Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservative Christianity - Wikipedia


Article Images
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. Consensus is: Keep as a DAB page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Christianity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability of the topic is not established. Although there are millions of Christians who are conservative in some sense or another there does not seem to be one definite meaning of the expression "conservative Christianity." The different themes, for instance Christian right and Fundamentalist Christianity, should each have a separate article. BigJim707 (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or DAB or whatever, except keep, to save the reader from the confusion. For the life of me, I can not figure out what defines the concept on which the article is based. The text mixes conservative Catholics with conservative Protestants and then makes generalizations about the belief in the divinity of Jesus! The term Chalcedonian Christianity is missing from the article, of course. The underlying basis of the definitions in the article seem to be mostly unaware of the long forgotten field called Christian theology. And the term "conservative" usually has some type of political context such as voting Republican in the US and as someone said on the talk page this is pretty US oriented. And are there non-conservative Mormons? Does the article consider Mormons Christians? Are there non-Conservative Eastern Orthodox? Are all Eastern Orthodox conservative or some are not? How about Eastern Catholics? Are all non-Trinitarians non-conservative? Overall the basic tenet of the definition of the term on which the article is based seems to be unaware of the beliefs of Christian denominations worldwide and uses a very simplistic brush to paint many people the same color. The overall concept seems to have been derived from watching some TV evangelists and forming opinions and concepts based on that. A pretty confused concept which is pretty much "an invention" as a whole and no basis for an article for it. History2007 (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the WikiProject Conservatism as well. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, since conservative typically implies politics, redirect to Christian right (or whatever better target is found) as an aid to searches. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know of an absolute determination but regarding "Determine what this article is actually about" I think I have done that for myself at least: it is about confusion. But there is already an article on that. History2007 (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Christian right - I have found a few sources which mention Conservative Christianity, but it often seems to be interchangeable with the Christian right. Unless a source can be found which differentiates between the two, we only need one article. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. On the plus side, the article is well written, well sourced, well thought out, and does define the term as the author sees it. On the other hand, it feels like the term is defined, with the sources, as a little bit skewed by the author's own view - in short, there appears to be some bias problems in there. I cannot justify a delete !vote for a little bit of bias, however, let alone even a weak keep, when the large pool of available editors could do some nice work on this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve While I don't agree that the article is well sourced presently, there are ample sources to fulfill the notability requirement. This is just the plain fact of the matter. And this coverage is independent of Christian Right.– Lionel (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is to be improved what does Conservative Christianity mean in Northern Ireland or in England? In Northern Ireland is it the Catholics or the Protestants who are the conservatives? In England is it the antidisestablishmentarians who are conservatives or those who want to go back to Rome? -- PBS (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request incubation If this article is deleted I request that a copy be deposited in the WPConservatism incubator. – Lionel (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Christian Right. Many sources use it as a synonym for Christian Right, and those that don't, state that the Christian Right is the contemporary political advocate of conservative Christianity or that Conservative Christianity is the bedrock of the Christian Right. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Christian Right (without prejudice) and incubate, per request above. There needs to be a decision made about how to prevent forking on this topic. Christian fundamentalism seems to be on a historical moment in Protestantism; Christian Right on the contemporary social conservative movement. What is this exactly? Is it advisable and historical to connect various streams and trends of theologically conservative Christianity in one article? If so, how is that to be differentiated from other search terms. I'm not adverse to the idea, there just needs to be some work done to keep the search terms accurate and room for differentiation of A from B from C from D from E (since there are probably other parallel topics that I haven't mentioned here). Carrite (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete See my comments on the talk page of the article, but basically History2007 has summed up my point of view. DO not redirect it as the redirect are to equally American concentric articles that almost certainly need moving or deleting. This whole area is whack a rat. -- PBS (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as requested above. The article "Christian Right" makes it clear that it is being discussed as a US-centric concept, and it is better a reader be sent somewhere possibly relevant to their search term rather than sent nowhere at all. If an article on the broader/universal/theological aspect of liberalism and conservatism within Christian theology appears then we can discuss then whether "Conservative Christianity" should redirect there or to "Christian Right".AerobicFox (talk) 06:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and improve. I strongly oppose redirect to Christian right, as that term has political context and here it is about values, it would be very deceiving. In my life I met lots of people using this term in exact meaning how it is defined in here and redirect to Christian right would cause semantic havoc.
