Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inquisition Revisionism


 * 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. W.marsh 14:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Inquisition Revisionism

 * Delete: This article is being used to promote original research and POV peddling.
 * The article is highly POV. under the title The Inquisition Myth the title is POV. Under the title Recent Scholarship the article is presenting highly controvertial work as being the current state of the field. The peddlers of the POV keep switching titles to avoid the term used by the authors themselves --Gorgonzilla 18:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and change title to Recent scholarship on the Inquisition.
 * This is a straightforward historiographical essay. There is no controversy over the work of Kamen or Peters. The former is the standard English language work in the field, originally published in 1965 and continuously revised, updated and republished for close to 40 years. Richard Kagan of JHU calls it "the best general book on the Spanish Inquisition both for its range and its depth of information..." Peters is the Charles Henry Lea Professor at U Penn, Lea wrote was was an earlier standard work on the Inquisition, and Peters continues his work. Despite repeated requests, Gorgonzilla has produced no evidence of any substantial controversy over their findings. "Recent scholarship" accurately reflects the content of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hobomojo (talk • contribs) 03:14, November 3, 2006.


 * Speedy Keep. Nominator is using AfD to make a point about the article title instead of working it out on the talk page, or through the article rename process. Article title complaints have nothing to do with AfD - article titles are placeholders, symbolic of what is contained in the article, not statements of fact. As for "POV", there has been a revision of Spanish Inquisition history with recent new evidence that has come to light starting in the 1970's - if you agree with it or not, if you think it is good history or bad history, doesn't matter - it's a lengthy enough subject to warrant an article. -- Stbalbach 20:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The result of the first AFD was inconclusive, many thought that the article could be NPOV if renamed. The fact that the article is repeatedly renamed in order to promote the assertions as fact shows that this is not a viable option. --[*[User:Gorgonzilla|Gorgonzilla]] 21:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree with you and think "Inquisition revisionism" (or "Spanish Inquisition revisionism") is a neutral name, it's been in place for a while now without any problem. One user recently changed it, and he did so without following the rename procedures for contentious moves (he's a new user so probably doesn't know about those procedures). So, you are in the right to restore to the original article name and ask him to please follow the rename procedures for contentious moves - most likely you and I would vote against his proposal and that would be the end of it. Instead you chose to put the article up for AfD using his article rename attempt (and subsequent edit war between you two) as a reason. -- Stbalbach 04:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. This is serious scholarship. Str1977 (smile back) 09:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep issues raised by the nominator are grounds for cleanup, not deletion. Kavadi carrier 13:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reluctant Keep An intrinsecally controversial topic of great relevance. Expect an editing war. Stammer 18:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is rife with POV and OR. In its current incarnation it simply doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I suggest moving this into Userspace until it has been thoroughly rewritten. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle
 * Keep, but retitle at least to Inquisition revisionism.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge any verifiable and notable content to Spanish inquisition. POV fork, too much duplication of history with slightly different spins. Edison 03:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge as Edison with disclaimers ie pointing out there is controversy if there is. shld note contra above there is already a lenghty edit war & multiple arbitrary attempts to re-name. the user User:Hobomojo (who made the anonymous comment above) is heavily involved in this & is almost a single article user (this art. & 'spanish inquisition') Bsnowball 10:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I happen to know User:Hobomojo does excellent work. After my pleas for help, he translated the entire Spanish Inquisition article from the Spanish Wikipedia (it is Featured there) - before that, the Spanish Inquisition article was a disaster zone of early 20th century polemics. It is now up to date with the latest scholarship and we have Hobomojo to thank. Hobomojo is a fairly new user so I don't think he has had any experience in renaming articles - I don't think he knew that your supposed to make a rename proposal and get consensus on controversial moves, which is why he ended up in an edit war with another use who should have known better. -- Stbalbach 13:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Translation, someone needs to check the Spanish version for similar POV peddling --Gorgonzilla 13:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a featured article. Also if you could please respond to repeated and multiple requests on the talk pages why you think it is POV. You keep screaming "POV POV" -- it's old. -- Stbalbach 14:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not signing my comment above was an oversight on my part, nothing more. As for being a single article editor, guilty. I stick with what I know, and what I have time for rather than spread myself too thin and get overwhelmed and give up. I will say that I am always (or at least try to be) very explicit about the edits or reverts I make, in edit summaries and talk pages, something that can't be said for Gorgonzilla. Had he reverted my change and pointed me to the rename procedures, rather than start an edit war and an AfD, I would have learned something about Wikipedia and been happy to follow procedures. I would not object to merging parts of this article with Spanish Inquisition, Inquisition, and Black Legend. Hobomojo 20:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, it's valid scholarship. Wkerney 06:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It does appear like a valid scholarly issue.  --Oakshade 00:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks like usefull and valid work. Neutrality should be worked on, but that's no reason to delete all of this. Robovski 00:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Stbalbach. AfD is not meant to be a weapon in content disputes. POV issues should be addresse but there is no valid reason for deletion. Agne 00:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Based on the nomination. This is a content dispute and so not a valid reason for deletion. JASpencer 11:35, 10 November 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.