Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiritual warfare (2nd nomination)


 * 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   delete. L Faraone  22:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Spiritual warfare
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:POVFORK of Spiritual warfare (Christianity). The term has the exact same meaning here as there. In the absence of evidence of it being a different topic from Spiritual warfare (Christianity) it should be deleted as an unnecessary fork, and the other article moved here in its place. The previous AfD is about Spiritual warfare (Christianity).

This article is constructed through original research by synthesising different sources together to make a point. Two sources seemingly not related to Spiritual warfare (Christianity) are given, I don't have access to one (you can demonstrate its not a synthesis with a quote perhaps), but the other, Shamanism doesn't mention spiritual warfare according to google books, so it looks like WP:OR as well, so it need not be merged. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. I agree that the two articles shouldn't be separate, and agree that the construction of the current spiritual warfare is an original synthesis (per my comments on the talk page). The other AfD seems to have been a mere vote, not a meaningful consensus, because those voting "keep" provided neither scholarly sources to support their view that it wasn't OR nor policy-based arguments. The only "keep" comment that provided a cogent argument focused on the concept as it pertains to Christianity. However, I wonder about the procedure: shouldn't this be a merge? I would say there should be an article called "spiritual warfare", and not an article with a parenthetical disambiguator when there's no other article from which to disambiguate it. In looking at this topic, I found that examples were overwhelmingly about Christianity, but perhaps not exclusively, so I think the title and scope should admit the possibility that the concept might be found elsewhere. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it should be merged since I don't think there is anything worth saving here; it should be deleted and the previous article moved back over it. The scope already does admit the possibility that the concept might be found elsewhere (both articles have the same first sentence defining the topic). IRWolfie- (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, on the basis of IRWolfie's explanation. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I support this solution as well. Srnec (talk) 05:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Then I have two concerns to express. Firstly, the 'Christian' spiritual warfare article must not be written as though it represents the only concept of taking a stand against evil spirits. To read that piece as it is one would come away thinking that no other culture or faith has hit upon the idea of taking any measures to combat evil spirits. At the least it ought to qualify that "spiritual warfare" is the Christian version of the practice of taking a stand against evil spirits (though I additionally think that "taking a stand" sounds more like it belongs in a novel than here). Secondly, the quotes and cite addressing the Chinese cultural discernment of peach wood as a means of combatting evil spirits ought to be added to the page, Peach. This is properly sourced, and is surely interesting and informative as to a vast and ancient culture's affinity for this material, and so ought to be included somewhere. If there's a better place to address countermeasures efficacious against evil spirits in China, it ought to be there as well. DeistCosmos (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. Spiritual warfare is a peculiarly Christian idea, as there can be no this-wordly dominion or violence; all is prayer or symbolic action. Christians are referring to particular Bible references when they use the term. It is tempting to generalise to other religions, but unless RSs can be found, I think it is safer to discuss it in a Christian context. I think the Spiritual warfare (Christianity) should be reinstated to Spiritual warfare and that which can currently be found there identified as OR or SYN and deleted. Hyper3 (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  14:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Read the talk page This situation is already well underway to being addressed through the discussion therein. It is agreed at Talk:Spiritual warfare that the specific term "spiritual warfare" is overwhelmingly used in reference to the Christian practice. But in the same breath it is understood that many faiths and cultures have well established traditions of taking measures to fight evil spirits. There neeeds to be, then, an article on the holistic topic of 'methods used to fight evil spirits' or some such. The Christian practice is one expression of such methods. But it is well sourced in the page here discussed that the Chinese believed in the efficacy of peach wood to fend off evil spirits. This is not 'spiritual warfare' in the formal sense of the term as shown by usage, but is indubitably a practice of fighting evil spirits. So shall we avoid the appearance of imposing an 'if it's not Christian we don't want it' practice, and move this material to a name befitting the notion, generally, of fighting evil spirits? DeistCosmos (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't care if its Christian or not, you are doing original research here in this AfD, and in this POV fork, seemingly motivated by some misplaced crusade against Christianity: . FYI, if the sources overwhelmingly use it with respect to Christianity, that use gets the weight, that's how WP:WEIGHT works. It looks to me that you evidently have a if it's Christian we don't want it attitude and are trying to minimise the references to Christianity, so if you want to have a discussion based on reliable sources, bring them up. Otherwise this is just wasting my time and yours, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that DeistCosmos is engaging in OR and synth, and can't seem to accept the difference between the specific concept of "spiritual warfare" in its scholarly usage, and concepts of apotropaism and similar beliefs and practices. