Category talk:Dominionist organizations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I reviewed all the entries in this category, and to my surprise, none but one had any mention or cites to justify any association with dominionism as well. The one that did have a couple cites, was not identified as dominionist in those cites, it just had positions on social issues and sponsored speakers or forums. One of the citations was also unsigned, i.e., not a confidence inspiring cite. This should be a good category, but the attempts to add orgs to it so far appear to be original research. The original research approach seemed to be to focus on Christain organizations that take political positions on social issues. Such a wide ranging inference, would end up classifying Tipper Gore's Parents Music Resource Center as a dominionist organization.--Silverback 07:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dominionist movement: Sources

Hello FM : ) Maybe these organizations belong in this category. Maybe not. Is Chris Hedges regarded as an unbiased author? I think the Harpers article is a pretty weak source for this type of categorization. Is there something more academic? Doing this type of categorization contemporary to the situation is problematic. To overcome this, the views from all sides of the political spectrum need to be considered. Who else has written on this topic? Is this categorization supported by moderate conservative-leaning thinkers? What has George Will written? Do the groups themselves classify this way? Pat Buchanan is open and honest about these issues. What does he say? You may be correct. Could you point me to better sources to back it up. FloNight talk 16:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Harper's Magazine is a moderate, widely respected, responsible and critical publication.
Cornell University's Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy is an unimpeachable academic source, and they say the same thing as Hedges did in Harper's and then some: [1], [2]. You may want to also read Frederick Carlson's "Eternal Hostility: the Struggle between Theocracy and Democracy."
Additionally, these issues are even being addressed in the mainstream conservative press due to the rift between moderate conservatives and dominionists: The Washington Times Left aims to smite 'theocracy' movement Christian Science Monitor For evangelicals, a bid to 'reclaim America'
Other fair articles on the topic include: WSWS: New York Times columnist David Brooks proposes the 'good crusade', Liberty magazine, and give a listen to Recent NPR coverage of Christian Dominionism FeloniousMonk 18:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Also see religioustolerance.org's coverage of the topic. FeloniousMonk 18:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
All of the above sources are good with the slightly exception of the last one. Religioustolerance.org has a strong leftwards slant and seems to do little fact-checking. JoshuaZ 18:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Above is copied from FeloniousMonk talk page. FloNight talk 21:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming the cat

I've suggested to someone who has objected to articles being included here renaming the cat so that it avoids making the assertion the organizations are dominionist. Oganizations associated with Dominionism is an obvious starting points. Comments, suggestions? FeloniousMonk 00:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. There is an arb com finding that discusses the purpose of categories. It is relevant to this discussion. It supports this change and the inclusion of the articles, I think. I'll get it. FloNight talk 01:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Found it! FloNight talk 02:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! FeloniousMonk 18:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Summarizing:
Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber#Categories, the arbcomm agrees that "Wikipedia uses categories as an aid to the reader. They are not intended to be information in themselves, but are useful in finding information. In the instant case, inclusion of the category "Category:Geography of Israel" in the article Golan Heights is not an endorsement one way or the other of the status of the territory. Thus both "Category:Geography of Syria" and "Category:Geography of Israel" are appropriate and useful to a reader looking for information."

[edit] It's an unworthy category

It's an unworthy category and can't be fixed by a name change since it's based on accusations that are heavily POV.

These accusations of dominionism come from extremists persons and agencies with their own agenda. A number of factors identify those who make the accusations as extremists themselves.

1. A fundamentalist mindset. That may seem odd that accusations coming from the left have such a midset, but it's becoming increasingly true as time goes on. The accusers can only see things in black and white. Who plays the roles of the "white hats" and the "black hats" has changed, but the midset is still the same. A good illustration is the accusation by Senator Ken Salazar, who called James Dobson "the Antichrist."

2. This leads into the second characteristic of these extremists - the heavy use of propaganda devises, such as demonisation and straw men. Chip Berlet, while he argues against demonisation in one context has been a major propagandist in other contexts, often comparing those he criticizes with the Nazis. Others compare with the Taliban (which is kind of an oxymoron, since a president they identify with dominionism was the leader to overthrow the Taliban - oh well, extremists don't have to make sense).

3. Another common identifier of those with a powerful agenda, is that they can't even correctly identify the players. Many obviously don't know the difference between a fundamentalist and an evangelical, and frequently conflate the two. Often they sweep all conservatives into one homogenous category, and thus proove to be driven by agenda rather than fact.

Establishing a category and placing individuals and groups into this category not Wikipedic; it is simply endorsing the POV of these obvious extremists. This category is inherently POV and should be removed. Pollinator 01:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Pollinator, I agree that the category needs some work. We need to clearly delineate the criteria for inclusion. By this I mean that all articles included are relevant, verifiable and obvious from the article content. That way the reader will able to sort this out for themselves. We shouldn't be protecting people from ideas. If it is a bunch of bunk put forward by extremists, the reader will figure it out by looking at the sources. Requiring verifiable, reliable sources is the way to defeat pov problems. FloNight talk 02:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
The hyperbole contained in the objection aside, I disagree. The reasoning given against this category would also preclude the pseudoscience category, and few would deny its necessity and utility.
The only relevant points here are whether this viewpoint is significant/notable and verifiable, and whether or not the sources satisfy WP:V and W:RS. Looking at the sources above these points are answered yes, the viewpoint is sufficiently significant/notable, and yes, the sources conform to WP:V and W:RS. FeloniousMonk 17:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
That flies in the face of a past arbcomm ruling: "Wikipedia uses categories as an aid to the reader. They are not intended to be information in themselves, but are useful in finding information. In the instant case, inclusion of the category "Category:Geography of Israel" in the article Golan Heights is not an endorsement one way or the other of the status of the territory. Thus both "Category:Geography of Syria" and "Category:Geography of Israel" are appropriate and useful to a reader looking for information." from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber#Categories FeloniousMonk 18:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
There is an easy solution to all this bickering and that is to start a Christian Reconstructionism category instead. It will be smaller, but more to point. --LC 19:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)