Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virago 2


 * 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 of the debate was DELETE. -Splash talk 01:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Virago
Wikipedia is not a thesaurus or (an etymological, philological and otherwise) dictionary. El_C 22:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. The basic meaning of this term is a dictionary definition. It has become the target of an editor who is trying to insert original research that has been rejected by all of the other editors. -Will Beback 23:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This page is apparently the project of an anonymous user who is using it to push his own POV. Earlier versions of the article were in clear violation of NOR and NPOV.  The author claimed that he was presenting an established anthropological theory.  I used several search-engines, for anthropology, medical, social sciences, and biological sciences databases, to look for articles on "virago."  I found none, with the exception of a few biology journals that discussed a species of fly called "virago" (in these cases, virago was neither a concept nor a concept applied to humans, merely the latin name of a species of fly).  I have found no evidence whatsoever to support the author's claims, and conclude that he is pushing original research.  On the discussion page he has suggested that the "suppression" of theories of "virago" were the result of a Jewish conspiracy. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Read it on www.sciforums.com, Mr.Rubenstein. But please open your eyes before. Dixitque Adam: “Haec nunc os ex ossibus meis et caro de carne mea! Haec vocabitur Virago, quoniam de viro sumpta est haec."
 * Delete. A Virago is a "man-like woman" and is thematically related to the idea of the Amazons. In the Middle Ages there arose a popular myth that the so-called "Red Jews" were forging an alliance with the Amazons (Viragos) to crush Christendom. See: Gow (1995) The red Jews: Antisemitism in an apocalyptic age, 1200-1600. --Cberlet 23:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Take out the rambling and bigoted OR and the remainder dwindles to a dictdef. Durova 23:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Delete, lock tight, and throw away the key. Durova 12:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as unverifiable and/or original research. &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-03 23:27Z 
 * Delete. This is clearly a POV article that is a glorified Dictionary definition rather than an encyclopedia article. I concur with all above-stated reasons for deletion. drboisclair 23:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete most of the edits to this article are spent reverting a piece of anthropological heresy. --JPotter 00:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. NeoJustin 00:16, January 4, 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Dicdef turned personal essay. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The reasons for deletion have been well documented by Slrubenstein and others above.  Sunray 01:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Steve. Guettarda 01:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. KHM03 01:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wiki is not dict, nor soapbox, nor journal for original research. --StanZegel  (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and monitor subsequent contributions by the author of the content. 172 06:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and Lock if only to prevent the very, very persistent anonymous user from recreating it. Or is there a way to prevent a deleted article from being recreated? If so, delete. --Brazzy 10:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is. Deleted titles can be locked. :) El_C 13:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nominator and StanZegel. Jayjg (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * double-delete  in well-recorded memory of some shallow leftist deputies and their I-googled-holocaust-but -I couldn't-find-anything mentality (creating the brand-new 2005 leftist "bibliographical holocaust" unknown to the astonished public before) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.138.182.231 (talk • contribs) Jan. 4, 2006 .Please delete Rubenstein's leftist lexicographic trash irreversibly which doesn't fit in this encyclopedia.Thank you.
