Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christ psychosis


 * 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 &mdash;Wh o uk (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Christ psychosis
Also tagged speedy with the reason: "This is a transparent personal attack against Christianity, and does not merit inclusion as an encyclopedia article." I don't think that's a speedy criteria, so I'm bringing it here. Abstain (or no comment, or whatever.) discospinster 20:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Don't see any excuse to speedy it, but, unless someone can come up with seriously credible citations, reads like OR and personal opinion. Fan1967 20:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no credible backing. Pavel Vozenilek 20:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, blatent POV article and looks to be either original research or a non-notable term used on a forum some place. --Tjstrf 21:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Not verifiable as official or common phrase for any condition. I've actually heard this phrase or very similar ones used but this phrase does not appear in a Google search other than as a reference to a militant atheist rant page.  Some professional quality discussions have been directed along similar, though less hostile lines of thought, but I have no idea if there is an umbrella term for "toxic" religious practices.  Ande B 21:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete (but do not speedy-delete). Non-noteworthy protologism, only 6 or 7 Google hits. The only accurate statement this article makes is that certain "spiritual" experiences are indeed the result of psychological disorders, but the title's implication that this is limited to Christianity is deeply misleading. Also, "durogatory"? Merge any salvagable information (and it doesn't look like there is any) to psychology of religion, neurotheology, and criticism of Christianity. -Silence 22:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep There has been a massive restructuring of the article since 22:27, 26 May 2006 And a well laid out argument for the reasons to keep it. I recommend all that have voted for Delete reread and redeliberate on the vote. Definitely no longer eligible for "speedy" deletion as it is no longer any type of attack page. Beyond that, google searches using derivitive words suchs as "christ psycho", "christ psychotic", etc have turned up many hundreds more results collectively. Solidusspriggan 22:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply. It looks the same as before. Still fails non-notable, neutrality, and original research. If an article on this subject were to be written, it should be heavily, heavily cited, and be placed under a title which would apply to all faiths, not simply Christianity. Also, spelling derogatory correctly would be nice. --Tjstrf 22:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that I voted after the restructuring in question. The article is still clearly unacceptable, not so much because it's hugely POVed (though would you find an article called "Jew psychosis" acceptable?) as because it doesn't meet Wikipedia's noteworthiness standards. However, I, and most of the users above, agree that speedy-deletion is unnecessary here. -Silence 22:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment still Delete I took another read of the article and find no improvement. The explanation(s) offered on the article's talk page indicates that this is simply a slang expression thus should be Deleted as a slang dicdef. There are indeed religio-cultural aspects in some manifestations of mental illness or anti-social behavior but this "phrase" is not the appropriate object for an article about such disorders.  I disagree, however, with the person who claims this is a "personal attack against Christianity."  It's actually too poorly formulated to be much of anything at this point.  Ande B 22:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that generally there isn't a problem with jewish creation scientists harassing the scientific establishment with anti-intellectualist rhetoric, or jewish evangelists harassing college students to the point of tears and then justifying their unjust actions by saying its because god told them to do so. I will go on to say that there are a number of wikipedia articles that include popular "slang" that are not up for deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Solidusspriggan (talk • contribs).
 * Reply There may well be other WP articles that are also nothing more than slang definitions: post them for deletion. We can't vote on them till we see them.  Your concerns about christofascists or "christ psychotics" may be better described in a different article.  This one, being merely definitional, unsourced, and unverifiable original research simply does not satisfy the minimal requirements for inclusion. Ande B 23:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So in other words, you believe that this term is justified for inclusion in Wikipedia because of the actions of certain factions of the Christian religion? Might as well claim we need more articles portraying the KKK in a positive light because some criminals are black. Also, the usage of Christian Psychosis in that sense is not one based on psychological research, but rather anti-religious bias. Folks, I think we may have a POV pusher here. --Tjstrf 22:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Clever, but seems to violate WP:OR.  Also, needs a more solid source than a minor Web site with an Alexa rank of 332,544.  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 22:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep for the sake of free speech. skribb 00:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This is not an issue of free speech but of verifiability issues arising from what appears to be nothing other than a slang dictionary definition. I am an absolutist when it comes to defending free speech but this "article" simply belongs elsewhere.  