Talk:Christian conservatism

Merge discussion

Someone just placed a merge tag here. Merging to Christianity is a ridiculous idea. Christianity is such a huge concept that this branch of it is entirely deserving of its own article. And, oh yeah, we already got Liberal Christianity D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Liberal Christianity is a specific thing, not just whatever "branch" someone considers "Liberal". (Incidentally, Christian fundamentalism is the reaction to that specific thing.) You are coining a term and then trying to figure out what might fit it. Philosophical initiatives like this are not the job of an encyclopedia; this belongs on a blog or something. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Conservatism is not a termed that I coined. Pretty obvious with a quick Google search. And none of the information about what groups I called conservative were made up by me. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By coining, I mean advocating for a specific, "true" meaning to the term, contrary to how it is commonly used. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But I didn't. I described it as a blanket term used for several philosophies, both religious and political. That isn't giving a specific definition at all. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of this article is WP:DABCONCEPT, a broad-concept article. Terms like Christian Conservative and Conservative Christian are used quite a bit in the media and elsewhere, and more importantly, there are a ton of links on Wikipedia to those. As much as religious experts don't think it's a legitimate concept, common folks do, and they deserve a link to an article explaining the term instead of a disambiguation page. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "media and elsewhere", at least in the US, use the term to mean political conservatives who organize around religious, and to fundamentalists and evangelicals whether political or not. WP:DABCONCEPT becomes a problem when someone attempts to create a new meaning by adding other specific sects they consider "conservative", and when ideas like "as opposed to Liberal Christianity" are added.

This article should be a redirect to Religious right, or at most a 3-way DAB that includes Christian fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. Every other approach has led to heavily POV original research. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I could see a redirect as a good solution. I'd prefer a redirect to Fundamentalism with a hatnote leading to Christian Right. When I was disambiguating, most of the links I found used the term in a religious context, not a political one. I don't like it as a disambiguation page simply due to the hundreds of articles linking to this and closely related terms. Retargeting those links would be a constant struggle. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 16:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like Christian conservatism should redirect to Christian right and Conservative Christianity could go to Christian fundamentalism; however, hairsplitting such similar terms seems confusing and search-unfriendly. Also, I doubt if all the "hundreds of articles" intend the same meaning for either term. That's why I like the 2-way DAB solution.

The biggest problem I have with the DAB is it seems destined to be WP:COATRACKed with whatever aspects of christianity someone decides are "conservative", which is not how a WP:DAB should work. (Thus the recent {{dabconcept}} tag.) / edg ☺ ☭ 19:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly feel Christian conservatism and Conservative Christianity should go to the same place, rather a political or religious concept. The terms are similar enough that most people would consider them two terms for the same thing, whatever that "thing" is. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge. This should be a dab page per the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservative Christianity. St Anselm (talk) 07:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the admin's closing message, I don't see a consensus to change to a DAB page there. Plenty of people voted to keep it an article. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfD's are supposed to be settled on policy, not vote counts.

Wikipedia already has umbrella articles for the various primitivist, orthodox, traditionalist and fundamentalist movements (these links might merit a See also in the DAB), which are some of the things editors were trying to re-create in this article; some of those articles could use more work, but creating a POV fork under a new name does not fix that. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was not meant as POV in any way. I thought the elements I put in here were for the most part undisputed. The sects I listed were already in the disambiguation pages before this. If any of them don't belong, feel free to delete. Also, there weren't enough people arguing for the dab page to qualify as consensus in my opinion, and I don't see policy as providing a clear answer on this one. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to redirect this page

I suggest that we should redirect this page to Christian fundamentalism. That page, in turn, would have a hatnote pointing to Christian right. This would ensure that links to Christian conservatism and similar go to a relevant article while also making sure the minority of these links that are political can indirectly lead there. Comments? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'd settle for this. I'm not sure others will. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]