the meaning of traditional-- I take it to mean customary. The United States has lasted a couple centuries and it would be bold to claim that the customary form of marriage over these centuries has been something other than monogamous coupling of opposite sex persons. If you were right, there would be no debate. Second, I think if the dictionary can use 'traditional marriage' then its not POV []Mrdthree (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It would also be bold to claim that the customary form of marriage in this country wasn't a license for spousal rape. It's a non-neutral selection of which axes one is looking for tradition on. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats a fair statement. You seem very fair-minded. Mrdthree (talk) 10:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My other comment is at what point does Support for traditional marriage become a political position in the UNited States that needs defining? (similarly for marriage equality). Mrdthree (talk) 14:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, Wikipédiste Consommé, how do you square your Keep and not rename vote for the Supporters of Marriage Equality AfD but an unconditional Delete on the Supporters of traditional marriage article?99.35.45.69 (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Userfy or redirect look like good options (there doesn't appear to be much to merge). Would withdraw the nom if the article were improved to acceptable standards during this discussion.  Durova 306 22:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My main thought is why are people so interested in imposing 4-5 day time limits on the development of articles? How about 14 days? Mrdthree (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You can have unlimited days for consideration before creating or recreating the article. Wikipédiste Consommé (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If it takes 14 days to make it encyclopedic and useful it could be userfied during the interim and return to article namespace when ready.  Durova 306 23:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 *  Delete . Weak keep. If this is completely rewritten to remove original research, synthesis and provide references that actually support the subject then we might have a chance. Despite this AfD and requests for cites the references are abysmal. As is it has the same problems as pointed out in the last AfD that was on the same subject area; coatracking and very poor sourcing to support other ideas related to this but not about this; the one source generally concerns the homosexual agenda not supporting "traditional marriage" whatever that actually is. Frankly this would seem to be covered in the main article. If all the inflated content and poor sourcing is removed there's simply no reason this article should remain. -- Banj e  b oi   03:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed vote per vast improvements, I'm still concerned it's being used as a coatrack but I'm leaning to keep based on the efforts so far. -- Banj e  b oi   01:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Same-sex marriage in the United States per Alynna Kasmira.  « l | Promethean ™ | l »   (talk) 04:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. A very important topic obviously, but I agree that this title is not appropriate, and the content is not at all up to snuff either. So the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, but this particular article isn't. Agree with others that Opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States is probably the right title for this, but I would add that Supporters of marriage equality in the United States should probably likewise be retitled to Supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States (the latter was apparently the original title, but was moved to balance out with this article, which we are now likely deleting). While I'm a huge supporter of "marriage equality" and would (indeed do) phrase it precisely that way, it's POV language used by advocates of a certain position. Saying "same-sex marriage" is far more NPOV. If this ends in deletion I'll probably propose a title change at the "marriage equality supporters" article talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The question of how to frame movements so that they dont feel mildly offensive to one group is a big question. If the dictionary can use 'traditional marriage' then its not POV []. POV is what gets introduced in an effort to suppress ideas that challenge your own; in Wikipedia there is a huge denial on the issue of traditional marriage, and no support is given, especially now that the domain has been limited to tradiional marriage in the United States clearly that limits the domain to a time and place where there is sufficient evidence as to customs? surely the dictionary is one means of accessing that evidence? Mrdthree (talk) 12:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you feel that if something is in a dictionary, it can't be POV. This article links to a dictionary definition that proclaims "Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children." Surely we're not claiming that that isn't POV. Dictionary definitions of marriage have been quite controversial. And in this case, casting people as supporters of traditional marriage based on their opposition to same-sex marriage casts a false light, as many (presumably most) supporters of same-sex marriage also support what you describe as "traditional marriage", and in fact many take part in one-man, one-woman marriages. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep under the new title - The anti-SSM side has been making so much noise over the years and including last year (Californians, remember Prop 8?) that it's notable enough for its own article. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and Restore Prior Name of Supporters of traditional marriage in the United States Just as with the pro-life and pro-choice debate in the United States, we allow each side to define its view and to have that expressed in a descriptive name. We don't call abortion opponents anti-choice and we don't call those who support access to abortion pro-death. The title chosen for this article is as POV as Opponents of traditional marriage in the United States would be in lieu of Supporters of marriage equality in the United States. Alansohn (talk) 01:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for now - a much more plausible name than the prior one, and needs to be given a chance to develop. I'm not convinced this is the best title/label but I agree that we should allow them to label themselves, and I think we can handle a renaming with a WP:RM proposal, though I think any such proposal ought to be a positive one: that there is another label that is more appropriate, backed up by evidence, rather than the argument that this label isn't appropriate.  Mango juice talk 14:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. The main point of the political movement is opposition to same-sex marriage in order to garner greater support for traditional marriage. Likewise, support for same-sex marriage provides the pillars for the marriage equality movement. The titles as they are right now (Support for SSM, Opposition to SSM...) provide the specifics and are consistent with each other. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But a title alone does not an article make and instead of actually covering this subject it's used as a coatrack. We are better than this. -- Banj e  b oi   18:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on the political positions of both sides of the SSM debate, a title of "Supporters of traditional marriage..." for the SSM opponents is not only misleading but also vague too. That implies that the pro-SSM crowd is not supportive of the one man, one woman type of marriage, something that blatantly violates NPOV (and happens also to be a far-right talking point, that same-sex marriage will cause the end of tradition and other stuff). Andrewlp1991 (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If we can just make up our own terms, I would prefer "Marriage traditionalists in the United States". Just a thought, probably not doable because it's a made-up term.  Mango juice talk 05:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Might say the same thing about the Pro-life label. However would you call 'Pro-life' far right? I would imagine not. I would suggest 'traditional marriage' isnt far right either. In fact I would guess the polling suggests it is mainstream. Mrdthree (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article Supporters_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States list all those for it, so we need an article which list all the politicians in office against it, as well as various notable groups. Since the article has been renamed Opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States I think it is perfect fitting.   D r e a m Focus  10:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment About the comparison with labeling groups "pro-life" and "pro-choice" rather than "opponents of abortion" and "supporters of abortion"... It's true that we use those labels. But we don't have lists Supporters of life in the United States and Supporters of choice in the United States.  "Pro-life" and "pro-choice" are accepted terms for political beliefs, while "life" and "choice" alone are POV framing.  --Alynna (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. A considerable part of political discussion concerns framing such discussions.  Neither side of the abortion debate would self-describe as anti-choice or anti-life, which is one reason Wikipedia covers such subjects in nonpoliticized language.  Our site mission includes documenting social movements rather than editorially participating in them.  Durova 310 16:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Same-sex marriage in the United States. No need for a stand-alone article in the light of common heterosexual practice, looks like another rallying banner. Brand[t] 16:07, 3 September 2009 (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.