I acknowledge that the motivation for some or even many delete votes may well be simple knee-jerk hostility to anything seen as a negative opinion of any part of so-called Christianity.  But motivation is not what counts here, what counts is whether the article meets minimal standards for inclusion and it does not. Ande B 00:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion to those who want it kept. Rewrite the article under the title Religious psychosis, add more citations, and emphasize the psychological aspect. It should then be able to pass both NPOV and notability. That should eliminate the apparent bias in the title, and in that way keep you from having reactive christians jumping on the article. If you can't find the citations, then it fails notability regardless. --Tjstrf 00:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC) I have already addressed the issue of 7 hits, someone isn't reading the comments here. I will get together with some of the cowriters of the article and we will change this to religious psychosis as per above, in the mean time could we leave it until it can be properly modified and moved? Solidusspriggan 03:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC) Delete This is the 2nd attempt by the people at "The Raving Atheist" (TRA) to put this article in Wikipedia. They just want to see if they can get it to stick this time by making it appear to be a legitimate term used by many people. It's not. It's a made-up term by one of their members, calpurnpiso. You can follow their plot at the TRA forum --LurkerRavingTheist 05:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply This article is ostensibly justified as not being an attack on Christianity because it is NOT a political article but rather a psychological one. A justification under free speech (which technically does not apply on Wikipedia to begin with, hence why we are allowed to delete any articles whatsoever) would imply that it was a POV article, and deletable for that in addition to non-notability. Wikipedia is not for opinion pieces, that's what blog sites are for. --Tjstrf 00:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete As per above. --InShaneee 00:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. No references which suggest this is an accepted term. Unverifiable, unless someone shows otherwise. Fagstein 02:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete almost seems like OR because there are only 7 google hits. &mdash;M e ts501 talk 03:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Religious psychosis will also have to be deleted if it's created, unless you can substantiate the term itself with viable sources. Just work on psychology of religion if you have useful information to contribute on this topic. There's plenty of room to expand on things there, and then you can split off into a daughter article if enough space is consumed by useful, well-referenced information. -Silence 03:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, I rmd the speedy tag, but it does deserve to get flushed. Deizio talk 13:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The term, per the article may have originated at a particular website, so it is a neologism. Yet it is asserted to have multiple usages which evolved out of very different streams of thought.  This may become a notable neologism at some point, but as discussed above does not appear to be yet.  The current article does not, and I don't think can at this time, pass the test for  neologisms - the references must be to  reliable sources that have not just used the term but explained the use and and origin of the term.  GRBerry 01:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Term is brand new or not notable. Article is WAY too POV. Topic is much better explained in neurotheology and similar articles. Grand  master  ka  03:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Upon reading the thread linked to by LurkerRavingTheist above, I would have to say that this article has been confirmed, not only in the POV, non-notable, etc. reasons, but in the original reasoning for Speedy Deletion, as an attack on religion. Article is a repeated attempt at soap-boxing by the above website. --Tjstrf 05:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The link supplied by LurkerRavingTheist provides clear evidence that those who have created the article know full well that their terminology is a product of their single website. It also indicates that they are deliberately attempting to over-ride an earlier deletion so this definitely supports a Speedy Delete at this point.  Ande B 05:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom; non-notable, OR, astroturfing. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 11:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete sounds like Original Research to me, no sources. -- Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 19:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - see no patricular reason to delete GideonF 09:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply You clearly did not read LurkerRavingTheist's link. An article which is written by the members of a forum to spread their non-notable propoganda term should be deleted. --tjstrf 13:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply Again, it is a 100% made-up term used in the derogatory sense only. See here for the first time they tried to get this into Wikipedia. Note the comments such as "pure comedy" and "Harsh, but funny" and "Hillarious" and "I will say that Cal's X-Psychosis will garner a memetic propagation, thanks to wiki. We should tell everyone, see if we can make it a household word." --LurkerRavingTheist 21:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * CommentTaken totally out of context, sounds like propaganda and memetic engineering on your part. That was merely a response to another editors article.


