Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christianity and domestic violence


 * 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 no consensus. most of the delete concerns are cleanup issues that doesn't need deletion, as for the soapbox concern, I don't see anything with the except of the title Secret account 01:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Christianity and domestic violence

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article was created to espouse the fringe view that Christianity is associated with domestic violence, by citing radical feminists (and I'm a feminist myself!) in order to establish this fringe view. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Pharmboy (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SOAP and WP:NOT Doc Strange (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep if re-written. I agree that this should not be a POV fork, nor just present one side of the debate. However, I believe that this topic is a valid topic, and could be written from a NPOV, with sources and multiple POVs. I believe it was partially written as a reaction to Islam and domestic violence, and I believe that topic is clearly more notable. However, I still believe the topic of Christianity and domestic violence and arguments on whether Christianity raises, lowers or has no effects on domestic violence levels is an encyclopedic topic. Anyone willing to put some leg work into this article to improve it and make it less centered on one POV?-Andrew c [talk] 21:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That was the idea of the stub notice. &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * comment The article Islam and domestic violence actually uses quotes from the koran that justify 'domestic violence' and provides more than adequate context to demonstrate that the article is about violence as justified by the actual doctrine of the faith. (BTW, I am not a fan of that article either). WP:WAX applies here as well, as you can't use the Islam article to justify the Christianity article.  At this point, the current nom article can't be 'fixed' to not be a soapbox.  If you want to jump in and pull some quotes out of the bible that indicate when it is acceptible to beat your wife, and provide context that ties it into how this affects people today, I will be happy to look at it and withdraw my delete opinion.  Pharmboy (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest instead looking at the 12 sources cited in the article, from which this stub can obviously grow, looking at our Deletion policy, and using those as the basis for withdrawing your delete opinion. Your argument that the article cannot be fixed seems rather daft in the light of all of those sources just waiting to be used. And I'm sure that they aren't the only sources on this subject, by a long chalk.  Uncle G (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe this subject is notable, and I think this reflects a conversation within and about Christianity that is not necessarily a fringe view. However, this article has little information worth retaining beyond the off-line reading list. Last edit was in mid-December; if this is still being written, I'd suggest moving to User space for further development. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your thinking does not accord with our policies. This is a collaboratively written encyclopaedia that is written by volunteers.  Articles do not have owners.  Stubs with potential for expansion are edited and expanded, not deleted.  We don't demand that people write perfect articles ab initio, or that they write at all; and we don't try to punish them with threats of removal of articles if they don't write when we shout "frog!".  We don't recognize articles as being owned by their creators.  And there is no deadline by which all stubs have to be expanded or else.  Uncle G (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Though i am against the numerous unscientific articles concerning people's uneducated opinions about how two unrelated topics correlate, this one has absolutely no content and is in clear violation of WP:SOAP. Whether people think it "interesting" or not really has no bearing on this one. -- Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We have a word for a short article that hasn't grown yet. It's "stub".  I encourage you to re-read our Editing policy.  Perfection is not required ab initio.  Nor is it required that articles be deleted just because they haven't grown yet.  I encourage you to read our Deletion policy, too.  We only delete stubs if there is no possibility for expansion.  As you can see by the further reading section of this article alone, there's plenty of scope for expansion. It's a gross mischaracterization to refer to the various Christian theologians whose works are cited in the article as people with "uneducated opinions", by the way.  Dr Marie M. Fortune, for example, served on the National Advisory Council on Violence Against Women for the U.S. Department of Justice from 1994–2002, currently serves on the Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence for the U.S. Defense Department, and is the editor of the Journal of Religion and Abuse.  With those credentials, she's almost certainly not a complete novice on this subject.  There may be "uneducated opinions" here, but they aren't hers. Uncle G (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - I think any article that starts with the formula, "The relationship between X and Y has been discussed/studied/commented upon by Z" needs to justify why that's a notable relationship, particularly for articles with unlikely search terms as titles. I'm not against the topic per se being on Wikipedia, and I think it could potentially be done without soapboxing, but as the article now stands it contains practically no content, and is primarily a list of external recources.  I think it would need to be written from the ground-up, not just re-written from what's already here.  ◄   Zahakiel   ►  22:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "has been discussed/studied/commented upon by Z", where Z is more than one, is exactly what justifies that it's a notabile relationship. Being discussed in depth by multiple non-trivial published works from reliable and independent sources is what defines notability.  See Notability.  And as noted above, at least one of the sources is a credible expert on the subject. And, once again: A short article with only a small amount of content is a stub.  A short article with only a small amount of content, that has at least one sentence clearly explaining what the subject is and that gives you 12 sources from which you can choose to expand upon that, is a good stub.  Please see Deletion policy for what you are supposed to do with stubs. Uncle G (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Under many, probably most, circumstances I would agree with you, however I am familiar with WP:STUB, and at the very beginning, it states, "A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information" (emphasis added). So what information in this short article would you say was "useful?"  The fact that some theologians have commented about it (they comment about a lot of things), or that some people are shocked that there is a proposed connection?  I'm afraid I disagree with your assessment; as I said, I am at a "weak" stage of delete, but I am not convinced by what you've said that this one passes the muster.  