Template talk:Dominionism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
Templates for deletion This template was considered for deletion on 2006 April 13. The result of the discussion was keep.
Templates for deletion This template was considered for deletion on 2007 October 27. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[edit] What to do now?

The TfD has been closed with the result of "no consensus". However, it seems to me that there was a rather strong consensus at least that individuals should be removed from the infobox due to WP:BLP concerns. In fact, Jossi went ahead and carried out this action some time ago. The argument was also made (and never contradicted) that the organizations listed in this infobox should be removed for the same reason, as they are generally the kind of organization that is so closely associated with its founder that to implicate one is to implicate the other. I also think it should go without saying that people and organizations who are no longer listed in the infobox should not have the infobox on their own articles. The same BLP issues apply.

What do people think of all this? I would be particularly interested in the opinions of those who cited BLP concerns in the TfD. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Of the organizations listed, it seems to me that there are two that could remain without much argument: American Vision and the Chalcedon Foundation. The other ones listed are all highly debatable, and do involve BLP concerns. Frjohnwhiteford 11:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I hate to say it, but the list of people as influences looks very much out of place now. Van Til for instance explicitly rejected the use of his ideas by CRs, and Kuyper was from a previous generation. It seems strange to list people of marginal relationship when those with direct relationship (like Rushdoony) have been removed. --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Not many people have responded, so I will try to frame this discussion a little more explicitly. Here are some propositions as to how the TfD should be interpreted. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I have asked everyone who participated in the TfD to note this discussion. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No individuals should be named on the template as "Advocates"

  • Neutral This is the suggestion of the majority of those who voted "Keep". My reply that this would leave a rump infobox that is not much use, and might as well be deleted anyway, did not receive any response, nor did it prevent people from continuing to vote "Keep". --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment My view is that one shouldn't normally list "activists" on a philosophy template, only philosophers, and major political figures (see Template:Communism). Here I don't think there are any individuals who are really major political figures.. or their not known for implementing dominionist policies. So this *should* be a mot point. JeffBurdges 10:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I think if you were listing someone like Rousas John Rushdoony, this would be appropriate. But only people who clearly do advocate it should be listed. Frjohnwhiteford 12:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Agree with JeffBurdges on this one. Kyaa the Catlord 13:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Proposal As JeffBurdges has pointed out, putting a list of 'activists', 'supporters', 'advocates', et cetera on the template is unhelpful for a template about a personal philosophy. Revolutionaryluddite 23:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Object. If an individule is named as being dominionist by a reliable source(s), with such a source being present in the person's article, then inclusion in the template is warranted as is placement of the template. FeloniousMonk 00:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Object. Per FeloniousMonk. If a person is described as such, then they should be included. Moreover, this is an attempt by one editor at establishing a POV. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Object. Per FeloniousMonk.--Cberlet 18:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment As stated above, I do not particularly support this proposition; I am merely submitting it as a point for discussion. However, I find it hard to square FeloniousMonk's response with his !vote on the TfD, which was "Keep, but remove individuals to a list where proper sources can be provided." Can you please explain the apparent discrepency? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Object, per FM - Guettarda 04:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Only Christian Reconstructionist individuals should be named on the template as "Advocates"

  • Neutral This is in opposition to the previous proposition, but might be taken as the position of those who !voted "Keep, but remove valid BLP concerns". Christian Reconstructionists freely claim the label of Dominionist, so there is no BLP issue with them. However, this locks the infobox into def #1 of Dominionism (see below). --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • See below I suggest below that only self-identified CR and dominionist individuals and organizations should be listed, or those identified as such by mainstream (not partisan) reliable sources. - Merzbow 07:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support This template should not be used as a means to tag conservative Christians with a label they reject. Frjohnwhiteford 12:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support with clarification If such persons have self-identified as a dominionist and we can back that up with a stong citation. Kyaa the Catlord 13:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Object There's more than one flavor of dominionism. If an individual is named as being dominionist by a reliable source(s), with such a source being present in the persons's article, then inclusion in the template is warranted as is placement of the template in that article. FeloniousMonk 00:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Object. Once again, per FeloniousMonk. Wow, I guess certain individuals are frightened of reliable sources. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Object. Per FeloniousMonk.--Cberlet 18:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment As above, I would like to ask FeloniousMonk what he meant on the TfD by "Keep, but remove individuals to a list where proper sources can be provided," if not at least this. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Object, per FM - Guettarda 04:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No organizations (or only CR organizations) should be named on the template as "Advocates"

