Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vatican conspiracy theories


 * 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. The main result of this debate is that there is nearly unanimous consensus that the subject of the article is notable enough for inclusion. This point is more or less not even disputed by those who said the article should be deleted. Likewise, there is broad consent that the article needs better sourcing — as even admitted by those who said the article should be kept. Taking all this into account it's safe to say that there is a clear consensus that the article should be kept, but there is an evident need to continue adding reliable sources as well. —  Aitias  // discussion 13:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Vatican conspiracy theories

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I'm in two minds about this article. Part of me says "Gosh, this is notable and verifiable" and part says "Even if it is, this article is a prime example of synthesised original research." Even if it's intended just as a list it still requires references, doubtless all of which can be supplied. I know we'll get the pro/anti religion/Roman Catholicism/Conspiracy Theory folk discussing the bejasus out of this from a pro/anti religion/Roman Catholicism/Conspiracy Theory viewpoint, but it would be far better to discuss it from its technical merits as an article. After all, the theories etc exist. I'm concerned about the synthesised OR aspect. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I say Keep. I've got many sources I'd like to add and these are among the most famous Conspiracy theories. Also, there are many more articles on related conspiracy theories. ADM (talk) 12:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm sure you are familiar with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, though it is rather a harsh name! My concern is absolutely not the citability of the individual items as my nomination says.  I have taken it as read that they can (probably) all be referenced.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is quite close to being exhaustive, and it is not original at all. These are things that everyone has heard about, that all may know well already. ADM (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My contention is that the article synthesises original research. That is the rationale for my nomination.  I dispute none of your other points and never have.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes but the sources DO reach the same conclusion, therefore it is not original research. It would like to ask you to read the article Antisemitic canard, it is very much based on this previous work. ADM (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Antisemitic canard has 63 footnotes, which reference dozens of books and academic articles. Vatican conspiracy theories, until MQS got to work, had one reference to a NYT article. And your earlier remark, "These are things that everyone has heard about," that pretty much sums up what this article is based on: suspicions, rumors, allegations. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said in my nomination, I am in some doubt. I suggest we let this run, after which you will have a pretty definitive outcome.  Our community usually makes wise decisions especially when an individual is unwise (and I have been both wise and unwise all my life).  I'm happy to be proven wrong as well as right.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Warrington (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is not the kind of synthesis that the drafters of WP:SYNTH had in mind. This is actually closer to a disambiguation page. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 13:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Clear case. Notability in spades. Needs cites to be sure, but that is a mechanical exercise and not a valid reason for deletion.  SYN? Not in the NOR sense at all. Collect (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep but rename to "Conspiracy theories involving the Vatican" Wow I had no idea there were so many! Steve Dufour (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep While the article clearly needs better sourcing, it is a good way to organize info on the various notable conspiracy theories. Edward321 (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll disagree with everyone on here and say Delete. No references, too much information to reference, and just an awful article. Further, as each item on there appears to have its own article, this seems better as a category. Timneu22 (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Increase to super strong delete. This is the first I've heard of WP:COATRACK; there is no better example than this article. Timneu22 (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but only if substantial sourcing is added. The topic, and some of the conspiracies mentioned, are clearly notable and have been the subject of many books, films, etc. But it needs sourcing placed fairly quickly. I'm going to break my own rule here and state that I'll even support renomination of the sourcing isn't added within the next couple of weeks. 23skidoo (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete: Article is a classic example of WP:POVFORK and WP:COATRACK, created and maintained by one user, please read the lead: "They usually involve the Pope or his sinister curialists, typically jesuits, trying to dominate the world in a ruthless enterprise of secular power-wielding. Other conspiracies will involve dubious papal interventions in the history of Christianity in order to conceal or hide allegedly secret information." Any sourced information can be saved into Criticism of Catholicism.