I'm willing to be swayed - I usually am - but nothing that defines a Wikipedia stub has done so at this point.  ◄   Zahakiel   ►  14:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think the article title is necessarily a negative connotation; it can also be about positive Christian practices in this regard. The article lacks any discourse on the biblical tracts or religious teachings regarding domestic violence, whether pro or con. It should be possible to build a valid and interesting article on this topic, but this certainly isn't it (yet).&mdash;RJH (talk) 23:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete this stub as an POV WP:SOAP. Majoreditor (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Obviously needs some cleanup, but it appears there's been enough research on this topic to establish notability and to make a NPOV article possible. - Headwes (talk) 04:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete It is not cleanupable. In addition to being WP:SOAPBOX it is, oh, where did I put my memory of that technical term .... hmmmmm, .... oh, yes: the technical term for this is WP:BULLSHIT. There, that's it. Nice to put it in its proper slot. Noroton (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If the article makes any claims that are demonstrably false or unsupported then please correct them. However, that wouldn't be a good reason to delete the article entirely. - Headwes (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the nature of WP:BULLSHIT is that the text doesn't tend to do it in a demonstrable way. The creator has created a little bumpersticker of propaganda which just so happens to meet the letter of Wikipedia rules while violating the spirit of NPOV. It's actually an insidious, ugly piece of bigotry behind a veneer of phony propriety. In each sentence where it appears, try replacing the word "Christianity" with "African Americans". The propagandistic chestnut conflating geographic areas where there are more fundamentalists with higher rates of domestic violence is atrocious. Those same areas have a slew of cultural and economic differences that could also be pointed to. You don't throw around incendiary, accusatory statements equating adherence to a religion with disgusting behavior and stick it in a stub, which by definition doesn't have the depth to handle a sensitive subject. You don't do that because it amounts to plastering religious bigotry on Wikipedia. The creator should clean up his own mess. I notice it was created just in time for Christmas. Thanks for the giftwrapped bullshit, Uncle G. You've certainly succeeded in positioning yourself on the safe side of Wikipedia disciplinary rules. Great example for bigots to follow, including those whose bigotry you won't like. Great way to help Wikipedia. Noroton (talk) 06:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Refactored Noroton (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a very small chance that an article full of bigotry was not written by a bigot. Although the alternative explanations are few (heat of argument, exhaustion, other ways that the mind can malfunction enough to produce something this bad), they do exist, even for people as smart and sophisticated as Uncle G, so I refactored my comment just above to reflect that. Just hours before I first ran across this AfD, I consulted one of Uncle G's essays and was actively considering asking for his advice, so I was doubly shocked to see this atrocity. If through some strange twist of circumstances I found I was the author of something that came out looking so bigoted, I'd fix the problem ASAP and apologize. Noroton (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; it could basically be described as "there has been some minor discussion of this issue without a conclusion". You don't say?  This is hopelessly biased by the very principle; it's a classic POV fork from domestic violence.  --Haemo (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep That it has been discussed by numerous others makes it notable, just as for any other topic. What the article needs is an expansion. I don't know why people want it to reach a conclusion--that would be a clear violation of NPOV. The article is supposed to present the views of others. Noronton, your contribution to this discussion comes very close to a personal attack on another editor. DGG (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I respect you DGG, but I would ask you look at some of the quotes in the article include: Some people have been shocked to learn  (clear weasel words), The relationship between Christianity and domestic violence has been discussed by Christian theologians. (border weasel) and that alone is half the content of the actual article, aside from external links. It would require more cleanup than there is article *if* it is a valid article (ie: more than substantial rewrite).  I'm not a Christian (or Muslim) so I don't have a horse in this race, but from an outsider's point of view, it does seem to have serious POV issues.  The fact that it has TWELVE references (actually 10 are just "futher reading") and not one is a web link seems rather odd as well, making it particularly difficult to verify.  These references are pefectly within the letter of policy here, but not the spirit.  From the ground up, it just looks extremely biased.  Whether or not the TOPIC is worthy of an article is difficult to determine with all the bias in the article as it is.  Since it would require a substantial rewrite to remove that bias, it seems deletion is in order.  No one has attempted to clear this POV up during the actual AFD.  Pharmboy (talk) 02:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the first quoted wording is atrocious. So I fixed it ;p If we all chip in to fix the problems we see with the article, we won't have to delete it. Remember, we are here to build an encyclopedia. Not complain about things and never do anything about it, and then try to erase rather than fix. I think it's been established that this topic has been discussed by multiple articles, and it is notable enough for a wikipedia article. If the current article has problems, let's work on it. There is no reason to delete a topic that meets our guidelines (surely we can simply delete the offending sentences that break our guidelines, but keep the article itself.)-Andrew c [talk] 03:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Please also note the sources. "Feminist theologians." That's clearly WP:FRINGE. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Response to DGG Noronton, your contribution to this discussion comes very close to a personal attack on another editor. Any time you forcefully complain of conduct indistinguishable from bigotry, it would tend to look that way, wouldn't it. Offensive actions need strong condemnation or we risk making it look acceptable. And your reaction has just that weakness. Certainly the subject itself could be treated in an acceptable way, but we have no evidence that it ever will be. If the treatment it's already received weren't redolent of bigotry, then keeping it would be a justifiable option (I've favored that option in many AfDs). I would have no objection whatever to someone writing an NPOV article on the topic and resurrecting it. We could have all sorts of articles on subjects that include offensive implications about all sorts of groups (and we do), and and that's fine when they're in the proper context (identified as fringe opinions when that's what they are and countered with a balance of other opinions and not presented in a way that implies Wikipedia finds them particularly deserving of consideration). Good articles on any subject don't promote bigotry. This one does, and we need to protect our reputation from its taint. I suggest you think about whether you've personally done enough in this instance to help distance Wikipedia from bigoted, offensive language within the encyclopedia. In fact, your own contribution to this discussion, DGG, doesn't give any indication that you find bigoted material against a religious group to be wrong, despite the fact that you've looked it over, considered the matter and commented on it. A bigot who reads your comment could think that promoting bigotry in Wikipedia articles is considered tolerable. Keeping cool and discreet and diplomatic is almost always the best course, but there are times when we need to make sure people understand just how offensive this conduct is. Noroton (talk) 03:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I dont hold with promoting bigotry or anything else in wikipedia; I do hold with describing things objectively, even if the material can be used by bigots. If the article does not meet standards of NPOV, it can be edited to do so. The problem as i see is that it needs expansion to include a fuller range of viewpoints and situations -- the documentation as given seems extensive enough to do so. The relationship between various ethnic, social, religious, and other groupings and structures to violence against women are legitimate subjects.  Using charges of NPOV about the present state of an article to urge its deletion rather than its amendment is a direct opposition to our deletion policy. This is especially the case when the main problem can be solved by expansion.  DGG (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We have a particular intersection of two bad things that multiply the harm: Bigotry is worse than typical NPOV for obvious reasons; and to have it isolated in a stub, which is far worse than as part of a larger article. Readers can easily view something given its own Wikipedia page as somehow more authoritative than some paragraphs added to a larger article. Having its own page gives the content a kind of imprimatur, consciously or unconsciously for readers less familiar with Wikipedia than we are. We need to set the bar higher. We should also consider the possibility that someone writing a bigotry-promoting stub may well be satisfied to have the stub stand as it is for weeks or months before someone suppliments it, all the while acting just like a bumper sticker, without the possibility that someone concerned about the bigotry will confront the editor in a parking lot. Nice propaganda vehicle, these stubs. Noroton (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. This article so poorly organized and written - it has no value. But of course one can make an article on this subject if it is better written and sourced.Biophys (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't know what it looked like before it was stubbed, but this is a perfectly fine, reasonably NPOV starting place for a very valid topic. To call it fringe becuase it cites feminist theologians (who certainly aren't the only ones talking about it) is a discredit to the encyclopedia. Pastordavid (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Happy Martin Luther King Day, pastor! Whether or not you're actually a pastor, imagine the worst thing said about your denomination (that can be footnoted). Now imagine stubs going up on Wikipedia to promote it. No, really: take a little time imagining it. Not that the divisiveness when it comes to religion has ever produced any harm ... Noroton (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Happy MLK day to you as well. Yes, I am a pastor; and if something negative can be said about my denomination that is reliably sourced and verifiable, then I would argue that it has a place on wikipedia.  Example: See the article on Martin Luther, the section on the relationship between Luther and antisemitism.  Not something we put on bumperstickers for our church - but true nonetheless.  There is significant scholarly work (which is the difference between this and some of your examples below) being done between the relationship between Christianity and the condition of women in Christian society.  Some of it paints a very negative picture, some of it seems the relationship as more benign, and some is positive, pointing to the role that the church has played (at various points in history) in empowering women who are in abusive relationships.  This is not a kernal of research, without going farther than the bookshelf right next to my desk I can pull off a book from a major academic publisher with essays by noted scholars on the topic (e.g., Brita Gill-Austern, "Love Understood as Self-sacrifice and Self-denial:What does it do to women?", in Through the Eyes of Women, ed. Jeanne Stevenson Moesnner (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996).  The fact that it paints our faith in a negative light does not mean that we should oppose talking about it in the public square -- perhaps it means we need to reevaluate our behavior and assumptions as a church. Pastordavid (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No one, certainly not me, is saying negative information on anything should be glossed over or removed from the encyclopedia (and I've said it earlier in this discussion). I'm talking about stubs which simultaneously present a religious group as a whole in a bad light, in a way that disgusts and which doesn't present context. The example of Luther is not quite the same as an attack on the living and a broad-brush attack associated with bigotry. I've inserted information on scandals into the article on the Roman Catholic diocese I belong to, information on historic anti-Semitism on the town I live in and Ku Klux Klan activity in the history of my town and nearby towns. But always, always in context, because we owe that to both the reader and people connected with the subject. I even added a few paragraphs about the Klan into the article on my county, but I was rightly overruled by other editors because, since the paragraphs were the only information on the history of the county, they gave too much prominence to the topic. There's a way to approach inflammatory information, and this isn't it. If this had been turned into an NPOV article, I wouldn't object to its existence. Noroton (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Proposed stubs, each of which could be (and, I'm sure, already is) a kernel of a well-researched, NPOV Wikipedia article that I would have no trouble wanting to keep, and yet is nevertheless, until expanded, a bumpersticker promoting hate:
 * The relationship between the Negroid race and low intelligence has been discussed by scientists. White scientists such as .... and others have raised the question of a close connection between Negroid genes and low mental functioning. [1] Some people have been shocked to learn that the levels of intelligence are as low in the brains of African-descended people than they are in people of other races. [2] Several studies have found that Black intelligence levels are lower than White and Asian intelligence levels. [3] This Race-baiting-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it!