  • Neutral It was pointed out in the TfD that many organizations that have been named on the template are little more than extensions of the individual who founded them, and that these should be removed if their founder is removed. No one argued to the contrary. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Only groups that are self-indentified as Reconstructions unambiguously belong in such a list. Frjohnwhiteford 12:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Object. If the organization is named as being dominionist by a reliable source(s), with such a source being present in the organization's article, then inclusion in the template is warranted as is placement of the template. FeloniousMonk 00:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Object Same old crap as my previous objections. Per FM. Per WP:RS. Per trying to block POV pushing by certain editors. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Object. Per FeloniousMonk.--Cberlet 18:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Object, per FM - Guettarda 04:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] People removed from the infobox should have the infobox removed from their own articles

  • Support I think this should go without saying, but some of my actions along this line have already been reverted. Discussion is needed. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Yes absolutely any person removed because dominionism isn't "their main thing" should also have the template removed from their article, and replaced with merely some comment that they are a dominionist. But ordinary "activists" don't diserve to be in the tempalte while they shold have the template applied to their article. JeffBurdges 10:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Your point is well-taken, Jeff. However, we are not talking about people removed from the template because they are insufficiently prominent, but people removed for BLP reasons. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Apart from BlueMoonlet's respose, I'm still confused. Below you say: "Nobody tangentially associated to a philosophy should be included or transcluded. An anti-abortion or anti-gay rights advocate who also happens to be a dominionist but doesn't do anything *else* to weaken seperation of church & state should only get those tempaltes." Yet here you seem to be saying that ordinary activists should be included. Are you saying they have to actively advocate Dominionism proper? Should all Communists have {{Communism}} transcluded? (I notice that, for instance, Kruschev does not.) Likewise, {{Israelites}}, which is mentioned as an example at WP:NAV, is transcluded only in some of the pages listed, but under what I take to be your rule, it could legitimately show up under Abraham, Moses, David, Manasseh, etc. It seems to me that this template is intended as a navigational aid for going between articles directly related to the major points/influences/orgs/people of Dominionism and that those who do not appear in the template could go in the category (with a reliable source of course) but should not have the template. Can anyone point to the relevant guidelines on this subject? --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
It is possible that someone's claim to notability rests mostly in their being a very successful activist for a philosophy. Such a person obviously deserves the template, regardless of some BLP paranoia, but they are almost surely not important enough to be included in the template.
If you haven't noticed, I'm voting according to whether any of these "rules" are good rules for philosophy templates in general. You obviously don't want to go around making up rules that don't apply in general. JeffBurdges (talk) 01:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support The problem with leaving it on the pages of activists, is when there is a dispute about whether or not those "activists" are really Dominionists. When they are not self-identified reconstructionists, this template has an undo prominence on their pages. Frjohnwhiteford 12:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Major BLP concerns with labelling persons dominionists, even if only by adding the template to their pages. Kyaa the Catlord 13:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support This does go without saying, but I'll go ahead and say it. Revolutionaryluddite 23:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Object. If an individual is named as being dominionist by a reliable source(s), with such a source being present in the organization's article, then inclusion of the template on their article is warranted regardless of whether they are included in the template proper. FeloniousMonk 00:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Object OMFG. Once again. Blah blah blah. Per everything I wrote above, and against the POV crap. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer judging this on a case by case basis. For some of these including the template may make sense even if the people are not themselves clearly dominionists. JoshuaZ 18:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Object. Per FeloniousMonk.--Cberlet 18:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment FeloniousMonk's objection, apparently cut-and-pasted from above, is not particularly germane here. We are not talking in a vacuum about whether the infobox should or should not be transcluded in a person's article, but about whether that decision should be linked with the decision of whether to keep that person in the infobox (for reasons other than insufficient notability). None of the objections so far have addressed this point. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It is insulting to have another editor suggest I did not read what FeloniousMonk wrote above. I read it. I agreed wuith it, I still agree with it, and I think it is germane. I also object to this page being structured by a handful of editors as a teaching lab in which we are all quized and chastised for our wrongheaded views. BLP does not exclude controversial assessments of individuals that appear in reputable published sources. Nowhere does it say that reputable published sources must not have a strong POV. This discussion has become almost incomprehensible. I propose a different approach. See below.--Cberlet 03:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
It's nice to have you back, Cberlet. I never suggested that you did not intelligently agree with what FM wrote. I only pointed out that (as I see it), he did not address the question being asked here. My intention in structuring the discussion like this was to make sure we all endorse specific courses of action, rather than just talking. I think it has succeeded. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong object, per FM. This proposal is just silly. Guettarda 04:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Dominionism should include those and only those included in the infobox

