Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Inquisition Myth

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. Feel free to merge or rename as you see fit. howcheng {chat} 18:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Inquisition Myth

Article title is inherently POV. Article is strongly POV and reads like a research paper, thus running in contravention to WP:NOR. The editor has also removed the NPOV banner that someone else put on the article, which doesn't bode well. → Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 14:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge then delete the redirect. The title is inherently POV, but there may be some usable material here that could be merged into Inquisition or one of its subpages. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 14:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The title is not POV, this is what the Inquisition historical revisionists are generallly calling this line of research (see the biblio section of the article for supporting evidence). BTW this is a legitimate line of research recognized by mainstream historians, it is not the same as, say, the historical deniers. --Stbalbach 20:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, or Merge if possible. We don't need an article entitled 'The Inquisition Myth'. For NPOV purposes, the author, Gth0824 needs to add these points and data to the Inquisition articles, where they could be useful but balanced. Madman 15:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge sources cannot be deleted. If its current title is unpalatable, then move it to a better one (or perhaps a subpage of the Inquisition talkpage). By deleting the source article we're hiding the information on who contributed what from non-admins, which is Quite Probably a violation of the GFDL. So, if we delete, we delete, and if we merge, we keep (tho' a move or whatever is possible). "Merge and delete" bad. Bad! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, just to clarify for the record, and to avoid confusion, it is possible to merge page histories together so that the source article can be deleted while retaining the history from the source article in the target article. It is a process fraught with peril, however, and not for the faint of heart. → Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 15:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Good point about the article history. How about move it to a better name (and delete the no-history redirect, to remove the POV name), then NPOV the content, then possibly merge from the clean content leaving the redirect in place to hold the article history.... Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 15:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. Flyboy Will 17:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There is considerable recent scholarship about the controversies and debate surrounding what actually happened in the inquisition, more than enough to justify a Wikipedia historiography article about it. It would also help solve a lot of POV battles if we can simply "main article" all that cruft out to a single place because its becoming a real problem lately, almost all the edits lately have been edit-wars over this topic, it really needs to be expanded upon in its own article. --Stbalbach 19:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Nobody is arguing with the content - the title itself is what people have a problem with. "Inquisition Myth" is extreme POV. Controversy, Theory, something like that could be fine if a separate article absolutely must be created - however Inquisition itself is short, and I see no reason why this can't just be moved there. If there is opposition, try to reach consensus via the usual channels. Flyboy Will 20:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • A VfD for rename an article interesting.. the problem with putting it in Inquisition is it gives undo balance to controversial subjects. Also, there is more than one Inquisition article, there are as many articles as there were inqusitions. It would be better if each article could simply "main article" to a central place that covers all the controversies, rather than repeating it over and over in each article. --Stbalbach 20:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article title simply needs to be changed. There is obviously a POV issue with the title now.User:Gth0824 (signed on behalf of user to validate vote, see history log to verify.)
• Merge. This is a fork of the Inquisition article. Legitimate content should be presented there. Durova 00:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. per Durova, et al. -Willmcw 00:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete if we were talking about holocaust denial nobody would be saying 'lets merge with the main article'. The term 'Inquisition myth' is inherenty POV, the sources appear to be heavily biased towards the Catholic church which conducted the attrocities. --Gorgonzilla 13:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This article does not attempt to deny the existance of the Inquisitions in the slightest. In fact, it presents an outline of all three waves of Inquisitions and identifies their victims. It is never suggested anywhere in the text that inquisitions did not take place.
    • Au contraire. The article presents every claim that minimizes the crimes as fact. Innocent III is absolved of all responsibility - as if he thought equating heresy with treason as anything less than a death sentence. --Gorgonzilla 14:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    • In addition the editor continues to remove all attempts to reduce the POV nature of the article. --Gorgonzilla 14:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I have not looked at it in detail, but with the ones I saw, I agree with the reversion of your edits. Including the vandalism you made blanking nearly the entire article! Now your calling someone a sock-puppet in the article talk page. --Stbalbach 15:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
        • If the 'editor' will not allow any POV other than their own on the article then removal of the offensive parts is the best approach. The editor refueses to engage in any discussion and it is entirely a personal POV piece that only seems to be supported by yourself and the editor. And yes I do suspect that you are the sock puppeter. --Gorgonzilla 18:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
          • The title of the article needs to be changed, but otherwise the content is supported and cited according to the rules of Wikipedia. As for sock puppets, Gth0824 is not me. You can easily verify this by asking an admin to check it out, why dont you do that? Instead of making baseless claims that do nothing but damage your own credibility. --Stbalbach 18:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename. Delete. The title of this topic is POV. Agnte 10:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• It would have been renamed allready, everyone agrees the name is bad and needs to be renamed, but we can't do anything while the VfD is underway. Would you reconsider to change your vote to "rename"? --Stbalbach 13:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Why of course. It still needs a cleanup :) Agnte 13:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. There is plenty of research that goes along to criticize the "mainstream" ideas about the Inquisition. Yes, the title needs to be changed, but there can be healthy criticism on the issue on the Inquisition, to what extent it happened, and where it happened. One historical study I have read places the numbers executed based on the Inquisition in the hundreds and that the standard of treatment, while not up to modern standards, was far better than in the "civil" system. -- Jbamb 16:33, 26 December 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.