Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dispute about Jesus' execution method

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. Any potential renaming of the article should be discussed at article talk page, or fi necessary WP:RM. ThaddeusB (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute about Jesus' execution method

Dispute about Jesus' execution method (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a content fork to promote a view of Jehovah's Witnesses. The issue is more of a difference in doctrine rather than an active 'dispute'. The relevant content could be greatly reduced and merged to Crucifixion of Jesus and Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#Cross, according to context. Jeffro77 (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.
  • Delete. I am not convinced its current content does promote the Jehovah's Witness doctrine, but a recent flurry of edits to the opening sentence prove that few editors can agree on the actual point of the article and therefore what form it should take. I agree that there is no "dispute" about the issue; this is merely the case of a single religion dissenting from (or denying) the orthodox view and scratching around for 19th century sources that appear to support it. I agree that the relevant aspects of the JW belief can easily be accommodated elsewhere, and that any disagreement among reliable sources over the shape of the gibbet can be discussed at a different place. This is a troublesome article that has undergone numerous name changes and it gives little evidence that the best-intentioned editors can remedy it. It was probably just a bad idea to begin with. BlackCab (talk) 08:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article was started several years ago to promote the JW view, and then opposing views were added in attempt to provide balance. The fact remains that there isn't really an active dispute between any specific parties. Notable views on the shape of the device purportedly used can be briefly covered at the main crucifixion article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the comments below, regarding the fact that there is nothing brief about the topic, that notability of the topic is not disputed, that the rationale was "content reduction", and that an Afd is not the the vehicle for managing content disputes when consensus cannot be reached. History2007 (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As user Jeffro states, it may have started as way to "promote the JW view, and then opposing views were added". May not be an active dispute, but the article can still cover the history of the dispute, whether JW or secular historians weigh in. Boneyard90 (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "Oppose'" vote most likely means "Keep", so could you clarify that please so it is similar to the others? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Duh. Boneyard90 (talk) 13:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response: I believe I made this very suggestion here. I've since gone cold on the idea. Watch Tower publications rely on just three sources (and a blatant misuse of another) so I think the origin of their belief can be expressed in a sentence or two at the Beliefs of JW article. As another editor on the talk page suggested, it may be a rather big job to outline all the sources supporting a traditional cross-shaped gibbet. The deniers, or sceptic groups, are comparatively few in number. BlackCab (talk) 11:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There isn't and hasn't been a notable dispute. There are varying views about the shape of the device, and those can be briefly presented at Crucifixion of Jesus.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, the "briefly" part is not accurate. This subject is of heated interest to so many people around the world, and so much material exists on it that there is only one brief conclusion: it is not a "brief subject". An entire section can be written on the "artistic depictions" of the crucifixion method, e.g. use of ropes, standing platform, tree vs solid cross, three nails vs four nails, etc., etc. This is not a brief topic. If you wish to delete some of the content because you disagree with it, you need to follow the proper Wikipedia protocols via consensus. An Afd is absolutely not a vehicle for "content reduction". I would have never nominated an article for Afd just to reduce its content. Afd should rely on notability first and foremost which was not even part of the rationale for the Afd. The topic is notable. Period. History2007 (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The nominating editor has been surprisingly candid that he would rather see this article deleted than improved!--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then that means that this is a case of "An Afd that is not an Afd" because it is an Afd not based on policy, but based on a content dispute. In view of that, this may even have to be a WP:SK 2.d: nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, in any case. History2007 (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently I missed this. No, the AfD was not raised to end an editing dispute. The reason for raising was quite clearly indicated, with intent to reduce and merge notable aspects to other articles rather than place undue weight on something that is simply an alternative point of doctrine held by some groups rather than a 'dispute'. AuthorityTam has distorted the point of my comment in the supplied diff. It is not the case that I merely wanted to delete the article instead of improving it. My intention was that I wasn't interested in improving the article because I saw other reasons for deleting it. If BlackCab, the editor to whom I was responding, misinterpreted my intent, I apologise.