  • Support This seems only reasonable to me. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Agreed. Frjohnwhiteford 12:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Seems a logical extension. Kyaa the Catlord 13:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support As per all previous comments. Revolutionaryluddite 23:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Object. If the organization or an individual is named as being dominionist by a reliable source(s), with such a source being present in the organization's or person's article, then inclusion in the category is warranted. FeloniousMonk 00:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Object Oh this again? Blah blah blah. Per what FM said. Per what I've said above. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • object As long as we have reliable sources here we should be ok. JoshuaZ 18:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Object. Per FeloniousMonk.--Cberlet 18:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Object, per FM - Guettarda 04:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Object per FM •Jim62sch• 21:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose I am convinced by JoshuaZ on this one. A category has a different purpose than an infobox. Any article on which Dominionism is discussed should be in the category. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • No Navboxes should be the primary sub-topics of interest. Categories should be used if they are a defining characteristic of the article's topic. Sometimes a page belongs in a navbox but no the category. Sometimes a page belongs in a category but not a navbox. These two are independent decisions, not linked decisions. GRBerry 14:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Object Well, this is just obviously silly. Not all communists should be included in the communism template. JeffBurdges (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Only one definition of Dominionism should be included in this infobox

  • Strong Support I argued in the TfD that this infobox at its core is an unacceptable conflation of multiple definitions of the word Dominionism. Several people agreed with me, and no one argued to the contrary. Yet this did not keep people from !voting "Keep", which rather mystifies me. Be that as it may, I really think that this conflation is unacceptable and needs to be eliminated.
    • Either this infobox should contain only Christian Reconstructionists and their allies and critics (and should then be renamed "Dominion Theology" or something similar), or all CRs should be removed from the infobox.
    • Either this infobox should contain only Hedges and TheocracyWatch (etc.) and those that they label Dominionist (in the context of partisan polemic with a definition not easily distinguishable from the Christian Right in general), or all such should be removed from the infobox.
    • Either this infobox should contain only Berlet and PRA (etc.) and those that they label Dominionist (in the context of more scholarly writing with a more carefully defined meaning), or all such should be removed from the infobox.
The first should not be confused with the other two, to which it is only tangentially related. The second should not be given the legitimacy of the third, nor tarred by association with the first. The confusion that lies at the root of this infobox must stop. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I have a better criteria, I think: only self-identified dominionist and CR individuals and organizations should be included, or those classified as such by mainstream reliable sources (not just partisan sources which may otherwise be reliable). As someone suggested (I think jossi), a separate list article can easily be created for the others. - Merzbow 07:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The only problem with self-identified is that that really depends on the political goals of the individuals/organisations. Some feel comfortable using dominionist based on their core audience's expectation of the establishment of a dominion of god and their comfort with saying so outright, while others with their eye on the broader political spectrum know that the term dominionist would be viewed as antithetical to a democratic nation. Unfortunately, as with most religious labels, there is much deception (both on the part of the pros and the antis) regarding the application of those labels. Hence my motto regarding religion, "In principio creavit homo deos et ex eo tempore poenas dederat". •Jim62sch• 10:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Since the template affords no opportunity to include qualifications, only the clearest definition should be used. Frjohnwhiteford 12:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support I lean twoard the third proposal. I agree with Merzbow that, since 'Dominionist' can be as vehemently pejorative as 'Islamist', let's stick to peer-reviewed, scholarly research. Revolutionaryluddite 23:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Object. Dominionism is a spectrum of beliefs and concepts. As long as reliable sources support inclusion in or use of the template, the spefic form of Dominionism is irrelevant and can be determined where the template appears based on the sources offered there. FeloniousMonk 00:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Object If I read Latin, maybe I'd understand Jim, but otherwise per FM. Dominionists though very scary and probably support "Islamist" religious intolerance, are not generally used in a pejorative manner. Sheesh. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you recognize the irony that you are accusing other people of POV-pushing when that's all you're doing? Whether or not you personally consider dominionists to be as bad as islamists is completely irrelevent. Please read the Dominionist article as it discusses how Daily Kos and other political activists use the term 'dominionist' and how American conservatives object to their use of term. Revolutionaryluddite 18:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
ROFLMFAO. ME???? A POV-Warrior???? LOL. I'm an NPOV and SPOV warrior, yes. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
We can disagree without being disagreeable. My point is that, as the main article documents, the term "dominionist" has freqently been used as a pejorative by bloggers and byadvocacy journalists and, as such, the term has multiple meanings. Revolutionaryluddite 05:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, how exactly is dominionism a 'science'? Revolutionaryluddite 01:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Object. Per FeloniousMonk.--Cberlet 18:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Object, per that little thing called NPOV. Just about every reliable source about the topic presents it as a spectrum of beliefs. - Guettarda 04:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Object As no one responded to my points, I assume they must be valid.•Jim62sch• 21:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, as far as the part that's in English, I don't think it is WP's job to state that people are not being truthful, at least not without a strong consensus for such a position. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Object Another really silly proposal. Philosophies always have subdivisions and multiple meanings. All well used definitions are valid. Sorting them out is the job of the main article, not the template. JeffBurdges (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other approaches