 * Delete and I belong to the forum in question. This is POV, OR and is a definition more than an article. I suggest as above that any factual knowledge it contains is redistributed to other articles. Alternatively, start a new article with a non-derogotary title, and include the term as a redirect, and in the body with an explanation. Note again that 'free speech' is not a viable grounds for keeping anything - even if I agree somewhat with the claims laid out in the article, this does not belong on WP. Fish-Face 08:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply Thank you for your upholding of the Wiki standards over personal opinion. You are an example to us all. --tjstrf 08:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

CommentThis article is vastly different. This is an article that outlines a psychological term. There is a specific islam-judeo-christian idea of faith that drives people to do things that a rational thinker would not do. This is often accompanied by psychological afflictions such as temporal lobe epilepsy or schizophrenia. While the term schizophrenic is a medical/psychological phrase, many times it is used to refer to someone's outlandish behavior by the general public or laymen, sometimes derivitives like "schizo" and the like are used, that does not invalidate the term schizophrenic itself. The same is true for christ psychosis. To rename this religion psychosis would no longer exemplify the idea that is central to the article, that of faith as laid out in the book of hebrews and the consequences on the mind of holding that belief. I feel those that are moving to have this article deleted are greatly unaware of the reality of the situation. I recommend reading Viruses of the Mind and watching Richard Dawkins' documentary: The Root of all Evil? and reading up on modern neuropsychology (and its relationship to archaic freudian psychology) before passing judgement, anything else would be a highly uninformed judgement and a promotion of ignorance and democratic 'truth' on wikipedia. I agree the article needs some improvement, but to delete is inappropriate! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Solidusspriggan (talk • contribs).


 * Comment The above unsigned vote was written by Solidusspriggan - see the page History - and constitutes a second vote by him (see Solidusspriggan's other "Keep" vote posted farther above at 22:28, 26 May 2006).
 * It might additionally be noted that his justification stated above - in which it is claimed that Jews and Christians suffer from a pathological psychosis analogous to schizophrenia - further underscores the reason for so many votes to delete this nonsense. 152.163.101.10 22:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment The unsigned remarks by Solidusspriggan re Dawkins are not relevant to this discussion and the statement that the article is about an actual medical diagnosis or term is simply and completely wrong. Solidusspriggan either has not read the above comments, has not understood them, or is actively supporting the maintenance of a page that spreads false information that was deliberately fabricated for placement on WP.  This article constitutes gross abuse of Wikipedia and should not be permitted to remain.  I would urge the admins to take a look at the creators and contributors to the article to determine if it is appropriate to ban or impose sanctions for such willful behavior.  Ande B. 23:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Counter. The idea that usage as a "layman's medical term", which is itself an oxymoron, qualifies it as an encyclopedic usage is no more true of calling christians psychotic than it would be calling homosexuals psychotic. Even then, since hate organizations which are notable in their own right, such as the Westboro Baptist Church, use such rhetoric, a hypothetical article on the term homosexual psychosis might be notable as a propoganda term within context, while this is not. Additionally, Wikipedia does not exist to make value judgments, merely cite the judgments of other official organizations. Further, Solidus's insistence that this term must be written about under the name Christian psychosis rather than religious shows that his interest is solely in the defamation of the Christian faith, not the inclusion of a psychological theory. His final appeal to keep the article "for the sake of truth" is simply a disguised form of the statement "but Christians really are psychos!", an opinion that is no more permissable in an encyclopedia seeking to maintain the NPOV than the sentiment that brands all Muslims as terrorists. Do not let a few POV pushing antitheist zealots undermine the wiki system. Thank you, and may reason prevail. --tjstrf 05:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