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is clear notability to this view alone, per its discussion in other sources. Provided that an appropriately NPOV article is maintained, it's entirely appropriate to cover it here. WP is not claiming that this viewpoint is true, merely that some believe it, and that others have commented upon that belief. It is however a minority view. It would be unbalanced to cover it to this depth, in the main article (a section and link would be appropriate). Andy Dingley (talk) 12:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; encyclopedic discussion of the shape of impalement gibbets is plainly notable. Should Wikipedia alone keep its head in the sand? This article here isn't even slightly POV, but contains just as much 'proof' that the gibbet was a crux immissa as it does 'proof' that the gibbet was a crux simplex; both those analyses are presented here in an encyclopedic manner. This article is certainly not an example of WP:CFORK, where the same topic is discussed in parallel articles. Incidentally (and at the risk of having WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS screamed at me), Wikipedia has other articles related to hypotheses about Jesus: Swoon hypothesis, Stolen body hypothesis, Vision hypothesis. Comparing and contrasting, is Crux simplex hypothesis uniquely intolerable? The article at Crucifixion of Jesus discusses everything related to Jesus' crucifixion, and has just a sentence or two about the shape of the gibbet; extended discussion of gibbet shape there would constitute WP:UNDUE. Both sides of the gibbet-shape "dispute" are well sourced from secondary sources (rather than JW literature), and it seems remarkably unlikely that the Wikipedia community would benefit from eliminating the majority of the topic discussion just to shoehorn the topic into a single section at Crucifixion of Jesus. The "dispute" seems to have continued for more than 150 years now (preceding Jehovah's Witnesses) and most of the cited scholars are not Witnesses. Perhaps reinstate the former, less-ambiguous article title? I'm still unconvinced about the nominator's decision to change from what was a perfectly acceptable name ("Dispute about the shape of the gibbet of Jesus"). Compare Stauros; that is the odd duck article.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that shapes other than a cross have been posed over time is notable, but could be easily presented much more briefly at the main crucifixion article (and to some degree, it already does). Much of the content of the article that is the subject of this AfD has been greatly conflated to give the appearance of a more significant 'dispute'. It is not necessary for the article to include every statement ever written on the matter.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Method of Jesus' execution. This is hardly a fringe theory, but the article should be broader than the pole vs. cross debate - mention should be made of the theory that Jesus died on a T-shaped cross. This is actually mentioned in the article, but lumped in with "crossbeam" theories. StAnselm (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-The subject is of sufficient notability that the page is justified, and dispute seems to be a proper characterization of the subject considering the polarized views held by individual groups. I therefore think it should be kept as it currently exists. Just as a side note, somehow, I seem to have been left out of the AfD notification process, but fortunately I discovered it in time to participate. Willietell (talk) 05:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. If this article were deleted, a new article should be written on "Early Christian descriptions of the cross of Christ". I think this would be preferable to the present arrangement, but do not wish to make an issue of it. Esoglou (talk) 07:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep (and rename, but no merge). The subject of the article is notable, there is no question in that and no one even denies the notability on this talk page - so deletion is out of the question. And the quality of content is no reason for deletion, given the notability. And the rationale in the Afd nomination is to "delete some of the content" because it may be POV!. Really? Is an Afd a method for content adjustment? If a user wants to delete content he should build consensus for deletion using proper Wikipedia policies, not use an Afd as a "means for content deletion". Afd is not for dispute resolution over content. And it absolutely (I mean absolutely) does not make sense to merge this with the Crucifixion of Jesus page because there is so much text here that will dominate that page. This is a small part of the Crucifixion episode and can not dominate that page. There is already a summary of it there, and if it gets any larger, will have to split out anyway, per WP:Undue. However, Wikipedia aside, somehow this topic (which is of minor interest to most people) seems to generate a special type of obsession in a number of people around the world that defies comprehension. Hence, it is not surprising that it will continue to be hotly debated on Wikipedia. It needs its own page and its own professional debating society, hence the page needs to remain. But a rename to Method of Jesus' execution may make sense as StAnselm suggested above. History2007 (talk) 08:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not suggest dropping the whole article, as is, into the parent article. Nor did I raise the AfD as a 'vehicle for article reduction' in situ, as you suggested in an earlier comment above. I suggested that a reduced summary of this article be merged to the parent article. For example, the section "Stauros" interpreted as ambivalent in meaning is not especially pertinent to a dispute, and could be greatly reduced in the parent article, probably to a sentence or maybe 2. It seems the 'dispute' article aims to score points about how many prefer a particular view rather than the actual notable matter about what views exist.