--J.Mundo (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete "Clearly needs better sourcing" is an understatement. Don't even bother to put up an article with this many accusations unless you can tell us where you heard them. Mandsford (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- Could stand better sourcing, but its a legit topic, and problems with POV are for cleanup, not deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep- All conspiracy theories violate NPOV, original research, etc, yet there are still plenty of them wikipedia (see RFK, JFK). A google search produces many book/web results, so this is notable and verifiable. And even if those sources are synthesized original research, keep in mind that these are conspiracy theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Letsdrinktea (talk • contribs) 17:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is that argument not preempted by WP:WAX?Simon Dodd (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, per J.Mundo.Simon Dodd (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as part unsourcable, part better treated in other articles, and part WP:BLP. Also, the novels seem oddly out of place. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete If only for the lack of references. Some of these conspiracies look like they were made up. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete--really, this is too ridiculous for words. This incredibly long list has one, ONE, reference, and I fail to see how any of the Keep-voters missed the very first sentence, which is about as POV as can be. Worse, it's not something that can be taken care of by editing: the whole list is essentially POV, especially since there is no sourcing to indicate that the suspected conspiracy has any kind of reality or notability at all. May I point out author ADM sees fit to include a "His Dark Materials" conspiracy? Read it: "In Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials, the Church exerts a strong control over a fictional world. There is a conspiracy by which the Magisterium must be destroyed by various rebels." Well--this is a work of fiction. The Church in question is a fictional church. The Catholic church, or the Pope and his sinister Jesuits, do not control that fictional world. Are you kidding? I'm going to go and remove that right now, in anticipation of removal of the entire article. I'm far from a Pope-worshiper, and I've never been a very good Catholic, but this is too ridiculous for words. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm making good progress deleting what is completely bollocks, blatant nonsense, or the opposite of what the article is supposed to be about. Keep-voters, did you notice that one "Vatican conspiracy" theory is that Protestants often thought the pope was the Anti-Christ? I mean, how in the world can that be a Vatican conspiracy? Drmies (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe hold off on tearing it apart until we can get in and source even those that you feel are bollocks? I have begun some... and there's lots out there.. and its admittedly a VERY LONG article requiring lots of sourcing. Remember, wiki is not about truth... its about verification of included materials... and it seems that most, if not all, of these "theories" can be verified.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Michael, you'll have noticed that a left a lot...incl. all the sections you have been working on. Ha, it's not such a long article anymore. You'll note also that some of the things I've deleted are gone not because they are unverified conspiracies, but because they weren't "vatican conspiracies," such as the "Vatican ratlines conspiracies," or totally fictional (i.e., derived from fiction), such as "God's spy." But the bigger issue here is NOT that the claim that there are these "conspiracies" cannot be verified, because that's clearly not true: any idiot with a computer can make a nutcase conspiracy verifiable. The bigger problem with some of the sourcing is that almost all of these claims simply aren't notable. Now, some of them are--the anti-Christ thing for instance--and they are treated elsewhere, in great detail. What I'm saying is that the basic concept of the article is flawed, nevermind the fact that a lot of (bollocks) theories were published in a WP article and it's left to you to do the sourcing, or to me to delete what I consider unverified or unverifiable (and I know a little bit about this stuff). But as always, I appreciate your zeal! Take care, Drmies (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep article, delete problematic pieces — because of well-known claims such as Pope Joan, Pope John Paul I, and the recent buzz related to The Da Vinci Code, the idea of "Vatican conspiracy theories" is made quite legitimate. I'm not defending the inclusion of fringe theories, such as the idea that the Catholic Church invented Islam; I don't defend the unreferenced state of the article; and I agree that the intro needs to be cleaned up bigtime.  However, I believe that this can easily be reduced to a good basis for a better article, simply by offering summaries of such theories — and as far as Drmies' note, because this is about theories that the Vatican is conspiring to do something, the idea that the Papacy is the Antichrist and conspiring to oppose true Christianity definitely qualifies.  This perhaps would be the easiest to source; just check the Westminster Confession, any other early Presbyterian document, and probably lots of non-English documents.  