Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catholic peace traditions


 * 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. Despite substantial concerns about essay-like tone, original research and Christian POV, there is a clear consensus that this is an encyclopedic subject and that the article should be kept in the hope of improvement. JohnCD (talk) 10:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Catholic peace traditions

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I'm sure it's very interesting, but it's an essay with very few reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete the article is written in essay tone. It also combines a large number of trends, that it admits are not really related.  It probably represents a violation of policy on original research.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It's always sad when "essay" is mis-used to mean "written to a much higher standard than we are used to" and "original research" to mean "needs a bit of ordinary editing for conformance to our house style rather than the scholarly house style that the author is clearly used to". Wikipedia isn't aimed solely at the pocket dictionary crowd, you know.  People: Catholic Peace Traditions is an article  in  and is thus by definition encyclopaedic, even if one discounts all of the books in the Further Reading section of this article, Professor Anne Klejment at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota, Associate Professor Patricia F. McNeal at Indiana University , Professor Thomas A. Shannon at Worcester Polytechnical Institute and Assistant Professor Thomas Massaro at Weston Jesuit School of Theology , the "pacifism" entry in  and Melton's Encyclopaedia of Catholicism that cites Musto's work , and many others (such as ) writing about Catholicism in the field of peace studies over the years. Interestingly, it appears that the person who wrote that encyclopaedia article for Oxford, Ronald G. Musto, is the same  who wrote this encyclopaedia article.  It's saddening to see the different receptions that subject experts get from the professional editors of Oxford University Press and from the editors at Wikipedia.  When an article is written to the scholarly standard that one finds in subject-specific encyclopaedias, people, you don't reach for AFD.  You try to make the other articles better, to bring Wikipedia up to the standards of other encyclopaedias, and you help the experts to follow our house style.  Uncle G (talk) 09:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: why are people using the Xfd process for legitimate topics that need cleanup? This should not have been nominated for deletion.  It requires cleanup and a rewrite. Viriditas (talk) 12:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I glanced at it and Viriditas seems to have a good point. If any of the material is challengeable or unverifiable, then tag it with citation needed. The tagging editor should make an attempt to find a reliable source. If any of the wording is not appropriate, edit it. Deletion of the whole article in this case seems to be a lazy, slash and burn approach to editing. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: why are people using the Xfd process for legitimate topics that need cleanup? This should not have been nominated for deletion.  It requires cleanup and a rewrite. Viriditas (talk) 12:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I glanced at it and Viriditas seems to have a good point. If any of the material is challengeable or unverifiable, then tag it with citation needed. The tagging editor should make an attempt to find a reliable source. If any of the wording is not appropriate, edit it. Deletion of the whole article in this case seems to be a lazy, slash and burn approach to editing. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: why are people using the Xfd process for legitimate topics that need cleanup? This should not have been nominated for deletion.  It requires cleanup and a rewrite. Viriditas (talk) 12:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I glanced at it and Viriditas seems to have a good point. If any of the material is challengeable or unverifiable, then tag it with citation needed. The tagging editor should make an attempt to find a reliable source. If any of the wording is not appropriate, edit it. Deletion of the whole article in this case seems to be a lazy, slash and burn approach to editing. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: why are people using the Xfd process for legitimate topics that need cleanup? This should not have been nominated for deletion.  It requires cleanup and a rewrite. Viriditas (talk) 12:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I glanced at it and Viriditas seems to have a good point. If any of the material is challengeable or unverifiable, then tag it with citation needed. The tagging editor should make an attempt to find a reliable source. If any of the wording is not appropriate, edit it. Deletion of the whole article in this case seems to be a lazy, slash and burn approach to editing. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete or userfy - to anyone prepared to do the amount of work that would require it to be policy compliant. I also have doubts as to the specific subjects notability and see current issues as regards "no original research" - feel free to improve in your user-space or within the Catholic wikiproject space. Youreallycan (talk) 16:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you identified specific sentences or parts of the article for improvement on the article's talk page. Anything would be helpful; it doesn't have to be comprehensive. BTW I just rewrote the first sentence and I would recommend that others here also contribute a little, either by making improvements or suggesting on the talk page specifically where improvement is needed. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The talkpage has got about four comments in the last three years. Do you want me to stub the article back for you to a policy compliant version so that you can develop it within en wikipedia policies and guidelines? -  Youreallycan (talk) 18:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, not really. I guess your point is that there isn't enough interest in the article to expect it to improve, even if you made specific criticisms on the talk page. That may be. (See my comment below.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Userfying could be a good option. The creator could keep it in his user space until he has backed up all his claims with appropriate citations, just like everyone else has to do. It's the job of the person who adds content to find citations for it. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 07:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Erm, well. It is an essay and original research. On the other hand, it's an essay by Ron Musto, an erudite person who isn't blowing smoke. I'm entirely confident that there is such a thing as the Catholic peace tradition, and that it's notable. See Just war theory for instance which is in some ways a subset of this, is essentially Catholic, and has an article and should. Since it's a notable subject, it should be kept and reformed as needed. (Granted, there are cases when an article on a notable subject is so bad that it'd be better to delete it and start over, but this isn't one of them -- it's a well-constructed article and probably mostly accurate.) Musto's article in the Peace Encycylopedia is probably a reasonably reliable source, so if they're generally similar (but not enough to be copyvio or plagiarism, I hope and assume!) then maybe a lot of the statements in this article can be ref'd to that one. Herostratus (talk) 21:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Does Wikipedia really care if you're smart and if you're published in real life if you can't follow Wikipedia policy when writing for Wikipedia? The article has almost no citations. Those citations that it does have are to sources like this and this that don't tell us anything about the subject and that may not be reliable. Nothing ties all these disparate movements and individuals together but an editor's say-so, and that simply isn't good enough. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 07:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Uncle G is right: while much work is needed (the tone is more appropriate to a Catholic-specific publication, and there are indeed personal elements) the topic is clearly notable, and ample sources are available. Most problems could be addressed by extensive initial cutting (reminding the author that the cut material remains in history for him to draw on to rewrite and reintegrate into the article).  EEng (talk) 23:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable topic in the history of religion and peace and conflict studies.  We're here to cleanup and expand notable encyclopedia topics and to improve them to the best of our ability.  We are not here to delete anything that requires maintenance and hard work.  Xfd has its priorities wrong, and as I've said for years now, all responsibility for Xfd should be delegated to the WikiProjects as the active members of each project have the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind.  For those who haven't noticed, the most strident deletionists are always found within the relevant WikiProject, not outside of it.  While this might seem nonintuitive, we expect and hope that those with an understanding and knowledge of the topic will possess the intellectual honesty necessary to make the right decisions. Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I struck out my previous message, which tended towards keep, because the editor Youreallycan got me thinking. Here are several reasons for deleting.
 * 1) Even those who recommend keep, acknowledge that it needs work to comply with Wikipedia style and policy.
 * 2) It is a large article which would require considerable work for compliance with Wikipedia style and policy, and I haven't seen much, if any, evidence of movement toward complying with Wikipedia style and policy in years, and there is no indication that there will be.
 * 3) I have the impression that this article was essentially made by copying an article that appears elsewhere, which violates Wikipedia's prohibition against plagiarism. It does not matter if the editor who is copying the material is the author of the original article elsewhere, it would still be considered as Wikipedia plagiarizing work elsewhere. Articles in Wikipedia are meant to be summaries of the literature on a subject, not a place to reproduce that literature.
