I agree that the existing entry (to which I made no contribution) was not that well done, but the term needs to be recognized because "traditionalism," which has an entry, is, in reality, simply Catholicism minus the innovations of the past fifty years. There is no term, however, to describe the constituency that has arisen in the Church over the past half-century. If, as wikipedia states, traditionalism is a "current" so is the constituency which has departed from what traditionalists believe and practice, which was universally believed and practiced by Catholics before circa 1965. It does not fairly depict the situation to say that there are Catholics simpliciter, on the one hand, and traditionalists on the other. Something much more serious and complex is at work in the Church today.
Nor is it fair to dismiss the term as a mere pejorative. It is no more a pejorative than the term "neo-conservativism" to which it is analogous, versus "paleo-conservativism," to which traditionalism is analogous. On that score this article might be helpful to you: http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/2002Oct/oct9tra.htm.
I think you should consider allowing me to create a better written entry. The objection that the term is ill-defined is easily refuted by a careful description. It is no more ill-defined, when defined carefully, than "traditionalism."
Sincerely,
Christopher A. Ferrara Caferrara (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)