We know that Dominionist is a term with three different meanings. We should decide first which meaning(s) the navbox template is helping navigate among, and then who to include. My strong opinion is that if we don't distinguish the three meanings into different portions of the navigation box, we haven't helped our readers navigate. If we aren't going to help our reader, the navigation box has no reason for existence. I also think that much of the dispute will vanish if we accurately label the three sections. I proposed this above, and it got some support but was postponed pending the TFD outcome. GRBerry 22:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The main article was protected before these concerns could be addressed. See the talk page. Revolutionaryluddite 01:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes this is a common solution, but I'm not sure this philosophy is big enough for it. Why not just make the subdivision a little more prominent in the Dominionism article? JeffBurdges (talk) 01:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What constitutes reliable sources here?

Do explicitly left-wing poltical action groups such as TheocracyWatch and Political Research Associates qualify as reliable sources against WP:BLP concerns? What about explcitly left-wing journals such as Z Magazine? Revolutionaryluddite 01:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Political Research Associates (where I work in myu non-Wiki persona) is not a "poltical action group" and has been recognized as a "reliable source" on numerous articles.--Cberlet 18:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
As I think I've made clear before, PRA is only a reliable source should not be considered reliable source in general. PRA runs into issues when used without clarification of who is doing the designation (as with allcontroversial sources) - and we cannot say "according to PRA" in the template which is a serious issue. Actually, I would be inclined to much more strongly defend TW which is run out of a major university. However, as where the template is concerned the same basic problem still remains. JoshuaZ 19:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Berlet, you recently wrote for Political Research Associates that:

As a progressive Christian it was disheartening to hear from a variety of conference speakers that people like me are not real Christians. I am apparently part of a vast liberal conspiracy that promotes Sin, Secularism, Subversion, and Satan. Who knew? Some speakers made this view quite clear, while others used more subtle language. As noted in an earlier post, Starr Parker slipped in a cite to the work of Christian Reconstructionist R.J. Rushdoony, who wants to impose the laws of Leviticus, which include the death penalty for homosexuals, adulterers, and recalcitrant children. And from what I heard, as a person who opposes the war in Iraq, I am apparently not a real Christian, nor a real American---and if I caught the drift…I'm not even a real man. Therefore (goes the subtext and full text) I must hate America and love Islamic terrorism. The sum total of this set of assumptions is that I am consciously or unconsciously working on behalf of Satan and the Whore of Babylon, who is obviously Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton. And it is still more than a year to Election Day.

How one earth is this not partisan? Look, I respect your political views and I hope that you will respect mine. I just want balance.
"Reliable sources" has been echoed again and again. And things like Z Magazine have been brought up as reliable sources. All I'm saying is that they have a bias, just like National Review has their bias, and-- in the complete absence of objective sources-- WP:BLP concerns should be paramount.Revolutionaryluddite 19:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
In response to JoshuaZ, none of this seems clear to me at all. Focus on the Family is James Dobson's creation. He and it cannot be neatly seperated. If it and Dobson is going to be labeled "Dominionist", than the article can't just say "According to Z Magazine," Would it be okay to create a template called "treason twoard the United States" and include Harry Reid alongside Nancy Pelosi? Why not? Both templates would have 'reliable sources' if 'reliable sources' are given such an extremely broad definition. Revolutionaryluddite 19:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "run out of a major university". My understanding of TW is that its members happen to work inside Cornell University that same way Political Research Associates happen to work in an office building; I don't think the group has any official status of any kind. TW states on its main website that:

"Before the midterm elections of 2006, dominionists controlled both houses of the U.S. Congress, the White House and four out of nine seats on the U.S. Supreme Court. They were one seat away from holding a solid majority on the Supreme Court. As of January 1, 2007, dominionists will not control the leadership of either house of Congress, and the President will no longer be able to so easily appoint dominionists to the federal courts."