KeepI don't see anything as "layman medical term". I contend that your homosexual example is flawed, there is a perfectly sound darwinian explanation for homosexuality and for the ability of religious belief, however there is no Darwinian explanation for christianity itself. Beyond that, "faith" that is referred to here is something unique to the judeo-christian-islam religions. Buddhists, Hindus, Janists, etc do not have this same concept of faith. The Freudian citation is sound, the Freudian idea is almost wholly focused on christianity and Western relgion in general. The "faith" referred to in this article is that which as solidus said is laid out in the book of Hebrews: "Faith is evidence for things unseen" This statement in itself claims that the very act of believing makes something real. Well I believe everyone above voted to keep this article....OH IT DID'T CHANGE. I must be crazy! Sounds like all those voting to delete are the biased, attacking, and hypocritical ones. Solidus is the only one here with any sense. (as is the guy that said "keep for the sake of free speech" to delete this article would be a grave mistake and an example of the bias and innaccuracy wikipedia is criticized for. Because some sensitive religionists didn't want a compound word that could possibly imply there was something wrong with the people like Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Pat Robertson, Osama Bin Laden because of either their religious convictions motivated them or justify their actions. To oppose this article is to support terrorism and genocide as well as suppress knowledge. GeorgeSears 13:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Insults don't help your cause and the rest of your argument indicates you haven't read or haven't understood the above discussion. Wikipedia is not a place for the creation or popularization of invented terms that have been created for the express purpose of propogating themselves through WP.  The article is a bad faith abuse of WP.  The supposed term has no existence outside of the article.  "Free speech", as Tjstrf has clearly stated above, is not a legitimate argument here because POV articles are against WP policy and WP is not obligated to host every proposed article.  There are bulletin boards, usenet, and blogs for those types of things.  But I suspect you already know that and are simply looking for an argument.  The article is bogus and needs to go.  Ande B. 19:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply. Read my post reasonably and reply in a non-reactive manner, and then I might consider it worthy of a response. If your pet theory being attacked online makes you that angry, you shouldn't even be on the Wikipedia. For a completely different argument, this term and its article are provably both invented and written by the same forum, making it fail the vanity test. And not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but has anyone considered checking this page for sockpuppet accounts yet? --tjstrf 21:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not at all invented by any particular forum, anyone that believes that is mistaken. This term has been around for decades and the fact that many people here that are unaware of its usage are only giving more evidence for why it should be included, I say, If everyone tried to delete every article that they knew nothing about wikipedia would be a barren place. Ignorance does not necessitate deletion. Has anyone considered checking this page for sockpuppet accounts yet? It seems the "delete" votes all have the same thing to say, and they say it over and over again, and they still make no valid point.Solidusspriggan 23:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply. A term that has been around for decades garners only 8 hits on Google and 6 of those are from the originator, calpurnpiso, of the TRA forums or from other TRA members who learned if from him. All indicators point back to TRA as the point of origination. It's only commonly used by a handful of people who wish to use it in a demeaning way.--LurkerRavingTheist 23:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)\
 * Reply (to Solidus) Post #20 at disagrees with you. Note how I am able to specifically reference my claim, unlike you, who makes vague and nebulous claims as to popularity without providing any sources. Also, what more is there for the pro-deleters to say on the issue than that it violates numerous WP policies, is blatent activism, and should be deleted? We could fall into general insults if you'd like, but that would itself violate WP policy. Or, we could always attempt to discredit you further as an activist whose interests do not fall in line with those of wikipedia by posting your Xanga,, which attempts to spread such enlightened ideas as that adherants of religion are inherently inferior in intelligence to athiests. --tjstrf 00:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete as article created in bad faith. Eluchil404 21:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * reply not so, it was created to be informative of a common phrase that I am truly sorry that many of the users posting here are unfamiliar with. Please read Freud and Dawkins take on the matter before making any more claims about the validity of the article.
 * reply I've read Dawkins, though not Freud, and nowhere does he use the term "Christian psycho" that I remember. Further, the creation of the article is still not good faith, but rather a repeated attempt at activism. --tjstrf 00:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * replyBoth Freud and Dawkins have referred to christians as suffering from a psychosis, a neurosis, and a "virus of the mind".