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * @IRWolfie So essentially, the rule now is that we cannot speak of methods of fighting evil spirits in Wikipedia, unless we are restricted to the praise of Christian methods. Very well then. Need I remind you that this entire situation exists because what is now the page on 'Christian’ spiritual warfare pitches itself, in absolute terms, as the concept of taking a stand against evil spirits -- the only way of so doing -- and yet Christian editors so frumiously resisted mention of any non-Christian tradition of fighting evil spirits that they moved the article to a Christian-only title to justify not mentioning anything else. But a two second google query shows that 'fighting evil spirits' is a concept which pervades many cultures. Does this not exist in your reality? Religious Revival in the Tibetan Borderlands: The Premi of Southwest China by Koen Wellens, Page 142 (2010): "In fighting evil spirits, an anji can invoke his personal sonma, for example, by offering a chicken. If the anji does not worship his sonma in a fitting manner, he may become sick, or the sonma may leave the anji altogether, causing him to lose his power." DeistCosmos (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm going to ignore your straw man argument, and the rest of your comment is original research. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is beyond amusing, a sourced quote from another author's published book is now my original research, if it clashes with the worldview you seek to impose. So you're claiming I'm Koen Wellens now? Why don't you try and prove that, before you deem his work to be my research? LOL!! DeistCosmos (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears I have to spell it out: it is original research to link that quote etc to the topic Spiritual warfare. You are trying to say that the article is called Spiritual warfare, your quote mentions fighting, and so ipso facto it's relevant; that is an appeal to the similarities in a literal view of the titles but not the topic of the articles themselves. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You are willfully ignoring the fact that I have already agreed that this material belongs at a title other than 'spiritual warfare.' DeistCosmos (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * But I've pointed out several articles that may include such material within their scope, and yet you continue to place it where it does not belong. The sources that use the phrase "spiritual warfare" do so to express a coherent concept that isn't the same as "dispelling evil spirits". Cynwolfe (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I've only added it here in the expectation that this article will be moved to a more generic name, perhaps Fighting evil spirits, which is attested, covers the whole of the concept, and does not necessarily include additional matters such as dealings with friendly or neutral spirits. DeistCosmos (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So you're announcing your intention to start a whole new article based on OR and synth, with a poorly defined scope that lacks clear scholarly terminology, when plenty of articles already exist that could contain the material under the usual labels for such practices. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I thought I was clear in stating that such a title is attested. That is, there is scholarly literature on fighting evil spirits. Otherwise, what practices do you mean when you speak of "such practices"? DeistCosmos (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "such practices" being the practices you are trying to synthesize together using original research. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you reached the point where no amount of reason or proof will be likely to persuade you? DeistCosmos (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Replace with Spiritual warfare (Christianity). The other content, a tiny random sample of demon defence from other cultures, might possibly find a home under another title. Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That is exactly the consensus the talk page discussion alluded to above was reaching before this ill timed effort to wholly obliterate this knowledge. Blessings!! DeistCosmos (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The contributions on non-christian related material is solely your own, so dump it in your own userspace if you want to work on it and then we can speedy delete this travesty. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not against DeistCosmos finding a way of refactoring his material around a concept like "resisting evil spirits" or "Defence against the Dark Arts" for that matter... And his anti-Christian rhetoric is fine too (we Christians love a bit of persecution). I think he needs to find a religious or sociological concept with RSs, not just conjure an idea out of thin air. Hyper3 (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Then move the page to my userspace. I've no power to effect a move. DeistCosmos (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as a POV-driven original essay and fork. When the smoke clears, assuming a Delete result here, a name change on Spiritual warfare (Christianity) would seem appropriate. Carrite (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and restore Spiritual warfare (Christianity) to its original name. This is a unmitigatable content fork full of WP:OR, synthesis and personal opinion. Mangoe (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and restore Spiritual warfare (Christianity) to its original name - Mangoe spells out the problems here very nicely. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:30, 18 May 2013 (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.