Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Great Scandal

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 NO CONSENSUS. -Doc ^ask? 11:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Great Scandal

Original research. I cannot find evidence that the term "The Great Scandal" is significantly connected to the rôle of the Roman Catholic Church in the rise of Nazism. Whether or not the rôle of the Roman Catholic Church in the rise of Nazism is sufficently presented in Wikipedia, the idea of this article is flawed. We have several articles on this epoch, events, organizations and actors (Enabling Act, Reichskonkordat, Centre Party (Germany), Franz von Papen, Ludwig Kaas). --Pjacobi 20:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• Cleanup. Digging a bit, the title actually refers to a hypothesis that Christian religious figures both Protestant and Catholic were involved in the Nazi rise to power. Broadly speaking, Germany is Protestant in the north and Catholic in the south. Thus none of the existing articles cited could properly address this issue. This is not original research. The term comes from an article by Gregory S. Paul in Free Inquiry. [1]. In terms of notability this is a close call. It's been cited among some secular humanists as an argument against Christianity. Given the weight of the subject and the scholarliness of the accusation, I'd say this deserves a balanced article. Durova 21:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as another soabox article. If this title deserves an article it should be about the article in question (analogous to Hitler's Pope) and not used as a soapbox. Str1977 22:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Please check my link to the original citation. This article misrepresents the scope of the original. The original is not analogous to Hitler's Pope. My college courses on German history support at least this much: there was no great outcry among the Christian clergy in Germany against Nazism or the Holocaust. Heroic exceptions of course exist, yet the overall picture is indeed a worthy subject for discussion. To cast this in purely anti-Catholic terms is unfair to Catholics. Taken as a group, Lutheran clergy were equally silent. Durova 03:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd consider your college sources to be mostly right, but this shouldn't result in separate article but be addressed in the relevant articles. --Pjacobi 11:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
      • What relevant articles would those be? I checked every one suggested and none fit. The 1933 Enabling Act is inappropriate: that was a legal device the Nazis used to gain power. This doesn't fit into a biography of any specific Nazi figure. The Reichskonkordat, Centre Party (Germany), and Hitler's Pope are all specifically Catholic discussions. Germany has a roughly equal proportion of mostly Lutheran Protestants. NPOV cannot be maintained when three separate articles cover Catholic collusion with the Nazis and none discusses Protestant collusion with the Nazis. When a thesis appears that actually treats both equally, one editor erases the Protestant component and rather than restore balance you prefer to merge it into slimly related matters or a Catholic article? Consider the gravity of the subject. Durova 15:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes, the issue is grave but this is not the proper article. If you want some article on non-Catholic clergy and the Third Reich, they could be created. Also, judging from my experience, the starting editor of this article will not talk much about the things you ask for, focusing solely on specifically Catholic discussion (apart from a bit on Industrial magnates on the side). I'm sorry to say that but that's how it is. Str1977 14:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup. Im just wondering what other article paints the pope as aquesting to Germany, because of his anti-communism. I didn't even know about it, until a WWII vetran brought it up. One of those 'missing' peices of the puzzle of WWII that never gets covered in the histry books. Should we just sweep it under the rug too? --Artoftransformation 22:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Str1977. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 22:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, OR. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete JG of Borg 04:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Clean up I've heard this phrase used in the context of Pius XII. Denni☯ 05:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep,Clean up and expand, possibly rename. Does the funny name justify deletion of the widely expressed allegation? Who says it does? Why? Have they tried balancing the various articles , I ask. How could they not repeat the necessary back-ground and links into each such article. Is it not artificial , and does it not obscure . The reference here to the WWII veteran proves my point at the start of H's Pope- that the term was commonly understood by earlier generations, or is , at best , the Nazi Pope. Because this was hazily understood by such generations, should we continue the haze obscuring it ? Do we not , in fact require editors to obtain the plethora of recently published books concerning this subject both pro and anti, and write the article better? The presentation of the subject of how the dictaorshop took legal hold at the Nazi/Hitler pages is minimal in understanding, and only I included the Communist arrests. Before that, it was written in WP that the Communist party had been banned from the Reichstag , for chrissakes . Keep, & invent true name. I will open a page that seeks to list all the possible titles , now .Ps. Readers of even the defensive links placed in balance will find little defence in the early era, and Goodoldpolonius2 blasted the latter era 's supposed, Jewish ,defence tother day on now NpoV tagged Pope Pius XII talk . Early era produces wriggling of the what w'd u have done kind. Nazi Accession Question posted .EffK 11:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep & Cleanup - looks very real [www.secularhumanism.org/index. php?section=library&page=paul_23_4]. Just needs quite massive clean up and checking for POV and accuracy. Renata3 14:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as it stands. If it stays, it absolutely must not remain under the current title, which is not an accepted term. (Grosse Skandal, Pius XII [2] produces no meaningful results in Google). Dottore So 14:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It is a SOAPBOX article from an editor unwilling to subject his edits to verification and to consensus in the existing articles in the Wikipedia. It is a fork. It is original research. It is written poorly. It basically fails Wikipedia criteria at every point possible. The title The Great Scandal is meaningless and without definition even within in the article itself. patsw 22:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Title of article is apparently original research. Article as written is not capable of being cleaned up. Another article with a different name and written with better sourcing presented as NPOV might be capable of being written. Robert McClenon 01:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • It's amazing how many people don't follow other editors' links when they're offered. Durova 02:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup, possibly rename. Smerdis of Tlön 17:22, 15 November 2005 (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.