 * Please note that this is not a judgement on whether or not there is information in the source article that would be appropriate for Wikipedia. The point is that just the information that is useful for Wikipedia should be used and summarized, rather than essentially reproducing the whole source or many parts thereof. I think that the editor Youreallycan made a reasonable suggestion and offer which I think that everyone who wants to keep it should consider, "Do you want me to stub the article back for you to a policy compliant version so that you can develop it within en wikipedia policies and guidelines?" And Youreallycan also suggested, "feel free to improve in your user-space or within the Catholic wikiproject space."  In other words, Youreallycan is suggesting that the article be copied and pasted elsewhere in Wikipedia for work as a draft, and Youreallycan would delete most of the article so that only the policy compliant part would remain, which would be just a stub. As parts of the draft become policy compliant, they can be incorporated back into the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That doesn't follow. First of all, articles are a work in progress.  We have no deadline here.  Except for articles that have reached GA or FA class, there is no such thing as a policy-compliant encyclopedia article. This kind of argument leads one to believe that anything less than GA should be sent to Xfd.  That's ridiculous.  I don't find User:Yourealycan's suggestion reasonable or persuasive, and we already have editors working on the problem in good faith and attempting to fix the article.  That's what we do here.  The appropriate venue for these types of concerns is a relevant noticeboard and/or WikiProject, not Xfd.  Finally, there is no evidence of any plagiarism, so I don't recognize your concern. Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Viriditas, I noticed the work that you just did on the article. My impression is that this type of work is what this article needs and is good for Wikipedia.
 * Re plagiarism — I had that impression from the current style of the article and from Uncle G's message: " Catholic Peace Traditions is an article in  and is thus by definition encyclopaedic" and, "Interestingly, it appears that the person who wrote that encyclopaedia article for Oxford, Ronald G. Musto, is the same  who wrote this encyclopaedia article."
 * However, I have since got the idea that I could check for copy and paste by looking at the earliest versions of the article, and compare them to the present version. Based on this examination, and assuming there wasn't any copy and paste later, it looks like the present version is not mostly a copy and paste. Also, immediately after rgmusto's initial work, the article seemed to have a better Wkipedia style, with regard to some of the wording, than it has now. (However, I would qualify my remarks by saying that I didn't spend a lot of time studying both versions.) Seems like a later editor or editors changed the style in the wrong direction.
 * Anyhow, I think you're doing the right thing. : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you explain what you mean by a copy and paste? The comment that it's on the same subject and by the same author as a published piece makes me disappointingly suspicious that it's a massive copyright violation, and I can't check because the book isn't viewable on Google Books. (The author and article creator being one and the same does not make this problem go away.) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 07:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Re "Could you explain what you mean by a copy and paste?" — I meant copying from the Oxford article and putting that in Wikipedia. I was concerned like you of that possibility, but I didn't have any conclusive evidence for that. If you want to pursue that question, you might want to look up the source in a library.
 * However, the plot thickens regarding whether or not it is a copy and paste! In Cullen's message below, it was pointed out that the Musto article was published in 2010. I hadn't taken that into account for my previous examination. Looking at the history of the article, the wording problems that I noticed came into the article with a major rewrite by Pacificus07, beginning with the edit of 15:04, 27 April 2009 and ending with the edit of 15:08, 10 May 2009.  Here's the total diff. A  message on the talk page of Pacificus07 suggests that he is Musto. So Musto may have edited first under the account name Rgmusto, and then as Pacificus07. The version in Wikipedia that he put in back then may have been a draft for the article later published  by Musto in 2010. So, following the idea in Cullen's comment below, even if Wikipedia contains identical passages as the 2010 Musto article  in The Oxford International Encyclopedia of Peace, there may be no issue re copyright or plagiarism because those passages appeared in Wikipedia before they appeared in the Oxford article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * True, I hadn't noticed the dates. The problems I originally mentioned with the article are still present, though, and the best that should happen is userfication until it's reliably sourced. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Other than speculation that this might be some sort of copyvio I don't see how any of this qualifies the article for deletion under WP:DEL. EEng (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In response to your edit summary, WP:DEL includes "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia," which contains a link to WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If the topic per se existed only as the product of someone's OR, that would be anargument for deletion. It's clear from the references in the article that this is an established topic of scholarly discussion. Individual instances of OR in the article, if any, should be dealt with through editing. EEng (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is notable and ample reliable sources are available in the reading list in the article itself and as brought forth by Uncle G which can be used to improve the referencing of the article. A Wikipedia article originally written in 2006 cannot be plagiarism of an encyclopedia article published in 2010.  The fact that an acclaimed four volume encyclopedia published in 2010 covers the topic is additional evidence that the topic is notable.  We are fortunate to have the input of a world class expert here, and we can reference and improve his 2006 contribution rather than deleting it.  The argument that no one will actually improve the article is belied by the fact that Viriditas has been working hard in recent days to improve the article, and that many other constructive edits have been made over the years.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  07:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Although any single edit is a benefit - the recent minor changes, mostly to headers, have done nothing to change the nominators deletion issues. I still feel it would benefit from userfication and a rewrite with some inline externals supporting the content. This wiki is not written by world class experts, we have WP:Policies and guidelines to consider and guide us, and to get this essay to abide by those guidelines imo close to a complete rewrite would be necessary. Youreallycan (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It certainly needs a change in tone, and it needs inline refs, and probably additional points of view need to be brought in. But the structure and writing are excellent -- "close to a complete rewrite" is hyperbole.  And anyway "needs a complete rewrite" -- even if it's true -- is not a deletion argument, except in limited circumstances such as blatantly promotional articles. EEng (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hyperbole -is adding three ??? to your edit summary. - Its completely, more or less uncited - looking at it, some of it imo is uncitable. Luckily its not about living people but its a bad show man. Readers come and read this sort of thing and expect our article to have a certain standard of verification which this article does not have. - Youreallycan (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Three ??? conveys emphatic doubt which, far from being itself hyperbole, is in fact a measured response to (what I saw as) hyperbole. Now back to the content of the discussion... Anyone who comes to Wikipedia expecting its articles "to have a certain standard" is mixed up about how it works.  I'm sure you're right that much is unverifiable, and that content should be cut. But that's not an argument for deletion. EEng (talk) 22:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In the last day there has been a good effort to improve the article. Anyone wishing to add their efforts would be welcome and that wouldn't hurt the discussion here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Witness (1985 film) - I love that movie, very peaceful, lots of green. Harrison should have stayed with that Amish lady. Youreallycan (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything that addressed the deletion rationale, which was a lack of reliable citations. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I won't review the whole discussion to see whether in fact this point has or hasn't been made already -- though I suspect it has -- but anyway it can stand to be made twice: lack of citations is not an argument for deletion. EEng (talk) 22:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Re reliable citations — I expect this citation could be well used in the article,
 * Musto, Ronald G (2010). "Catholic Peace Traditions.". In Young, Nigel J.. The Oxford International Encyclopedia of Peace. 1. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
 * Does anyone happen to have it? (Uncle G?) Or would care to go to a library  for it?
 * I don't think it's a matter of the material being unverifiable, but rather that effort is needed to obtain and read the Oxford article, and others, and make the inline citations. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If I'm reading this right, according to this site, virtually anyone enrolled in a major UK tertiary educational institution has full access to the book. Viriditas (talk) 03:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI...my library reports that they had Musto's original book, The Catholic Peace Tradition (1986) [2002] in their system, but it is now reported as "lost". Viriditas (talk) 04:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Jackpot: here is a list of all of the sources used to support all of the Musto content in the Wikipedia article broken down by relevant section. Whether this means we are dealing with copyvio or not is not clear to me, but I think it is obvious that the original author released their work to Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

