Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian views about women

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. NPOV failures are rarely sufficient cause for deletion, and there is a plethora of sources available on this topic, so it is not inherently a WP:NOR violation. There is clearly no consensus below that Wikipedia's editors can't handle this and are better off without it. GRBerry 01:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian views about women

Christian views about women (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

• This article is inherently original research. Kww 17:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Just adding a little bit more justification, since people think that I misunderstand what the AFD process is about. To my mind, reliable sources for this topic would be academic publications by non-Christians. I don't think that such sources exist on this topic, so the article can't ever meet standards.Kww 12:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree. You would just need sources that stand up to WP:V, in other words, sources that do fact-checking. Sure, the faith of the source can skew things a bit, but that just means you need to find a more detached source (who still may be Christian). It's kind of like saying you need non-Americans to write the article on the United States, or a cat to write the article on Humans. Come to think on it, I'd like to see what cats say about us. --UsaSatsui 06:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• I wouldn't trust an article on American history that only used American sources, and I think the whole existence of Christianity is a result of humans being incapable of being objective about humans. I don't think that Christian sources need to be excluded from this article, but they would need to be balanced.Kww 13:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Slipping out of smart-ass mode for a second...let me clarify, your position is, "I'm not sure that Christian editors can ever be NPOV about a Christianity-related topic, therefore I feel the article should be deleted", right? That runs off the assumption the editors -are- Christian...but then, non-Christians can't write a balanced article either, can they? You're also assuming Christians are incapable of any sort of scholarly detachment...that's not true. Finally, if you were trying to learn something about a certain topic, who would you believe had more info on it? Someone involved with it, or someone outside of it? --UsaSatsui 16:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, a little different than that. I'm certain that an article about Christianity based exclusively on Christian sources cannot be trusted, and I see no evidence that non-Christian academics have published sufficient material to balance the Christian sources for this article.Kww 17:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Academic books don't generally come with a statement of the author's personal beliefs, so I'm puzzled by the labelling of all such books as "Christian sources". Articles reflect the range of available secondary sources. If you have a personal belief that all available secondary sources on a particular topic suffer from systemic bias, then that itself is original research unless you can provide reliable sources backing up your claim. If not, this is special pleading. Thomjakobsen 17:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• This is an increasingly active topic in theology and gender studies, so academic sources undoubtably exist. Whether they're currently being cited in the article is another matter, but not relevant in a deletion discussion. Thomjakobsen 13:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• DELETE POV seems a little strong in this article. Don the Dev 17:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, well-referenced articles are inherently NOT original research. Cleanup and more inline citations would help, but I see no reason to delete. --Dhartung | Talk 18:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If this article was a summary of scholarly works about Christian attitudes towards women, it would not be OR. It is, unfortunately, a list of actual Biblical references that the editors are interpreting themselves. That is virtually the definition of original research.Kww 20:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• DELETE This article since its' inception is nothing more than a "push" towards womens rights to exercise authority in the church. The vast majority of the citations are from a few "fringe" authors ie. Staggs,Kroeger hand picked specifically to push a feminist pov. This article is in my opinion hopelessly lost to ever being npov. All one needs to do is look at the edit history. At the very least it should be reduced to a stub.--A B Pepper 18:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. If the article text is currently biased, that's a reason to work towards improving it, not a reason to delete. This is an extensive area of study, so there's more than enough secondary literature to remove any "original research" problems. A controversial topic, which is all the more reason why we need an article on it. Thomjakobsen 19:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hello Thomjakobsen. I understand your position that the article is "salvageable" But here is the problem. Look at the text of the article prior to me beginning to edit. After I made well over 100 edits in an attempt to move it to neutrality a small number (3-4) "hardcore" dissenters would remove a multitude of the edits at one time without explanation. Every edit I made was individaul and not a article wide with an explanation for each. If another editor disagreed with a specific edit they had the opportunity to revert and give a convincing and plausible explanation. But this was not the case.