Christian right is a term used in the United States to describe "right-wing" Christian political groups
Conservative Christianity (also called traditional Christianity) is a term applied to a number of groups or movements seen as giving priority to traditional Christian beliefs and practices.--Stephfo (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC) One more note - I think some people are confusing term Conservative Christianity with Christian Conservatives ({often initial capital letter}of or pertaining to the Conservative party.); a fortiori stronger reason for keeping this page. --Stephfo (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another note: IMHO, the context as described in this article is used also in documentary about Bonhoeffer [3] (9min:18s) when describing his family roots who were anything but political Christian right. Also compare "His Christocentric approach appealed to conservative, confession-minded Protestants; while his commitment to social justice as a cardinal responsibility of Christianity appealed to liberal Protestants." in WP article about him. Your reasoning would imply that "His ...approach appealed to "Christian Right" what sounds as clear nonsense to me in given context, I apologize for any inconvenience.--Stephfo (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like this idea. I am changing my vote to support this. Looking at the incoming links - which as things stand are in need of disambiguation - most are not to the Christian right at all. In fact, most are to the original subject of the article - a theologically orthodox Christianity that rejects the beliefs Liberal Christianity. Whatever the failings of the article previously, this is a notable subject, and in need of an article by itself. Hence, I am changing my vote to keep. StAnselm (talk) 04:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have boldly created the disambiguation page, but feel free to revert if the old version of the page can be improved during this AFD. StAnselm (talk) 04:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea Mark. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a fabulous idea!Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the only problem is that a large number of the links will be difficult to disambiguate. StAnselm (talk) 06:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You might be over-thinking this. a WP:DAB for this subject shouldn't be more than 3 or 4 articles. For instance, Confessing Movement is not a reasonable DAB for Conservative Christianity—it might be suited for List of traditionalist Christian sects or Sprawling omnibus list of religious groups considered in some way "conservative", but someone searching Conservative Christianity isn't looking for an article on a specific sect. And if the DAB is changed into a list article, the WP:SCOPE problem returns.
I still favor a Redirect to Christian Right since not many other things are actually called "Conservative Christianity" (Greeley and Hout's coinage notwithstanding). Prior to the DAB, this article was an (effectively) unsourced rumination, and wasn't been improved (despite a several days' notice in a multiple delsort lists and WikiProjects), so nothing would be lost with a Delete. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Glad that I could help :) Mark Arsten (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turn into disambiguation page: Poorly defined topic that overlaps with several pre-existing articles. A confusing mish-mash of several divergent movements from Traditional Catholicism to Fundamentalist Protestantism with little else in common except that they are in some way "conservative". Worse, the word "conservative" is ambiguous here as it sometimes apparently means religiously conservative, and at other times apparently means politically conservative. This ambiguity is also present in the sources used, as well as in the pool of potential sources out there. A disambiguation page would enable the reader to select among the various options based on which meanings they have in mind. I can't see how the article can be improved to the point where it represents a single coherent topic that does not almost entirely overlap with other existing articles. If there is some reason why a dismbiguation page is not possible, the material in this article should be deleted or merged into exsisting articles. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO this disambiguation is causing exactly what is described in following terms The Truth about Conservative Christians:
Many of us make facile talk about conservative Christians while having vague ideas of who they are. Now we have no excuse. Greeley and Hout tell us exactly who they are