- * - There is no "obvious release of "the Musto content" to wikipedia at all. Extracts from a copyrighted work need a clear verified release statement. There is also no confirmation of the identity of the user that created the article here either. If there is either of these things please point me to them for OTRS verification. Perhaps someone could make an attempt to content the book author to see if it was him that created it and to ask for a CC release statement.Youreallycan (talk) 09:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me rephrase: there is no indication of any copyvio. Viriditas (talk) 11:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The page history shows something interesting. (also editing as ), rewrote the article due to what he saw as the previous use of  "copyrighted materials" in 2006.  He explains on his talk page in 2009 that "the edits are of my own original posting here, made to avoid a conflict with a copyrighted piece I'll be publishing."  Although I'm speculating, this tells me that Pacificus07 is User:Rgmusto,  and he removed his original edits from 2006 in 2009 so that they would not conflict with his 2010 Oxford encyclopedia entry on "Catholic Peace Traditions".  The IP geolocates to Musto's known location which cannot be written off as a coincidence. If this is true, and there is enough evidence pointing to its veracity, then any potential copyright problems were removed in 2009.  Note, since the content was removed from Wikipedia before Oxford published Musto's encyclopedia entry, there does not seem to be a problem with the current article. Viriditas (talk) 11:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If someone wants to go look at Oxford for copyvio, fine, but until then the idea that there's a copyvio remains nothing but speculation, and in fact what evidence we actually have points to someone having taken the trouble to avoid copyvio. BTW, this talk of "the original author [having] released their work to Wikipedia" doesn't apply, since most academic authors sign their copyright interest over to the publisher. EEng (talk) 13:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hm, thanks for the additional investigations - It does all point to Musto from the comments of the accounts. It is quite complicated and really would be better avoided. I still support delete and a complete rewrite as the best resolution. It seems possible that a user released content to our article under a CC licence (as we all do) and then returned to rewrite it as he then was about to copyright the text he had released here under CC licence - technically that content is un-copyright-able after its release here and he should not have done that. The offending content remains released in the articles edit history. Best resolution imo is delete - like, it's disputable, so clean it up and write yourself a new article, free of any issue - this one needs completely inline citing and as a minimum a fair degree of rewriting anyway. Youreallycan (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * IMO, there's no reasonable copyright issue regarding a contribution to Wikipedia in 2009 that may or may not have some passages that are the same as an article published later in a reliable source in 2010. I think in this case, the burden of proof is on those speculating there is a copyright problem. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. If anyone wants to pursue the copyright issue, here's a link to contact information for Ronald G. Musto. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * - As I understand it's the other way around at wiki we are encouraged to err on the side of caution regarding legal issues. Copyright - I don't know if you are experienced in copyright? Imo the author of the article clearly states that there is a copyright problem when he says, "The edits are of my own original posting here, made to avoid a conflict with a copyrighted piece I'll be publishing." - Youreallycan (talk) 15:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Re "err on the side of caution regarding legal issues" — Within reason. The quote you gave is exculpatory, not incriminating. Contact Musto if you think the quote you gave is false. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The quote I gave seems to use a bit of good faith completely correct, however that is imo a part of the problem - he had no right to do that legally. What he should have done in that situation was request a good faith deletion and oversight of the previously released content - rewriting it does not remove the fact that it was released under a commons license and does not remove it from the edit history of the article. - Also as regards deletion - none of the nominators issues have been addressed as yet at all. We still have a large uncited essay, although uncited is not a deletion rationale, under the circumstances with the additional issues, it is in this case an additional weight in support of deletion reasoning. Youreallycan (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * All issues have been addressed. The problem is that you are alleging rationales for deletion without any evidence. We have more evidence to keep this article than we have to delete it.  That it has maintenance problems typical of any article under the GA/FA threshold is not a legitimate reason to delete.  Xfd isn't supposed to be used for cleanup and maintenance. Viriditas (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I've read some more of the article, and it's looking like it has a big problem with NPOV. It seems to assume that the ideas of the Christian religion are true. Here's an example from the section Catholic_peace_traditions,
 * "...the martyrs were simply witness to the fact that if one were to live as a child of God, to share in God’s reign, one had to live a life of open love as the outward manifestation of the inner conversion that God’s grace has brought about."

