Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rothschild loans to the Holy See

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. Any cleanup or renaming can be handled outside of AFD. RL0919 (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rothschild loans to the Holy See

Rothschild loans to the Holy See (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Written by single editor (see this ANI thread for context in this subject matter). The article details a 400,000 quid loan (some 30-40 million quid today) - which is fairly small loan. Much of the material in the article is un-sourced. Some of the sources are primary. Much of the article is based on a popular audience book by Gerald Posner (see Gerald Posner#Controversies).

Sourcing / POV issues in the present article aside - I am unconvinced from my

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--due to how this article helps fill in the bigger picture. In short it helps fill in the gap for the time between the 1745 Vix pervenit and the 1917 Code of Canon Law. The size of the loan is unimportant; the significance is in how this was a violation of longstanding Catholic teachings. Calvinists had been the first to say that usury was not a sin, Anglicans and Lutherans were more controverted for a while until eventually the pro-usury section carried the day. At the time of these loans, only some smaller conservative groups of Protestants were still anti-usury along with the Catholics, who remained so until 1917, although some traditionalist Catholics are still anti-usury today. The change in doctrine/practice between 1745 and 1917 could ostensibly be dealt with in Usury#Christianity, but the level of detail seems inappropriate for that more general article. Similar articles by topic to this one are Medici Bank, zinskauf, Crime_in_Vatican_City#Vatican_Bank_scandal, Institute_for_the_Works_of_Religion#Controversies, and Vatican leaks scandal. An overview of these shows that this article is developed about as well, if not better than these other articles, except for Medici Bank.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I began to edit the article, which was filled with strange [1] anachronisms and antisemitic slurs [2] and began to realize that this strange article is hopelessly flawed, studded with antisemitic tropes [Rothschild loans to the Holy See#Reactions], larded with misunderstandings of the terms it uses in much the same way that User:Epiphyllumlover misunderstands theological debates about usury (the historic debate that began during the commercial revolution of the 11th century was over the point at which an interest rate becomes usurious, not over the legitimacy of lending money,) it is riddled with irrelevant excursions into Catholic-Jewish relations and competition among banking houses unrelated to the topic. I gave up attempting to improve the page wen it became clear that this page is
  WP:NOTHERE. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC) because Gerald Posner book.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment--The traditional Catholic position is here: Question 78. The sin of usury. A concise summary of the conflict is found in C.S. Louis's Mere Christianity. As for it being "not over the legitimacy of lending money [upon interest]" this was a separate issue to the "point at which an interest rate becomes usurious." The definition of "usury" varies depending on the debater/position, but it is too bad the article doesn't discuss this issue. As is the case in much of Islam today, there were various work-arounds employed to avoid usury; one is described in Medici Bank, the zinskauf was another workaround. As for concerns that the article is anti-semitic, I would be fine if the article title was changed to simply Pre-1917 loans to the Holy See (even without any additions, this title is suitable because of the discussion of the "six banks" in the article which were a rival to the Rothschilds) or merged into Rothschild_banking_family_of_Naples, which already mentions the relationship with the Holy See anyway.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep Well sourced. 80.111.42.123 (talk) 09:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC) preceding is from a blocked sock. [reply]

• Keep -- This is a well written article on a significant historical topic. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Well written? The entire section of "Catholic—Jewish relations" is OR / SYNTH and off topic to this article. The prose might read nice - but it does not quite match the citations. Furthermore, most sources mention this small loan in passing - not treating it as a standalone topic at any length.Icewhiz (talk) 12:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I am open to removing all or most of this section. Additionally, the "Reactions" subsection contains statements that reflect anti-semitic canards or sentiments. I am open to removing it, reducing the direct quotations to footnotes, or adding clarification as how these statements are considered anti-semitic today even if they were common back then. The issue here is one of undue weight, as these controversial subjects unfortunately attract a prurient interest which may be stronger in character than the meritorious parts of the article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Other than a couple of unsourced statements (all statements are now sourced), the article and its sources look good. Any minor defects where people think the article may stray into SYNTH or some other perceived deficiencies, just go ahead and re-edit to match policy and/or your personal taste. The most glaring fault I find is a lack of context: it is not as if the Papal States had not borrowed before, sometimes in fact quite large amounts, and, quite frankly, borrowing was a way of life for governments and it remains so to this day for the large majority of governments, by far. The addition of a para showing the other Papal States loans of the era would be most useful, but this is certainly no grounds for deletion. XavierItzm (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obviously. This is a very well written article, properly cited, conforming to top-notch sources and top-notch expert authors. We prefer the coverage of a topic in a manner covered in independent, secondary, well-regarded sources and this is what we have here. If some editors have an issue with the wording; please propose an alternative formulation. GizzyCatBella (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I have eliminated all «^{[citation needed]}» templates and replaced them with book sources, with quotations, from The Jewish Encyclopedia and God's Bankers: A History of Money and Power at the Vatican, Simon & Schuster (2015). XavierItzm (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Complaints about the way the article is written belong on the article talk page as they are not arguments for deletion. This is a notable topic and good sources are available; if it needs clean-up, clean it up. Zero^talk 17:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have not previously looked at this article so what I’m seeing now reflects a lot of work by other editors since the nomination was made. The topic itself seems clearly notable to me, so I’m mostly concerned with how the article presents it. I think the inclusion of anti Semitic language, properly contextualised, is appropriate here because the topic is something that evidently generated a lot of it: the article should record that and help the reader understand the context for these racist expressions. I agree with XavierItzm that the article lacks context - ideally there should be something to indicate how frequently the Vatican borrowed, and how much. I also agree that the entire section on Catholic-Jewish relations needs to come out. Any useful and properly sourced material can be merged into Catholic Church and Judaism but doesn’t belong here. Neither of these two concerns provides a basis for supporting deletion however. Mccapra (talk) 04:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mccapra, while I agree that revision of the C-J relations is needed, wholesale removal of it is not warranted. See TP. XavierItzm (talk) 06:22, 8 August 2019 (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.