The main website also links to People for the American Way as a key partner. If TW is not a biased source, than there are no biased sources. Revolutionaryluddite 19:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
RL, your above comment about TW is simply false. Universities don't work that way. TW is affiliated with Cornell. Period. It should be treated as any other major university program would be. As to your comment about your POV- I don't see how that's very relevant when reliable sources disagree with it. JoshuaZ 13:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it is clear that TheocracyWatch is an advocacy group, and I don't think its relationship with Cornell is particularly relevant. Its opinions are notable, like those of any journalist, but I am unaware of any scholarly research coming out of the group (unlike PRA, whose fellows publish peer-reviewed papers). TW is run by CRESP, which is an outgrowth of CURW, which is the university's interfaith chaplaincy -- not an academic department. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Theocracy watch is a volunteer-run organization that has worked alongside Cornell staff, as BlueMoonlet has pointed out. It is not a creation of the University. It is not run by the University's administration. It does not publish articles in peer reviewed magazines or journals. Revolutionaryluddite 22:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that our own POVs are completely irelevent. But again, what 'reliable sources' are your talking about? All I see here is that other users are good at using Google and have pieced together a mix of articles from ideological groups. I agree that those sources should recieve fair representation on the main article. But a template or a list can't just say "According to Theocracy Watch, Bill Frist is a dominionist". Revolutionaryluddite 22:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
A biased source is not necessarily an unreliable source. Everyone has a point of view. However, WP should report the statements of such sources as their opinion, not as fact. Statements made on an infobox should be WP:RS#Claims of consensus, which is a higher standard than WP:RS. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's a good argument for keeping things in a list or some other method where we can keep sources and such attached. JoshuaZ 13:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


  • Side Question to Chip Berlet I asked about it before based on what you wrote, and I'm interested: Are American Catholics 'dominionist'? If some are, why? Also, what would make Catholic dominionism different from traditional Catholic social teachings? Is Richard John Neuhaus a dominionist? Revolutionaryluddite 19:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it should be obvious here that the standard for inclusion of an individual in an infobox should be higher because of the lack of opportunity for references and context. A majority of the commenters in the AfD expressed similar concerns. Not proceeding by this standard leads to absurd outcomes - for example, we'd be justified in adding George Bush, Tony Blair, and most of the world's major politicians to a potential "War Criminals" infobox because at least one article in at least one opinion magazine somewhere labels them as such. - Merzbow 20:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Merzbow has hit the nail on the head here. Well said. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I also agree. Revolutionaryluddite 05:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The analogy is ridiculous for a simple reason: the "victors" in war are never war criminals (cf Josef Stalin). Find a better analogy. •Jim62sch• 21:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Suppose a template called "Congressional supporters of pork" was created and it included Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Ted Kennedy based on National Review, Weekly Standard, and The American Prospect articles and reports from the Cato institute. Revolutionaryluddite 22:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I love bacon. •Jim62sch• 22:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Heat up the frying pan, the The American Prospect is liberal fatback. Yummm.--Cberlet 23:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I meant to type the The American Spectator. Revolutionaryluddite 01:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you see my point? What reliable sources? All I see for labeling Bill Frist and other politicans as 'dominionist' is a string of ideological pieces struck together. Where are the peer reviewed scholary articles? Where the articles from mainstream media outlets? Revolutionaryluddite 01:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary Section Break

I'd suggest restructuring the template more along the lines of other political philosophies, like say Template:Communism or Template:Libertarianism :

