Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Catholic conservatism


 * 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 of the debate was delete and redirect title to Traditionalist Catholic. Angr (talk • contribs) 12:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholic conservatism
Delete. The overriding reason this page should be deleted is because of its massive POV problem. I will argue that this problem is inherent to the topic, "Roman Catholic conservatism". The only purpose this article could possibly serve is to discredit people with whom the author disagrees. It is not a serious encyclopedia entry, and should therefore be deleted.

First, there is a consensus in Catholic circles that political terms like "conservative", "moderate", and "liberal" are inappropriate and not germane to theological questions.

Second, the positions listed as examples of Catholic "conservatism" are very radical, to the point where somebody who believed most of these things probably would belong to a breakaway fringe "Catholic" group rather than subject himself to Rome.

Third, when people think of "conservative" Catholics, they often think of those who simply support the Church's teachings on issues like abortion, birth control, etc. If they came looking for more information to this article on "Roman Catholic conservatism", they would be led to think that those supporers of Church doctrine are much more extreme than they are.

Fourth, some of these are simply disingenuous misrepresentations. Nobody regards Jews as "faithless"; actually, that type of prejudice would be sinful under Catholic teaching! I suspect a lot of these items of "Roman Catholic conservative" ideology were listed and radicalized in order to discredit "Roman Catholic conservatives".

Fifth, equating these outrageously bigoted, non-Catholic, heterodox ideas with perfectly (theologically and morally) acceptable ones like saying the Mass in Latin, emphasizing devotion to Mary and the saints, "justification for war when absolutely necessary", and "abstinence from meat on Fridays", suggests a massive POV problem with this article, and bolsters my suggestion about the authors' motives in the previous point.

Sixth, the idea of "conservatism" implies a tendency to "conserve". In this case, that is precisely the opposite of what this article suggests "Roman Catholic conservatives" want. They supposedly "reject ecumenist policies", "totally avoid interfaith theological dialogue", "deny that Anglicans and Protestants are Christians", demonstrate "no respect for non-Catholics", believe "salvation is for Catholics only", emphasize Tradition over and against Scripture, "avoid handshaking and body prayer" (whatever that is), and believe that sex is for "reproduction only, not pleasure". These positions are contrary to the constant teaching of the Church. They can't be characterized as "conservative" in any meaningful sense.

If this article is about people so radical that they couldn't reasonably be called "Catholic" or "conservative", then I wonder what the purpose of this article is -- other than to discredit both Catholics and conservatives. This is a poor excuse for an encyclopedia entry, and I urge deletion. Hyphen5 11:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. POV can always be edited out of an article, but this entry has been unsourced since October 2005. It violates WP:NOR, as it stands. Also see Articles for deletion/Roman Catholic liberalism. PJM 12:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge the whole list to Traditionalist Catholic, of which it's a possible WP:POVFORK. Hyphen5, you can then make your arguments there and remove what's unsourced. Sandstein 13:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, my point is that this article is intellectually unserious. Traditionalist Catholic is a good faith attempt to document a real phenomenon. Roman Catholic conservatism is not, and so I wouldn't necessarily want to fill that article with this one's garbage. Hyphen5 21:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That may well be so, but this is about process. Not being a theologian, I don't know what makes sense here, but the editors of Traditionalist Catholic may. If we merge the list there, and then you delete everything you think is wrong, they will see it and possibly object. That's the point of avoiding WP:POVFORKs. Sandstein 22:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess I could live with that, but shouldn't we also make sure that we apply the same standard to Roman Catholic liberalism -- which is (rightly) headed for deletion? There are, of course, Verifiability violations in this article as well. Hyphen5 22:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * merge per Sandstein . I am persuaded by the suggestion that delete and redirect is the better alternative and support that.  Bucketsofg 17:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Traditionalist Catholic as it is a likely search term but don't merge content for reasons outlined by Hyphen5.Capitalistroadster 23:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I could go for that. How do I "officially" change my vote to delete and redirect? I'm kind of new to this. Hyphen5 06:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, on second glance, the laundry list of conservative ideas in the article does look more than a bit spurious. Delete and redirect. There is no "official" way of changing votes; you just did. But you can strikethrough your initial vote if you want to. Sandstein 07:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * comment. As I understand it, this forum is not, strictly speaking, a vote per se, but a discussion seeking consensus.  Indeed, I suggest that the above is very much a model of how AfD discussions should go: a detailed case, some counter-points, other counter-points, with people changing their mind and broadly accepting a certain outcome as the best solution. Bucketsofg 16:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, unsourced, describes quite temporary situation, title is highly misleading (what about RC church in 19th century?). Pavel Vozenilek 18:08, 18 March 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.