 * The relationship between Judaism and greed has been discussed by anthropologists, cultural critics, politicians, business people, Christians and others. Prominent historical figures such as Adolph Hitler, Henry Ford, ...


 * The relationship between women and low mathematical ability has been discussed by scientists, Harvard presidents and others ...


 * The relationship between Catholic priests/Islamic cultures/Insert-Whatever-Group-You-Can-Find-A-Source-For-Here and pederasty has been discussed ...


 * The relationship between [any group for which an organized bigotry exists that can provide source material] and [name the derogatory condition that the bigots have used] can be broadcast with a Wikipedia stub by anyone familiar enough with the fringe literature.


 * This doesn't build up Wikipedia, it tears it down while hurting other people &mdash; which is the sole effect of the stub until someone other than the creator is forced to defend the mainstream, humane, reliably sourced consensus by adding to the article. And of course the members of the group being torn down, who often know more about the topic than anyone, are the ones slapped in the face by the stub. So we simultaneously hurt them, burden them by forcing them to defend themselves against bigotry, give them reason to find Wikipedia a distasteful forum to participate in and disgust other decent readers &mdash; or worse, make it seem like footnoted bigotry delivered in a calm manner is just another valid point of view. Someone reading the English Wikipedia from India or Singapore or the Upper West Side of Manhattan may not be as familiar with fundamentalist Christianity that they can detect the bigotry.


 * The answer is to remove stubs that are obviously offensive and wait for someone to put together an article, or even a stub, that treats the subject fairly enough not to promote a hateful fringe view. It really is not too much to ask of anyone. The alternative is to allow any editor to create a bumpersticker for a sourceable, hate-filled opinion and allow the online bumpersticker to stay up until someone else works to fill it out with fair treatment. We already have wars on Wikipedia between various Eastern European groups of editors and between Israeli and Arab editors. Name your ethnic/religious/other conflict and there's an English-speaker with Internet access and a book to source: Among the Hindu nationalists, Sri Lankan factions, African tribes and many other groups there are bigots who could have a lot of fun with stubs. Don't tolerate bigoted treatment on Wikipedia. Noroton (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2008 (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.