  • Most philosophies have multiple defintions. But only include the serious ones that represent coherent groups. It's not our job to define terms, as that's OR.
  • The "Influences of Dominionism" section is horribly miss-named, none of these people are dominionists. Their philosophers who pre-date it but had an influence 'upon' it. This section should be renamed for "Influences", "Origins", "History", or such, but "influecnes of" is just wrong.
  • Organizations that are only one persn should be removed & replaced by that person. If the person isn't that influential then it can likely be deleted outright.
  • Self-identification isn't the litmus test for philosophy membership, but it's a good indicator. Most philosophers are honest enough that they'll "partially self-identify with caveats." Of course they may focus on the caveats because their philosophers.
  • Most politicians aren't honest enough to legitimately qualify as members of any philosophy in the first place. Libertarianism's template includes no person dispite being the 3rd party of the U.S. Communism's template includes only politicians whove really applied the principles.
  • Nobody tangentially associated to a philosophy should be included or transcluded. An anti-abortion or anti-gay rights advocate who also happens to be a dominionist but doesn't do anything *else* to weaken seperation of church & state should only get those tempaltes.
  • Templates should normally only be transcluded to "supporters of" not opponents since notable opponents are normally doing other stuff with their lives too. Of course I don't mind including some opponents in the template itself since their playing some role in defining the term, but lets keep it limited to the serious ones. You shouldn't normally transclude the template on to the individual page of an opponent. An orginisation like theocrasy Watch is obviously an exception.
  • Related ideas & philosophies should be included. Is there a serious academic claim that most of the real advocates against gay rights are dominionist? Probably not but it's worth consdering.

As a pracical comment to those disliking the template, you might get more traction by merely restructuring the template more along the lines of other political philosophies. This leaves people the room to include variations but also sets very high standards for inclusion in the template iself. I suspect this will solve your problems. JeffBurdges 11:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of what Jeff says here, and thank him of his reasonable suggestions. FeloniousMonk 00:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
As per your points:
  • Most philosophies have multiple defintions. The three distinct definitions of 'dominionist' present a major problem for the template's existence. Which definition will be used? The template cannot use all of them or it will become a hodgepoge of people from the religious right. It's not our job to define terms, as that's OR. Cherry-picking sources when very few sources exist, or if they disagree, is also a form of OR (not that I'm accusing you of doing that by any means).
  • As per WP:BLP, I think the 'influences' section should be removed entirely. Schaffer wrote "we must make definite that we are in no way talking about any kind of theocracy. Let me say that with great emphasis. Witherspoon, Jefferson, the American Founders had no idea of a theocracy. That is made plain by the First Amendment, and we must continually emphasize the fact that we are not talking about some kind, or any kind, of a theocracy".
  • On this, I strongly agree.
  • We are talking about people, not abstract ideologies, and I agree that self-identification should be the benchmark (while there will be a few exceptions).
  • Using the communism template as a guide, I think that no real-life politican in office should be listed here as "dominionist".
  • I strongly agree.
  • I agree that inclusion of minor figures such as Ligon Duncan in the template is unnecessary.
  • I strongly disagree. Multiple reliable sources show that Social democracy drew roots from Marxist-Leninism and Keynesian economics copied and adapted from Fascist economics, but that doesn't mean that that they should appear side by side in a template. Revolutionaryluddite 01:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proper use of edit summaries

This isn't one of them. These groups certainly did not redirect as claimed. FeloniousMonk 00:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

One of them did; I have since corrected the template. Please AGF. Revolutionaryluddite 19:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Aside from that, I was not trying to hide anything with my edit summary, since it referenced the previous edit. I admit at second glance to not having read the original edit summary very carefully. I thought the edit referred to an issue that came up in the delete template discussion, which was that these ministries are generally so closely identified with one individual that their inclusion has BLP problems. It did not occur to me that there was not a separate article for Coral Ridge Ministries, and so the point that was being made by the previous editor did not register properly. However, the fact remains, with the exception of the NRB (which is perhaps the most ridiculous inclusion of the entire template), the other ministeries all clearly point to individuals whose names have been removed. Focus on the Family clearly references Dobson, the Free Congress Foundation clearly refernces Paul Weyrich. This template only escaped deletion by the hair of its chinny chin chin, and the margin that kept it from deletion included a fair number of people who agreed that these sorts of BLP issues needed to be dealt with. Frjohnwhiteford 04:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weasely outcome?

It is ludicrous to list critics of Dominionism by name and not list the major figures reported in reliable sources as promoting Dominionism.--Cberlet 18:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Why include a laundry list of critics at all? Ligon Duncan isn't notable enough to have more than a stub; why is he mentioned on a template? Revolutionaryluddite 18:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Huh? How is the length of the article about Duncan at all relevant to whether or not he should be on the template? JoshuaZ 18:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
My point is that he's not notable. Most templates do not list specific critics by name. I can see making an exception for people like Chip Berlet, since they spend nearly all of their time theorizing about dominionism. But where does Ligon Duncan fit in? He's a Christian minister that's held several administrative positions [1], published some books on Christianity[2], and written some blogs [3]. He's first and foremost a semi-popular minister with small notability at that. His criticisms of dominionism are, first, incidental to his own career and, second, non-noteworthy. Revolutionaryluddite 19:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Duncan fits under my definition #1 above, as he has been critical of Dominion theology. His writings on the subject are cited in Dominionism#Identifying dominionists, as are those of every person mentioned on the template at the time that section was written. I have no opinion on whether Duncan should remain listed. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Cberlet, you should take that up with Jossi (who performed that edit based on BLP concerns) and all the people who !voted in the TfD to keep the template but remove the individuals. I agree that it is ludicrous, and why the template was kept under such a condition is beyond me. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dominionism list article