Notice the phrase, "witness to the fact". What follows may be a fact for Christians, but not necessarily for others. This article seems to be written for, and from the point of view of Christians. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Also true. As I continue to maintain, the piece is unsuitable for mainspace whether or not it is a copyright violation. But do you think that we should take the copyright issue to a venue where editors more experienced in this field can offer guidance? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea, but I'm wary about whether they would be sufficiently competent. I guess the only way to find out is by trying, and it may be interesting to see how it turns out. : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I couldn't figure out which board to use, so I asked Moonriddengirl, who is a copyright veteran. Let's see what she says. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Catholic peace traditions" is a legitimate encyclopedia article under the topics of religion and peace and conflict studies. I cannot imagine how this could be considered "unsuitiable" for mainspace. If you see problems, fix them. But, please, don't use Xfd for cleanup and maintenance.  For about three years now, I've seen editors expend an incredible amount of effort into deleting legitimate topics instead of working on fixing them.  Xfd has become a lazy way of paper pushing, another bureaucratic inefficiency that places more of an incentive on decreasing the number of encyclopedic topics instead of expanding them. Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of the issues that seem to have prompted this AfD appear to have been introduced by the major rewrite in 2009 by Pacifcus07. Would it be acceptable to everyone to revert back to the version just before the major rewrite by that one editor? Any useful information from Pacificus's major rewrite could then be introduced as appropriate and policy-compliant. Also, the version reverted to could be cleaned up if necessary. It's a much smaller and more manageable version and also contains the information that was initially contributed by Rgmusto. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's still an unsourced essay trying to prove a point: check out, for example, "holy war and crusade were at best their tendentious extensions and not separate doctrines. A far greater proportion of Christians participated in widespread and deep-rooted peace movements"; the total lack of mention of the Inquisition is also troubling in an article that seems to be trying for a very large scope. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. For reference, your quote is at . I also looked at Inquisition. I also checked whether the Inquisition is mentioned in the present version, and it isn't. In directing your response to me, you may be preaching to the choir re NPOV, if you can forgive this attempt at humor. : )


 * The question is, what is the appropriate action to take? Here's just a suggestion. Revert back to . Put appropriate banners at the top of the article. Put a comment on the article's talk page saying that it is essentially on probation and if there is not sufficient progress in 6 months towards satisfying the banners,  material that is not compliant with policy will be deleted and/or the article will reviewed again for deletion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 06:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - an informative, well-written, well-structured, elegantly illustrated, encyclopedic and above all richly-sourced article that will no doubt become a Featured Article in due course. What it largely lacks is inline citations, so perhaps it is appropriate to remind people that the criterion is that adequate (reliable, independent) sources exist, not that they are marked with inline citations. There can be no doubt (even from the article's bibliography) that the topic of the article is extremely well supported by the published secondary literature.
 * The article has some traces of a Christian perspective; these can certainly be corrected by editing, and in most cases I think by quite minor copy-editing or brief glossing - for instance, I just added "To Christians, ..." to make the /* New Testament */ section more neutral. This is all in a day's work for WP editors, and not a reason for deletion. This article is of exceptional interest - including to non-Christians like myself - and we have no reason not to keep it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep It is a notable topic and it attempts to represent a mainstream perspective. Of course it is not perfect, but it is written by people with a genuine understanding of the subject so improvement will not be difficult. It would benefit from reference to contemporary theologians specialising in this area, more about 20th century movements, and how they relate to other denominations and faiths. Tradition in the church is not just about the past! --AJHingston (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: editors are working on contacting the author to resolve the copyright violation issue. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Pacificus' editing "of my own original posting here, made to avoid a conflict with a copyrighted piece I'll be publishing" was unnecessary - per WP:Copyrights: "You retain copyright to materials you contribute to Wikipedia, text and media. Copyright is never transferred to Wikipedia. You can later republish and relicense them in any way you like." The fact that he had published material here would not prevent him republishing it elsewhere, though copyrighting his later publication would not prevent anyone from copying the WP version.. JohnCD (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe people had raised the concern that it was a copyright violation of earlier work by him - we established that if it was the same text as the Oxford Encyclopedia piece, it wasn't a copyvio on our part, though they might not be best pleased with him since they copyrighted it. :) Anyway, hopefully it will be resolved through OTRS –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:09, 8 January 2012 (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.