Pundits and political operatives have produced an enormous amount of nonsense in recent years about conservative Protestants.--Stephfo (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can say Greeley and Hout own this term (even tho they use the word truth). As mentioned earlier, this article currently describes "Conservative Catholics" essentially as pious Catholics. Pious, unworldly "conservative, confession-minded Protestants" are essentially Protestants. However, for most readers the highly political "Christian right" are also "conservatives", perhaps moreso. Until there is a (verifiable) consensus bigger than Greeley and Hout on what the term conservative christian means, attempts to limit this exact term are unencyclopedic soapboxing. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many of them are difficult, and this is making me lean back towards having the article. For example, one of the links is from Canonical criticism, which I created. The link is in a quote in which James Barr argues that the vision of a post-critical era "is the conservative dream." Conservative in this sense is clearly the subject of this article. One the other hand, it should probably be delinked anyway per MOS:QUOTE, which says "as much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes." StAnselm (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, maybe you just invented a new saying about Wiki-decisions anyway. History2007 (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for what it's worth - I've changed my vote yet again. StAnselm (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the nominator I think the new DAB page is a great idea, better than deletion. Readers will learn something about the different ways the expression is used and then be directed to the topic they are interested in. BigJim707 (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a nominator for deletion? DAB is providing all nuance meanings except the most semantically reasonable: "Conservative Christianity (also called traditional Christianity) is a term applied to a number of groups or movements seen as giving priority to traditional Christian beliefs and practices."--Stephfo (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that that is the most logical meaning of the two words, however that was not the theme of the original article -- nor does it seem like the most common use of the phrase. BigJim707 (talk) 08:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I somewhat agree, but don't see the improvement. Instead of linking to the most common usage of this term, this DAB has become (not counting the link to Christian right) a list of Christian sects that some editors think can reasonably be called "conservative". That's not what a WP:DAB is for, and even by list article standards this is very WP:OR.
I'm boldly removing references to particular sects that may be considered "conservative" and early Christianities—those belong in two separate (and potentially contentious) list articles. Christian right and Traditionalism (religion) are the only reasonable redirect targets I can find. (And that 2nd one is a stretch.) / edg ☺ ☭ 16:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also removed Evangelicalism, a sect typically considered "conservative" but not entirely nor essentially so. However, I have added a See also for Christian fundamentalism because the movement is considered historically a reaction Liberal Christianity (the article in reaction to which this one was created). Not adding The Fundamentals, a really classic example of christian religious conservatism, but not a reasonable DAB and too specific for the See also section. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still do not see [in DAB] the meaning obviously used at the very minimum in documentary about Bonhoeffer (and this is in my case actually the most frequently used meaning I personally come across) when describing his roots and then I naturally oppose the DAB and suggest to return to the original article and improve it as much as possible wrt. reasonable objections raised. If conservative is in political context "The term [that] has since been used to describe a wide range of views" then I do not see why it is a problem in Christian context to have article describing a wide range of views. In the documentary, the context was obviously applied to [Bonhoeffer's family] seen as giving priority to traditional Christian beliefs and practices, such as, for example, attending Church services. They obviously had nothing to do with "The Christian right", let alone "in U.S. politics" and definitely not anything to do with orthodox doctrines or other views often condemned as heretical by Protestant churches. Yet these two are currently the only options to explain this term.--Stephfo (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly bugs me that traditional Protestants who eschew worldly concerns are invisible while the Religious Right gets all the press. The problem as I see it is the broad term Conservative Christianity is not owned by them, nor does it really define any distinct movement, tradition or group. If, for example, someone refers to "old-fashioned Christianity" or "authentic Christianity", same problem. The exploratory (and unsourced) attempt to create a description in this article was producing a community-written position paper, not an encyclopedia article.