Another solution is to create List of individuals associated with Dominionism. That way sources can easily be provided in the list removing BLP concerns. Feel free to get started. FeloniousMonk 04:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You have simply moved the BLP issues originally identified to another list. Unless you are going to allow this list to include qualifications that make it clear that most of these individuals and organizations are simply tagged with the label by activists. Frjohnwhiteford 04:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Your suggestion is intriguing, FM. Frjohn's objections could easily be dealt with. What would happen to the template under your proposal? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Frjohnwhiteford here; I don't think replacing a template with a list necessarily solves anything-- the WP:BLP concerns should be addressed in more of a case-by-case basis. Revolutionaryluddite 05:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
If we are going to have a list of the accused, which actually allows proper balance on the matter, one would have to ask why this list would not be included in the Dominionism main article where proper context has been given already?Frjohnwhiteford 11:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I was not clear. The names and cited sources belong on the Dominionism page. Only those names that survive the discussion on the Dominionism page should be considered for inclusion on the template, based on two main criteria: 1) quality and quantity of sourcing; 2) consideration of BLP.--Cberlet 13:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Influenced by"

This wording still seems problematic. Schaffer is not a dominionist nor is his ideas a precursor- no source has been provided calling him that. WP:BLP concerns mean the template must not imply that dominionism is a logical extention of his beliefs. I can't think of a more neutral wording though. Any suggestions? Revolutionaryluddite 05:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see that a few sources call him dominonist but there is no sort of consensus about it. Revolutionaryluddite 06:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Quite a number of sources discuss the direct influence of Schaeffer's ideas on those who are explicitly called dominionists (defs #2 and #3). However, continuing JeffBurdges' analogy, Template:Communism does not list as "Influences" any people who predate Marx, though I'm sure several could be suggested. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 12:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, I would scrap the 'influences' section entirely because it just makes no sense when looking at other templates. Marx read Thomas More's Utopia and Plato's Republic and gave their ideas much thought; does that mean that their names should be on the communism template? Revolutionaryluddite 00:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New approach on names

A vote on deletion does not govern new editing. BLP does not trump all controversial assessments. Reputable published sources can have strong opinions. In addition to open proponents of Christian Reconstrictionism and other forms of Dominion Theology, what other Dominionists should be listed on this Template? Please provide cites for each name proposed. When there is general agreement, the individuals listed here should be added to the page on Dominionism with the cites.--Cberlet 04:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"A vote on deletion does not govern new editing." The strong consensus among the "Keep" !votes constitutes the conditions under which the template was not deleted. If those conditions are not adhered to, another TfD would be appropriate. Please note that the TfD nomination and most of the early !votes were made by neither myself nor anyone primarily interested in our religio-political disputes, but rather by outside folks (mostly admins) who are primarily concerned with larger BLP issues. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Open Christian Reconstructionists

[edit] R.J. Rushdoony. Diamond, Roads to Dominion;

[edit] Discuss

[edit] Name & Cites

[edit] Discuss

[edit] Name & Cites

[edit] Discuss

[edit] Open Dominion Theologists

[edit] Name & Cites

[edit] Discuss

[edit] Name & Cites

[edit] Discuss

[edit] Reported as "Dominionist"