 * Delete yup, it's a dictionary listing, and as noted above, a persistant target for a vandal who wishes to push his personal POV and original research. I've removed the vandalism from this article many times. --Krich (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep We have been here before see Articles for deletion/Virago. There is an encyclopaedia article on the subject of Virago that goes beyond a mere dictionary definition. It seems its too much for us to cope with though. Suggest locking for a cool off period of 6 months. Lumos3 09:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment We already have articles on gender and gender difference, which is where any scientific material on this theme belongs. Why create a new article when we have an older, well established one to work on? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Other editors have since confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt that this is not a scientific term. All material that goes beyond a dictdef is original research of the worst sort. Durova 18:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator, suggested move to Wikitionary, if it doesn't exist over there. --Terence Ong Talk 14:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and lock. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but encyclopedic articles about interesting words are abundant and desirable. "Virago" qualifies as an interesting word, because 1) it had formerly a positive connotation, then for a long time a negative one, until it was reclaimed as positive by feminists; 2) it was the original name of Eve in the Bible. These facts are not suitable for Wiktionary. It appears that people want to delete this article as an easy way to deal with a persistent anonymous POV-pusher/racist/sexist. The proper way to deal with this problem is to block or lock, not to delete an otherwise worthy article. AxelBoldt 22:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Axel, what is your evidence thaat Virago was the original name for Eve in the Bible? I know of no such evidence. It is used in the Latin Vulgate (by no means the "original" Bible) as a translation for the Hebrew word Isha.  In Hebrew, "man" is "Ish" and Genesis 2:23 says Adam called woman "woman" because she came out of "man" (called "isha" "isha" because she came out of "ish") - the Vulgate translates "isha" as verago in order to maintain the pun, a word for woman that has within it the word for man.  It is a clever translation (of woman, not the "name" for Eve), nothing more. It certainly is not being used as some "concept."  "Isha" in the Hebrew Bible, "Virago" in the Latin translation of the Bible, and "Woman" in the English translation of the Bible, all mean the same thing: generic "woman."  Once again the author of this article has made up out of thin air, or misconstrued and distorted, something to suit his own POV arguments. (Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have no knowledge of the connection of Eve and Virago beyond what's in the article right now. What you write above is interesting to me, and deserves to be put in the article. It appears as if "virago" is simply the Latin word for "woman" then? If the current version of the article is POV, then it needs to be fixed, not deleted. I don't know whether and I am not claiming that there is any "concept" known as "Virago", but there certainly is a word "Virago", and there are plenty of worthwhile things to be said about that word. One could even mention that some racist/sexist anthropologists use(d) the word to denote a (fictional/discredited) concept [if that is true, which I don't know]. So I'll modify my vote above to Keep, edit, and lock. AxelBoldt 18:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

If you are not Axel, please sign your name. You quote the Vulgate. So what? What is your point? Here is the verse in Hebrew: וַיֹּאמֶר, הָאָדָם, זֹאת הַפַּעַם עֶצֶם"מֵעֲצָמַי, וּבָשָׂר מִבְּשָׂרִי; לְזֹאת יִקָּרֵא אִשָּׁה, כִּי מֵאִישׁ לֻקְחָה-זֹּאת. And here is the verse in English "And the man said: 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.'" So what is your point?  The Latin word for man is "viro" and the Latin word for woman is "virago."  So what?  It is just a translation. What bearing does your quote have on this discussion?  Should we have an article on "ossibus" and "carne?"  They appear in the same verse, why not have articles that provide us with the translation of these words? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Axel, my main point is tht the anonymous contributor keeps adding false material. He does it again, in the above quote from the Vulgate.  Yes, it uses the word "virago." No, it is not using "virago" to mean "Eve" (the proper name).  Eve in Hebrew is Hava; woman is isha.  The Vulgate is using "virago" as a translation for isha (woman) not for Eve.  Look at the verse in any English Bible and you will see Adam saying that he will call it "woman."  Just like the English word "woman" has within it the word "man," (or, the English word "female" has within it the word "male") and just as the Hebrew word for woman, "isha" has within it the Hebrew word for man, "ish," the translator wanted a Latin word for woman that had within it a root for man.  The root is "vir" from which we get "virile."  But it is also the source of the word "virgo" (meaning, a maiden or virgin female).  Now, Axel, do you really think we should have an article on the latin word for "woman?"  Should we have an article on all Latin words?  The Vulgate uses the word "virago" to mean "woman" because that is what the word means.  The problem with the anonymous user's material is not so much tht it is POV (although it is), but it is all original research that contradicts verifible sources.  Axel, if you remove all the original research and non-verifiable claims from the article, nothing is left but a definition!  And Wikipedia is not a dictionary! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that the anonymous editor keeps adding false/original/POV/non-verifiable material is a reason to block or lock, but not to delete the article altogether. I disagree with the claim that the only worthwhile thing to be said about this word is its definition. You yourself have said plenty of interesting things about it on this very page, including the reason of its use in the vulgate (was it invented for that purpose?) -- after all, Latin has at least two other, more common words for "woman". Furthermore, the word is used in English and its various connotations trace out an interesting history. None of this is suitable for Wiktionary. But I'm repeating myself. AxelBoldt 20:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Axel, please check virago in the Martin -Saller -Knußmann manual which has been setting t h e world standard since 1914 for physical anthropology.This is  no joke. It is a sad thing that Mr.Rubenstein wants to present me as Anti-Semitic, but I am only anti-nitwit.I am a professor of anthropology with 45 years of experience. I travelled all 5 continents and made important contributions to anthropology. One anthropological journal elected me one of the most influential 200 anthropologists of all times .Virago is an important concept being at least 3500 years old inclusively its racial implications. Every statement of mine is true and correct. The old article was not racist or sexist.It e.g. contained positive statements about the Mongolid race. Please, Axel, check the Babylonian " salzikrum " concept in the Codex Hammurapi and all the other sources. Mr. Rubenstein is obviously not able to read German scientific literature.Mr. Rubenstein is only confusing you with the vulgate stuff Sunray or Wilmcw have introduced later on.