Comment Okay everyone, I've been guilty of this too and I believe that others may have replied to the above absurdities in order to make sure that passers-by are not misled by the troll in our midst. But I think we can rely on theWP administrators not to be swayed by some totally and obviously bogus trash. So, let me suggest that we

STOP FEEDING THE TROLL

Oh no, I've had a usenet moment. Ande B. 01:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * DeleteEven as an atheist I don't really think this has a place at wikipedia. Its got more of an urban dictionary feel to it.Thenormalyears 12:12, 31 May 2006 (EST)

keep66.30.8.229 05:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Note This "keep" vote is user 66.30.8.229's only edit on WP. Ande B. 05:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

keep I'm curious to see where this article goes. If it can be cleaned up a bit, then I don't see any reason why we should delete it. grendale 13:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * replySo long as Solidus maintains his insistence on keeping the POV version of the article (now to the extent of bringing his friend GeorgeSears to revert the article to the POV version when I pointed out that further reversions by Solidus would break 3RR) it will never be able to become a good article. --tjstrf 15:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Response I say we wait just a bit longer and see. The subject matter shouldn't be an issue, it just needs to be presented in a more neutral manner than it currently is. If the author can re-word the article to be less of a POV, and cite more significant research on the matter, then I think it would be a fair enough branch-off of religious psychology. If it remains in its current state, however, then I can understand a deletion. grendale 16:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply And it's going to remain in its current state because he keeps changing it back whenever I try to even partially npov it. (The hilarious part is that he never fixes his typos, either.) If you want an npov version of the article, you're going to have to write it yourself and then edit war it into existance. --tjstrf 16:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply I'm considering your suggestion. I don't know how this will settle with the original author, but I'll be sure to discuss it with him / her before making any changes. I say that it's at least worth salvaging the relevant information, in the event that it is consequently deleted. grendale 17:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"""keep""" Richard Dawkins used terms defining mental illness when describing christian faith. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.53.27.72 (talk • contribs).
 * Comment - The above unsigned "Keep" vote was made by 134.53.27.72 (see the edit history), whose only edit on Wikipedia at that point was this vote. 64.12.116.71 21:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

keep Firstly I must say that to discredit someone just because it is there first edit is highly irrational. If it were done to everyone who made their first edit I imagine very little would ever be written. This user obviously has some concern for the terrible and unbalanced attack on such a presently appropriate article, with the rise of fundamentalism and all, a terrible thing to delete.129.15.127.254
 * Reply First, the poster was not "discredited" unless you believe that by being "revealed" as having a previously un-used ID is some sort of insult. Second, it is not irrational to note a poster's prior history of contributions.  Third, you have no idea whether the poster has any concern about anything, you have only seen that a post  has been made.  Fourth, the rise of fundamentalism is not the issue under discussion.  Fifth, nominations for deletion are not conducted by "vote".  Sixth, it is an easy thing to convince others to attempt to "stuff the vote" on WP, even though the votes are not actually counted or binding.  Seventh, because deletion requests are not made by popular vote but by reasoned analysis following sufficient discussion, it is helpful in considering how much weight to give to some comments to be able to compare the poster's history re reasonability and quality of prior contributions.  Eighth, the ISP identifier for the above comment (129.15.127.254) is a shared one on a college campus so it is imposible to determine a more specific identity but the user's talk page has a number of warning templates indicative of an account which has been used in the past by those with a tendency to disregard WP ethics and courtesies.  Ninth, it is the practice of these sorts of discussions to discount the comments of first time posters.  Tenth, the article was created in bad faith in a deliberate attempt to misuse Wikipedia and that bad faith alone is sufficient to warrant deletion.  Ande B. 03:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As a general policy, a first edit should NEVER be on a VfD page. Also, since Wikipedia does not exist to promote or counteract any social agenda, (except that of collaboration and freedom, if those can be considered "agendas") an article whose existance was primarily for the sake of "curbing the rising tide of" anything should be deleted or rewritten as soon as feasibly possible, since such an article would be a misuse of Wikipedia for personal activism. --tjstrf 04:51, 1 June 2006 (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.