[edit] Discuss

This just seems nakedly partisan to me. The single source I've seen is Theocracy Watch. Revolutionaryluddite 05:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is weak, by which I mean that if only one critical source uses the term to describe the person, it probably raises BLP issues. Two sources, even if crtitical (or even partisan), would be the minimum, I would argue, and that includes PRA, which is critical but not "partisan" because PRA has no connection to any political party and routinely criticizes Democrats.--Cberlet 16:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
routinely criticizes Democrats Which Democrats have been accused of being dominionist? I've only seem Republicans on the template and on the list. Revolutionaryluddite 17:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the minimum would be more than two sources, but- in any case- Frists mentioning just has the one source. Revolutionaryluddite 17:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that PRA is not partisan in the ideological sense; just like the Cato Institute, it is not 'partisan' in the sense that they endorse any political candidates but partisan in ideology. Revolutionaryluddite 17:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is explicitly left-right partisan in its mission statement. See [4] - "Political Research Associates is a progressive think tank devoted to supporting movements that are building a more just and inclusive democratic society.", followed by a section called "Why We Focus on the Right" discussing the danger of the Christian Right. To address a related issue, I have no problem with using the PRA as a source in articles about LaRouche because the sourcing is visible and most importantly LaRouche is considered a nut by a huge number of partisan and non-partisan sources. Dominionism, however, is a term as yet virtually unused except by explicitly partisan sources - you won't find it in the NYT, Newsweek, The Atlantic, etc. - Merzbow 00:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Your right on the money. Revolutionaryluddite 00:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name & Cites

[edit] Discuss

[edit] Name & Cites

[edit] Discuss

[edit] Another attempt to break the impasse

Once again discussion here has stalled. I'm sure we're all tired of this issue by now; I know I would much rather go back to editing on topics that I enjoy. But the current state of the infobox is a serious embarrassment, and we need to find some compromise version to make it useful again.

All of the content that would make the infobox actually useful as a navigational aid (which is what infoboxes are supposed to be for) has been removed due to BLP concerns, and there seems to be a pretty strong group of people who support keeping it that way. On the other hand, there also seems to be a pretty strong group who wants to keep some form of navigational aid on this topic. JoshuaZ on the TfD, and FeloniousMonk above, have suggested creating a list for this purpose. I've gone ahead and created such a list in my userspace. This list contains everything that is presently in the infobox (with the exception of the "Ideas" section, which seems pretty useless to me) but in a format that allows for nuanced (i.e., NPOV) statements as well as references.

I don't want to create this article in the mainspace until we have an agreement in place as to the fate of this template. I don't suppose there would be increased support (i.e., from people who previously opposed it) for another TfD? Thought I'd ask. What about removing all content from this template and replacing it with

See also: List of people and organizations associated with Dominionism

Thoughts? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Put individuals/orgs who self-identify as CR in the infobox, the rest in the list only. I can't think of anything else to do other than TfD the infobox. Personally I've always thought an infobox on the "Christian Right" would be useful for readers, since it's a much more widely-used term. Dobson, for example, would indisputably fit in such an infobox. - Merzbow (talk) 07:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem with your first idea, Merzbow, is that it tells an incomplete story. By far the most prominent use of the term is to refer to people who do not self-identify. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
It could be argued that Rushdoony/North and friends were much more important than others in the development of this movement, and thus qualify as a 'sub-topic', and thus only they should be in the infobox. Barring that, then I can only fall back on my suggestion to turn this into a "Christian Right" infobox (or TfD it). - Merzbow (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't realized that FeloniousMonk had already begun this task. I have merged my efforts with his, now viewable as List of people and organizations associated with Dominionism. My proposal now is that the template would be much more useful -- conveying more information as well as being more useful as a navigational aid -- if we changed it from a navbox to a {{seealso}} directing readers to the list. Are there objections?

By the way, I don't know if some might object because a {{seealso}} is not as visually prominent in an article as a navbox. I would just like to point out that the purpose of a navbox is to be a navigational aid, not to draw attention to the subject. In fact, the latter is listed as one of the pitfalls of navboxes. The question is this: Would having the template direct readers to the list make it more useful for navigation than its current state? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think a list is a better way to go by far. --Flex (talk/contribs) 02:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
As no one has objected, I have made the change. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
...and perhaps not surprisingly, Orangemarlin reverted within the hour. OM, you say you "object", but you have yet to express the substance of your objection. You were active on the talk page shortly before this proposal was made. You have no excuse for not having seen it. I believe I have done more than enough to seek consensus on this edit. The onus is now upon you to argue for the continuation of a gutted navbox. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I support BlueMoonlet's edit. - Merzbow (talk) 08:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I also support BlueMoonlet's edit.--Cberlet (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
So do I. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

I'm glad to see that several people are discussing ways to improve this template. Unfortunately, I also see that the template has been bouncing back and forth in the last few days. It's best practice, when you revert someone to also discuss it with them, either here or on their talk page (that's the D in WP:BRD). Editors who appear to be edit warring will be individually cautioned to refrain from such behavior. This comment is only an admonition to all editors to work towards a compromise. If, after some time, no solution can be reached, it may be appropriate to consider mediation. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)