The good thing about have a DAB for this is if someone like Greeley and Hout gets wider acceptance for this definition, it can be linked, rather than debated for priority over a more well-established meaning (e.g. Christian right. regrettably). / edg ☺ ☭ 19:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This entire discussion shows how TV-centric this definition is. May I suggest a look at this page and its classification as "conservative Christian or not" based on the article? Let us see which category that falls into. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion it does not qualify, for reason that the article is about Russian Orthodox Church, an institutional Church that is one branch within Christianity. The members of these Church might be conservative Christians as well as liberal Christians, but mere membership in Orthodox Church per se will definitely not make them conservative Christians, IMHO. Expression conservative Christians is about values, not institutional category.--Stephfo (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The views of the members of that church and Greek Orthodox Church are very, very uniform. They are "Orthodox" because they adhere to the rules pretty orthodoxly. The fact is that there are a pile of "Christians" around the world who do not fit the dichotomy which the definition proposes. You have beliefs {A, B, C, D} which characterize group I and beliefs {X, Y, Z} which characterize group II. Now these people have beliefs {A, X, C} which breaks the attributes used for categorization. It "does not qualify" means that the definition is basically a US-based TV-driven definition, derived from specific religio-political concepts in which there is far more uniformity in the belief-attributes of each group. Think of it this way: Being in a specific belief category means that the people in that category must resonate. Can a prominent member of the Russian Orthodox Church show up, hug and resonate with Jerry Falwell on TV? Only when Hell freezes over. The definition is flawed. History2007 (talk) 09:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're expressing your self in very abstract terms, now try to move to analogical term "conservative" in political context and try to outline the difference that should justify keeping that term, bearing in mind the statements "Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and seek a return to the way things were. The term has since been used to describe a wide range of views." in context of what you just presented (group I and ... group II). Where you see the difference to keep that term and remove this one? Pls. explain. Thanx--Stephfo (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Abstract terms? Moi? Next I am going to get accused of having been an abstract thinker in a past life... Who would have thought... But seriously, the long and short of it is that the page mixes theological beliefs and political views. In the US TV-based cases there are inherent relationship between the two: Falwell's crowd do not like socialism. But there are people whose theological views are similar to the theological views of the Falwell crowd, but are socialists, e.g. the leftovers of the Russian socialists who are still Christian. So they do not fit in the dichotomy. They would agree with the Falwell crowd theologically, but they could never appear as friends on TV. So the page is not a theological belief issue, is a theologio-political issue restricted to the US. History2007 (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for any inconvenience, but the argument "the leftovers of the Russian socialists who are still Christian" seems to be suspicious to the highest degree. Are you trying to propose that Russian socialists have been and still are Christian? Who in particular? Since when they have been Christian? Can you name some particular you have in mind? And what it has to do with term conservative Christians? Pls. explain--Stephfo (talk) 01:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I give up. Are there no Christians in Russia who are socialists? Enough said. In any case, try to put Sergei Bulgakov, his accusers and supporters and the Falwell people into a comparative discussion and you will start to see the complexity of the issues. But enough said. But his books The Orthodox Church ISBN 0881410519 and The Lamb of God ISBN 0802827799 have interesting theology, in case you want to look into that. But enough said here. History2007 (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I checked that article, the word "socialist" is used only once, without any references. --Stephfo (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you can add this there. But really, this is an obvious issue if one searches and studies it. So this goes back to the point of the article being unaware of theological or world religion facts beyond TV. But I must really stop now. I am not going to watch this page any more. Should not have even voted in the first place. Took too much time. History2007 (talk) 03:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Add. "Are there no Christians in Russia who are socialists? FYI: What sources say: "but whether one could possibly call him a 'Christian socialist' after 1907 is doubtful". --Stephfo (talk) 03:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • DAB Clearly there is much confusion stemming from the ambiguity of the word 'conservative' to mean either 'politically right-wing' or 'traditionally-minded' (among serveral other interpretations). Each of these meanings could apply to Christians, and there is worthwhile material to be covered. DaveApter (talk) 12:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- It is unfortunate that some one has chosen to convert this to a dabpage before the AFD is closed. The AFD originally related to [page]. There is clearly confusion over the use of the term. I regard myself as a conservative Christian, meaning that I hold to the traditional beliefs of the church, in my case evangelical ones, in contrast to liberal christianity. I happen also to be a Conservative politically, but that is different. A member of the Liberal Party could be a conservative evangelical or an athiest. A political conservative could in the religious context be a consrevative evangelical, a liberal christian, an atheist, a Muslim, etc. However ther is also a difference between being a conservative evangelical and a fundamentalist. Some fundamentalists will claim that the earth is flat, because they find Biblical verses that appear to imply that. I do not go along with such literalist nonsense. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Use as a disambiguation page. Portillo (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2011 (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.