 * False. Edit history reveals that on this page it was you who introduced the Vulgate quotation:  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

False: we are talking about the article, I referred to the article where you introced the OED definition with Eve. Stop this nonsense to have something "unbiased" ! Here we have an unprecedented event in the history of anthropogy the total denial of classic concepts even the old Boasians haven't dared to do.Stop this counterfeiting and smear campaign!Go back to the kindergarten where you belong!80.138.180.99 21:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC) Please, Axel read the manuals, read Weininger (he contributed the "m-f-scale"), the Prussian Max Hartmann who gained world fame for his three laws of sexuality, read the previous version of this article, google "Lesbian+iq" for the higher IQ of Lesbians,you will find charts including races, too, read about the racial implications of masculinity and feminity in Knußman, read about the pedomorphous feminity of the Sanid race in John Randal Baker's "Race"(Oxford University Press,1974)etc.Especially Antarctica is important for anthropology. Hahaha! Mr.Rubenstein presents Knußmann et al. as ridiculous "bonemen" (macabre connotation).Mr. Rubenstein must take not of the fact that the overwhelming percentage is not about sceletal measuring in each of  the about  10 classics I cited. He is obviously not able to understand German like Durova who according to her own statements can understand only easy German.Read  the passages  about virago and read about her aggressiveness, less heterosexual libido,higher homosexual libido, less fertility,proneness to leftist ideologies (Durova is the best example, as a soldier and virago according to her own statements who according to US military manuals explicitly should have an aggressive character ).Mr. Rubenstein and Durova can be called lays in some respects as they have not enough language skills that would enable them e.g. to get in Felix Moos's secret service projects and to read difficult German literature.I myself speak 7  languages fluently and including Russian, Mandarin,French,Spanish and Dutch, I started to learn Russian due to be a prisoner of war in the Second World War where I lost 2 fingers in the battle of Stalingrad as a lieutenant.Durova should not be too self-confident in her physical skills which she threatened to use against me (see discussion page) as I gained a close-combat medal in Russia during my service in the German Wehrmacht. Especially Mr.Rubenstein's bibliograpghical skills are deficient what you, Axel can easily detect. Axel,please check the sources and you will see that Mr. Rubenstein is wrong. He uses manipulative tactics,too, called "deception by only focussing on unimportant details.".His behaviour reflects  a lack of experience due to his young age.Whether there are 5, 6 ot 7 continents e.g. is not important. I meant of course the classical account :Europe,Asia, Africa, America,Australia.Axel, let's do it as you and I have proposed. Let us write some sentences about the anthropological concept in a very critical form Mr. Rubenstein can also be happy with (if he r e a d s the sources). B u t the concept has been an important concept, being in the 1996 world standard manual, and must be included here !80.138.130.218 14:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * For those of you who want to know what Mr. Famous-but-Nameless is talking about, Martin, Saller, and Knußmann provide methods for measuring human morphology, such as skeletal remains. Such data can be very useful in determining the sex and age of the deceased and, in combination with other data, can be useful in determining other factors involving the health of the deceased. By the way, most scientists think there are seven continents, not five. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Nicht wahr. Hatte ich einmal Fluenz in dieser Sprache mit einem Hamburger Akzent.  Heute praktiziere ich selten zu Hause, und deshalb errinerre einige Stücke langsam.  You're adept at distorting facts to suit your purposes.  You don't know me and you have no business adding me to your trail of red herrings.  It's time to put the article to rest. Durova 07:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Many mistakes,  d-level: it is not "Fluenz" being a funny Anglicism, it is "Flüssigkeit", "praktiziere " requires direct object missing here , it is "erinnern" and "ich erinnere" , not "Stücke " but "Strukturen" e.g only to mention the most severe mistakes. Your German is wrong and distorted. Could you check it before you show off next time ?


 * 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.