Talk:Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Books (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Christianity (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Speedy deletion[edit]

Speedy deletion??? Because of a loss of history??? I am (except for small changes) the ONLY AUTHOR of this page so far. And I already continued translation on the new page. I think deleting my new work is really inadequate given that the history is short (I started the page TODAY) and contains nearly no contributions from others! -- Nlmarco (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Please see my response to you on my talk page. "Nearly no" is not "zero". Everybody makes mistakes, especially when starting. Next time use the "move" tab. As for your new edits to this page, the reviewing admin will probably do a history merge and your work will not be lost. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Improvement/Additional citations needed[edit]

Anir1uph put a marker on the page stating:

  • This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. (January 2013)
  • This article needs additional citations for verification. (January 2013)

The whole article is (so far) a (still incomplete) translation of the corresponding German Wikipedia article. Since the German article exists for already quite a while and nobody complained about it needing improvement, I wonder why its translation allegedly requires it. Please elaborate!

Additionally, everything that I translated so far has very good sources: Various books referenced by their ISBNs. I don't know any better sources outside the internet than ISBNs. So please elaborate, what improvements exactly you want to see! -- Nlmarco (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

  • There are significant differences between different Wikipedias. The German one finds it completely acceptable to have a long article, followed by a list of references, without any indication which phrase/paragraph is sourced by which reference. This is not acceptable here, however. In addition, although you can use the books as a reference for themselves (up to a point), you will need to show notability for them and back up any statements you make about them by independent sources. That should not be a problem here, there must be lots of sources for these controversial books (I actually own one myself, so I know what they are about). To get a feel for editing here, please read the manual of style and from there you will find links to more detailed and/or specific guides and policies. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Are you arguing that this article should not exist? Since notability is only regarding the article itself, not any sub-article content. Puck42 (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't know about the German article, but this article needs more references, to denote notability and verifiability. More secondary sources must be added. Also, there are no inline citations, hence the tag. Best of luck for improving this article. If you need help on any issue, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks! Anir1uph | talk | contrib 15:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Notability will be decided at the AfD (although I don't doubt this meets our requirements: I remember reading reviews in large German newspapers, but those may not be available online...), but for the moment I have deleted most unsourced material, leaving a large stub. Once sources turn up, this material can be added again (and edited as needed). --Randykitty (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Based on the additional references provided, I propose removing the Inline Citations tag. See also my other comments on notability. Puck42 (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Reply by nlmarco[edit]

  • For the notability: - as you might see, half of these are PAPER newspapers - the other half are people having been quoted (probably they said it in an interview - and believe me: if this was not true, the web-site had been sued away by them!). Since I didn't read all these papers myself and they are not available online, I can't reference them (though I will try to find them).
  • I'm willing to search for more secondary references AFTER I finished the translation (which is already quite a lot of work), but as already said: Most of the stuff I translated until now is written in Deschner's books themselves. For example, the "Objective target" (which was removed either by the merge or by you?) is a summary of the introduction to the book (written in the first volume - read it yourself, if you don't believe me!). There is no English source available, because the books are not yet translated into English - and especially there is no English source ONLINE, because they are copyrighted BOOKS - putting them online is not allowed. Additionally, I don't understand why summaries are acceptable in movie articles - see e.g. "Plot" in Breakfast at Tiffany's (film) - but they are not acceptable for book articles (or at least this one)! The nature of an abstract is that it has no single source POINT but rather a source RANGE (the whole movie or book - or at least a whole chapter). And this source range is IMHO perfectly referenced by the ISBN (in case of a book).
  • Deschner's Christianity's Criminal History is probably the most important piece of literature written about Christianity in the current and the previous century! Only a christian fundamentalist can seriously consider deleting the article - but not because of missing notability, but because of censorship!

Nlmarco (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Nlmarco, you got things backward. You cannot write things and then say "I'll provide sources later". You provide them now or you don't add content. I have seen Deschner's "Resonanz" page, but unfortunately, he doesn't provide the sources where these things were said. In the absence of the original sources, this page is not independent and can therefore not be used to establish notability or source anything. As for the language of sources, they don't need to be in English, German sources are perfectly acceptable, too. --Randykitty (talk) 05:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
What exactly are you looking for sources for? To prove that Deschner's 10-volume opus is notable enough for an article? The notability test is intended to reduce frivolous content. More than enough material has been provided for the notability of Deschner's work already. At this point let us focus on adding to the article content.Puck42 (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

State of the article[edit]

The article should stay as such. However, there is little need for the verbatim quotes in German - the current translations should be enough. The book's impact needs to be expanded, too. ~~ Zezen (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


Collecting references online to be put into the article, later:

Deschner's work is significantly referenced and enough material has been provided to prove notability. Please continue your work of adding to this important page. Puck42 (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Nlmarco (talk) 05:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Published yet or not?[edit]

Para 1 indicates that all 10 volumes have now been published - but the note under Vol. 10 states "The 10th and last volume of the Criminal History is going to be published in March 2013." Should it now be "The 10th and last volume of the Criminal History was published in March 2013"? (talk) 05:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Eagle eye