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Method of Jesus' execution as suggested above. There is scope to expand the brief summary about nails and ropes from Crucifixion of Jesus#Nails in the context of a broader article. The dispute with JWs might still form a large part of the article, but the page could benefit from expansion including rhetorical, theological and artistic interpretations of the method of crucifixion. Oppose merge as this is a side topic that should be covered in the encyclopedia, but would be too long to incorporate into either of the merge targets named above. – Fayenatic L (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Based on the user talk page link provided by AuthorityTam above, this seems like a clear case of WP:SK 2.d: i.e. nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, given that the nominator stated that he would prefer deletion over article improvement via consensus. History2007 (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response I think AuthorityTam is being mischievous in his suggestion. Jeffro had previously clearly expressed his desire to have the page deleted. I sought some feedback from him over a proposal to rewrite and reangle the article; his response was to repeat his earlier preference for deletion and therefore indifference at my suggestion. The ongoing changes in the title of the article and its lead section show quite clearly the disagreement and uncertainty over the thrust of the article. Should it highlight the beliefs of JWs as its lede? Should it emphasise that religion's "dispute" with orthodox Christianity? Should it state that the religion denies the orthodox view and then analyse its sources for such a belief and present the contradictory evidence? Should it focus on the range of possibilities and mention the religion only in passing? Or should the range of beliefs about the shape of the gibbet be merged into another article? If the article is saved but this issue isn't resolved, it will remain as a poor article and the subject of a slow-motion edit war. BlackCab (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-All that could have been said without the unnecessary preemptive assault on editor User:AuthorityTam's motivation in putting forth an argument. To to call his suggestion "mischievous" is simply uncivil. Please desist from such comments in the future as they are unnecessary and simply detract from the discussion. Willietell (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the general discussion: On the part of more sides than one, there has been so much bandying about of ad hominem comments that I think the only solution would be for Jeffro to withdraw his proposal, close the discussion, and then start it anew in the hope that next time editors will discuss the proposal, not the supposed motives or inconsistencies of other editors. Esoglou (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry, I can not agree with that at all. This Afd is most likely going to fail on Sunday March 4. 2012. Now 3 days before an Afd fails, the nominator can not withdraw it so that he can roll the dice again in 2 weeks, hoping for a better outcome. That is not how Afds work. Once it is close to failing, one can not attempt a run-around 2 weeks later and take up everyone's time again. If Jeffro withdraws that will be declared a "Speedy close" due to failure of the Afd. History2007 (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plainly WP:SK (with prejudice against renomination). Furthermore, it's disappointing and unseemly for a certain editor to namecallingly refer to me as "mischievous". This certain editor, User:BlackCab aka User:LTSally, hyperventilatingly caterwauls about supposed slurs by me (here and here) and dismissively imagines me a "Jehovah's Witness" with 'Watchtower-tinted spectacles' and 'trained to hate those who criticise your dear leaders'; for the sole reason that I prefer discussion of JWs to be accurate, precise, and encyclopedic. Quite ironic by contrast, editor User:BlackCab aka User:LTSally explicitly refers to himself as a former JW and has written of being "sickened" by the {ahem} "claustrophobic, sycophantic, incestuous community" of Jehovah's Witnesses. BlackCab's outrageous namecalling is too-frequent and unhelpful, and he should stop.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now, the personal niceties between you guys aside, do you have a policy based reference to "with prejudice against renomination". How does that get achieved, so we do not have to read through the old pleasantries people have written to each other again next month. History2007 (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yet another personal attack by AuthorityTam against BlackCab, who isn't even the nominator. AuthorityTam has been requested elsewhere, repeatedly, to cease this behaviour.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think you made a clear case for WP:SK. Your reasoning that keeping the article will result in a "slow-motion edit war" indicates that attempted deletion is a path to "avoid an ongoing slow motion edit dispute". This is exactly, exactly what WP:SK 2.d is about: nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion. Your comment made the case for WP:SK 2.d clear. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the nominator, so my views don't impact on WP:SK at all. I have already explained the deficiencies of the article and why I think it should go. The inability of editors to agree on the point of it is central to that. And I find it odd that you, suddenly so emotional about it, appear to have never contributed to the article to improve it or suggest a way out of the impasse. BlackCab (talk) 01:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the fact that:
  • a number of users have an edit dispute,
  • one of them nominates the article for deletion to end the dispute
provide the exact criteria for the application of WP:SK 2.d. That is clearly the case here. History2007 (talk) 05:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I seemed to be being accused of something here. However, I have indicated clear reasons both now and about a year ago why I believe the article does not need to be here. If other people disagree, and the article is kept, well that's fine. But then those people should actually do something about the poor quality of the article to establish the notability that has been claimed instead of just complaining when they perceive that the article is under 'threat'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment About a year ago, I suggested that I would prepare a sandbox article for reducing the dispute article to something usable at the crucifixion article. This was met with dramatic claims that this article could be expanded with what were claimed to be other 'significant' details, such as an alleged 'dispute' about the number of nails used. Since it was claimed that this article would be improved, I terminated work on my sandbox copy. Since then, very little has happened to improve this article, and it still does very little to indicate why the 'dispute' is significant. See Talk:Crucifixion of Jesus#Merge (POV fork).--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the fact that other Wikipedia editors did not spend time to work on a given article is absolutely not a reason for an Afd on the article. As StAnselm stated above the title may have to be Jesus' execution method rather than have the term dispute in it, but teh topic is clearly notable, as evidenced by the fact that you did not dispute its notability in you Afd rationale. However, it is totally clear to whoever reads the discussions that this article has been the subject of a dispute and the Afd has resulted from said edit dispute. In Wikipedia terms, that is called: WP:SK 2.d. That is clear. History2007 (talk) 09:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"This is clear". That's your opinion. You are pushing this line hard, History, but we might as well let the discussion proceed. The nominator gave his reasons and editors are responding on that basis. There seems to be strong support for "keep"; let's hear all their opinions on what should be done with this article to save it from the mess it's now in. BlackCab (talk) 10:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we should wait for further comments. That is also clear. History2007 (talk) 10:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus' execution method might be an alternative name for Crucifixion of Jesus, which already exists. There still doesn't seem to be clear notability for this article in its unnecessarily lengthy form. It is still the case that the significant points could be summarised at the main article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let us see what everyone else thinks about that other rename, given that it misses WP:COMMONNAME by a few miles... I will not even say anything... History2007 (talk) 13:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't vouch for anyone else, but I did not seriously intend renaming Crucifixion of Jesus to Jesus' execution method, much less renaming this article to that title. Such a move would make the point of this article even more ambiguous, as it does not really indicate any notable dispute, or why the issue is notable at all beyond what could be briefly summarised at the main crucifixion article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have said these a few times now. So let us see how the Afd progresses. History2007 (talk) 14:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: Based on the comment above, if the nominator withdraws this Afd, will need to be declared as a close due to failure of the Afd, so the Afd can not be restarted in 2 weeks. Once an Afd is close to the end, with no hope of success, the nominator can not speedy end it, hoping to roll the dice again a month later. History2007 (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even if an AfD legit fails, the article can be renominated a month later... Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And what a lovely waste of time that would be... History2007 (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is obviously a fairly strong concensus to keep the article. I hope the same diligence will now be applied to improving the article. I will be removing the article from my Watchlist shortly after the AfD ends and won't be actively working on it. I reserve the right to change my mind about editing the article at any time, for any reason, or for no reason.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that is reasonable. In another month or two I will see if time allows me to go and add some material there. I do not know the JW, so I am not sure what the story is, but there is obviously some "off Wiki" heat about that group. But I will try to stay away from that angle. History2007 (talk) 08:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The nomination proposes merger on the grounds that this is a content fork. This is therefore not a proposal to delete the article and so the discussion should be terminated on procedural grounds. Warden (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dispute_about_Jesus%27_execution_method&oldid=1080251903"