--A B Pepper 19:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Articles evolve by consensus, especially controversial ones like this. You appear to have made a large number of controversial edits (i.e. edits with which other editors could reasonably be expected to disagree) without first discussing them on the talk page, which is bound to upset the people already working on the article. I suggest discussing the changes before you make them, and if a neutral compromise doesn't emerge, read through some of the solutions in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. It might seem difficult, but articles far more controversial than this (textbook example being Abortion) have made the transition from POV battlegrounds to reasonably neutral articles, so I don't see why this one should be any different. Thomjakobsen 19:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hello Thomjakobsen. I understand the idea of building a consensus on the talk page but this article literally had hundreds of very subtle errors all engineered to direct the reader to a particular pov. That is why I made the edits on an individual basis with an explanation for each. Albeit, there certainly is a handful of my edits that were themselves erroneous but anyone from a npov who did a sampling of my edits and the explanation would not find reason to revert it. --A B Pepper 20:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• I've had a quick look through your edits on 22/23 September. The problem, as I see it: (1) Lots of deletions were made over a short period, without consensus. An explanation in the edit summary might be sufficient for a small number of changes, but mass deletions are considered disruptive because of the amount of work involved in challenging so many changes en masse. A revert is probably justified if a controversial article is having information removed so quickly; if you think your reasons are valid, you stand more chance of people reading them if you discuss first. (2) A lot of these deletions are summarized with inflammatory remarks ("Click . . . Bye-bye" etc.) It would be difficult for an editor to assume the deletions are in good faith in the face of that kind of language. (3) On at least one occasion, Satan himself is accused of writing part of the article. Unless you have proof in the form of an IP address, it's hardly a neutral rationale for a change and again is going to stir people up the wrong way. Short story: take things slowly, and discuss changes. It's the only way towards neutrality on such a controversial article, no matter how many "subtle errors" you think it contains. Thomjakobsen 21:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP Not inherently original research. See all the citations and references in the article. Trying to delete the article may be POV pushing or part of an edit war, the solution to which is NOT deletion. A topic worth considering since much of religion is about the relations of the sexes--notice the excitement the topic engenders. Hmains 19:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP This article pertains to roughly 2/3 of those comprising Christian congregations. For the first several years of this article's existence, there were no citations. Then, as editors began cleaning up the article and adding credible citations, as well as filling in some blanks, probably those serious about responding to pleas for Cleanup and Citations came from an Egalitarian viewpoint. There is need for more input from the Complementarian viewpoint; nothing prevents that if intelligent, capable editors with some semblance of "couth" would begin adding material. Things were going well until one new editor (using 2 different user names) began pushing a fundamentalist agenda (further to the right than Complementarian) and was totally obnoxious and uncouth with his Discussion comments as well as his Edit summaries. Probably no one wants to enter that kind of fray.CME GBM 19:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Using two different user names? I was unregistered now I am registered. "pushing a fundamentalist agenda" So, you are of the opinon that the article in its prior form was predominately a "liberal agenda" and that "fundamentalists" should be excluded from editing? Do you CME GBM prefer censorship over a balance article? "Totally obnoxious and uncouth, enter that kind of fray" I looked at the talk page, you "attacked" me personally here is the first line: "How come you stay anonymous? It's cowardly for you..." --A B Pepper 19:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. OR? Not really. This is a rather heavily debated topic. NPOV could be an issue, but that's not really a reason to delete. The fact that this article is heavily edited and currently protected kind of makes my spider-sense tingle, too...--UsaSatsui 19:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Your spider sense is wrong. I noticed the article because of the request for protection, but when I looked at it, I decided it should just be deleted. As I said in another place, if they were summarizing scholarly views on Christian attitudes towards women, it would not be OR. Since they are directly interpreting Biblical passages themselves, it is OR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kww (talk • contribs) 20:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Alright, but I still think your timing is pretty bad. --UsaSatsui 22:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP. I am sorry for the personal attack Kww just made on [User:UsaSatsui]]. That just further shows how important this topic is--to bring up ugly comments like that. This topic is about people, relationships, religion, pride and prejudice. I like the way it's developing, although it clearly needs ongoing work and greater balance. I know of no where else online that one can go to find this much information on this topic from reputable sources. But I, for one, choose not to make any further efforts so long as User:A B Pepper, aka 75.132.95.79, viciously attacks users. We don't need to have insult after insult piled on us for trying our best. Here is a sample from the article's discussion page and Edit summaries:

• "Man was created in Gods' image, woman was not,"
• To another User "You are an absolute fool,"
• Writes of me "This rebuttal from oberlin I submit as exibit "A" as to how Satan uses women to pervert scripture,"
• Writes to User AFAProf01 who has clearly tried to make significant contributions to this article: "I submit Afapro01 as exhibit "b" as to why women are not to interpret nor exposit scripture and should sit down and keep silent,"
• Refers to the article as containing "erroneous exposition and garbage,"
• Refers to writers as "Baby" as in "That's the problem, Baby,"
• Told another user to "Now, sit down, listen, and learn. I teach, you listen. It is a one way street,"
• Indirectly calls another user a liar by asking, "Why can't you just be honest?",
• Labels the article a "playground for feminist point of view,"
• Writes "Kick and scream all you want baby but I do have all the answers",
• Recently wrote that this article is "totally corrupted by feminists wishing to hoist their point of view upon the readers of this article. Back, back, back where you belong. A man of God is here and the game is over. Now, sit down at the rabbis feet. Keep silent, listen and learn;"
• Makes personal attacks on Joyce Meyer, Dr. Catherine Kroeger, and others;
• Repeatedly has used the bizarre signoff "Good Bye......CLICK" and threatened to take out of the article everything he considers offensive, etc.
• Addressed an editor as "Satan" 04:15, 21 September 2007 75.132.95.79: "Satan, this is not the place to insert the JEPD theory"

The above, and still other comments from this User, are crude, rude, offensive, and THIS USER EXPANDS THE DEFINITION OF "DISRUPTIVE." Oberlin 21:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• I don't understand how the comment he made was a "personal attack" at all. I stated (in a roundabout way) that I felt the nomination may have been influenced by the protection, which implies there's a heated debate, and someone may be trying to circumvent the debate through an AfD. He replied that it wasn't the case. In any event, I fail to see how the actions of one person have to do with the article itself. --UsaSatsui 22:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That is hillarious and I cannot deny it. ROFL "cough" "gag" OMG ! I am choking on my own spittle! But I consider your comment on the talk page about my comment "rude and crude." Have you ever heard of the "clean hands" maxim in jurisprudence? Now you oberlin,.. cme gbm,... and I am waiting for afaprofO1, are attacking me the editor personally. The subject here is whether or not the article should be deleted. Stay on topic baby. If your beef is with me then use wikiquette.--A B Pepper 21:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you point out any personal attack that I made? I don't believe that I made one.Kww 21:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• You questioned his spidey-sense. In some parts of the world, that kind of talk could get you killed. Thomjakobsen 21:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• In some other parts, having spidey-sense can get you killed. --UsaSatsui 22:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and improve, as it's obviously a very important topic. Yes, the article has a lot of original research... but it also has plenty of unoriginal research, and I don't see what good deletion would do. We can't do much while the page is protected. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Article needs a lot of improvement not deletion. I also notified WP:CHRIST about the Afd.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and add dissenting views. we do not delete for POV problems. DGG (talk) 02:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Ok, I haven't read the article. But the subject is certainly worthy of an article. There are a lot of sources, and a lot of sources available. Any problems of POV, synchronistic Satanic influence, demonic possession of editors, or religious bondage fantasies should simply be worked out. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Religious bondage fantasies eh?........................Is there a newsgroup dedicated to that?  :-) What?..I was just asking.--A B Pepper 09:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears early in this debate that the consensus is to keep the article and I am inclined to agree. The issue to me with regard to keeping the articles is with its' present form or more particularly the form prior to my edits. Being new to Wikipedia I would like a few suggestions as to how to keep such a highly charged subject (which need not be) neutral. I am personally contending with four different editors all who obviously have a feminist agenda and have "latched on" to this article to exposit their pov using "extremist sources" and "fringe theories". The answer certanly is not "Which ever position has the largest number of adherents wins." If there were a few neutral parties monitoring the edits and the descriptions as to why the edit was made, this seems to me to be a solution to the problem. But, it seems to me a lot to ask considering there is over 2 mill. articles in english alone. I am open to any recommendations.--A B Pepper 09:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Resolving disputes goes into detail on this. There are informal and formal procedures available. In the meantime, I'd lay off on the accusations of extremism and the condescending language. If you want a neutral, balanced article, that's not the way to go about doing it. Thomjakobsen 12:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have done a preliminary review of Wikipedia resolving disputes and I am thinking that adding it to wikiprojects may be the best venue since it is not an issue merely concerned with one or two facts.--A B Pepper 13:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This deletion discussion has already been brought up on the talk page of WP:CHRIST. That's probably the best place to ask for more editors to get involved with the article. Thomjakobsen 13:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep: the article is terribly POV (and I can't even help here, as I share the article's POV), but the topic is important and easily large enough for its own article. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This article is notable and should exist. I see no reason for it to be deleted as it's very important as far as religious articles go, especially christian articles. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - ironically so, as I was the first person to have brought this to VFD (that's how long ago I did it). - Ta bu shi da yu 09:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Afaprof01 who requested that this article be protected has been silent