Nyttend (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I won't dispute that that idea existed, not at all--but I take issue with placing that on a par with UFOs and Nazi gold, and it seems to me that the Vatican-antichrist theory deserves its own article, under its own title--if it werent' already covered in Anti-Catholicism, pretty exhaustively and carefully, rather than under some general catch phrase in an article full of unreferenced and non-notable conspiracy theories. I mean, placing the Westminster Confession next to Paul Blanshard is really giving "undue un-weight" to the former. Drmies (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Looks good to me. The sourcing is off to a solid start. Can't beat the NY Times when it comes to conspiracy theories.ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But look at the lead: "They usually involve the Pope or his sinister curialists, typically jesuits, trying to dominate the world in a ruthless enterprise of secular power-wielding." That's not just a random POV-statement, it's what underlies this random list--sloppiness and slippage, grammatically and otherwise. But I appreciate your sense of humor and irony, that "the sourcing is off to a good start." I've seen articles on poppy seed with better sources than this one! ;)Drmies (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If that lead can be sourced, then there is no problem. And naturally poppy seed is better sourced. Its only one subject.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What is a curialist? It certainly sounds sinister. Did you catch my subtle dig at the NY Times? And what about how they shaved Sinead O'Connor's head like that! Perhaps a tweak of the wording is needed? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoa, the pope shaved her? That's kinda...well...saucy! Drmies (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Curialist: "One who belongs to the ultramontane party in the Latin Church."  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete one source doesn't support any of these "conspiracies" - some of which are BLP violations. Why does it seem that everyone can malign the Roman Catholic Church without sources and put all sorts of b.s. Seems to invite a diatribe against every religion and source it to the religion's own denials of the allegations to "prove" the conspiracy and cover up. This is the crap that makes WP a laughing stock and erodes our credibility. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources verifying the theories are being added. And with respects about credibility... the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If the theories can be verified as to exist, that meet the threshold for inclusion, no matter what kind of hogwash they may be.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * .Comment: I don't share your separation of the two principles nwhich I find artificial. The concept of verifiability is ultimately dependent on the quest for truth. And people consult Wikipedia, because they have faith in the truthfulness of the contents. Verifiabilty on its feet alone means absolutely nothing, a void, abstract concept. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Rewrite though to remove the POV phrasing. Hooper (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and countinue sourcing. I can see this article as wonderfully controversial, specially in that "therories" are not "facts"... just suppositions. But of course, since "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", the existance of these many theories can be verified and their continued coverage ensures notability. And commenting upon the nom's "this article is a prime example of synthesised original research"... that synthesis of research is not by anyone on wiki. We're just here to place the existing theories in an encyclopedic format.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But isn't this sourcing one of the problems? I mean, the references you added aren't exactly on a par (yet) with the scholarly research done here or here. I am not trying to demean your work, but before you know it, every blogger gets to add their own conspiracy (http://www.popejohnpauli.net/), or report on one (like Ruth Bertels on http://www.takingfive.com/). Drmies (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am no expert in the field. Sourcing seems to be the major concern here... and most conspiracy theories fall under fringe. I shudder when I think of the ardous task ahead in researching and sourcing such a list... but such sources must certainly exist outside the fringe, perhaps in acadamea. There is the article in New York Times and I did find coverage by Discovery Channel, and these folks have resources that I do not. Such an expansive aricle cannot be sourced in a few minutes or hours... or perhaps days or weeks... but as wiki has no deadline, this becomes a matter for cleanup, and not deletion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. For conspiracy theories, I use Google, not Wikipedia. 11 footnotes for twice as much theories - almost a conspiracy of misinformation in itself. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that the theories are largely rubbish, but they are out there. Some of them may be WP:OR by a single person, who has given them little publicity.  Others are widely believed even though they are unsubstantiated trash.  A few appear already to have their own articles.  Others do not.  The objective should be to provide sources for the theory as propounded and for its refutation.  One of the problems is that once some one has propounded an error, it is liable to get repeated.  I agree that the article is not (yet) adequately sourced, but that is a reason for improving it, not one for deleting it.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable and sourced conspiracies.Biophys (talk) 04:54, 23 January 2009 (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.