This whole issue started when afaprof01 requested protection for the page which drew the attention of kww. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A B Pepper (talk • contribs) 04:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Looking at the history of the article, it has seen better days (as little as a few weeks ago [1], but I don't think it should be deleted solely due to recent problems Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at that article from a few weeks ago. And you think the following is appropriate?

"The home of believers, the private sphere of women"

"those who offered homes....assumed leadership roles"

"a missionary partner with the apostle paul" oh,and btw the husband of aquilla

"organized gatherings within her home" the biblical text twice says; their home

"traveled unaccompanied without male restrictions"

"phoebe...traveled without a male companion"

"phoebe....central in pauls plans for a mission to spain"

"phoebe...who preached and taught"

"phoebe...meaning leader and president"

"the office of deacon....associated...with women"

And this is all the errors under one heading. citation of extremist sources and their fringe theories is not wikipedia reliable sources.

You have a peculiar way of looking at things x-whatever. I will forego commenting any further on your competence. I will allow the evidence to speak for itself --A B Pepper 18:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

To the relief of many of you and particularly afaprof01 who went into hiding when this article came up for deletion, I think I will be moving on to other more pertinent areas in my life. I may make an editor here or there or I may not. Frankly, I have become bored with the subject and the format. afaprof01, I give you back your article. I know it is the only outlet for you to vent your frustration. I suppose maybe even your husband doesn't listen to you??? With regard to Wikipedia it is a very unusual format. To some extent entertaining. But, Wikipedia has no enduring substance. I have been working on a commentary for 8 months on the pastoral epistles and when published it will not be corrupted, edited or perverted by editors but will remain a legacy of my doctrine and theology. I have enjoyed the last few weeks but have been disappointed that no competent opponent apparent had surfaced. I leave with this final query. Is an encyclopedia to be based on facts, yes, or no? I exhort you to take a look at the content of the heading just above that x-whatever cited as being better two weeks ago. Under one heading were ten, no less than ten factual errors. Absolutley verifiably factually erroneous. Is that what Wikipedia is meant to be? ......CLICK.....--A B Pepper 23:23, 26 September 2007 (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.