Template talk:Dominionism/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

cite sources in bio articles

Any biography needs to mention the person's association with Dominionism, and provide proper citation. Otherwise, they will have to be removed from this template per WP:V. --Rob 23:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I think a man can be listed here as an advocate of dominionism if and only if his article says unambiguously that he is an advocate of dominionism. Tom Harrison Talk 17:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case, you should take another look at WP:RS. What matters is whether the material is supported by reliable sources - the content of a Wikipedia article are meaningless, since the content of a Wikipedia article isn't a reliable source (although, of course, the references in that or any other article could count as sources). 72.198.121.115 13:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

removing unverifiable link

During the related AfD for the article Dominionist political parties, which included member parties of the European Christian Political Movement, it was proven that connections to all of the parties on the list to Dominionism were unverifiable. The result of that AfD was delete. Therefore, the link on this template to that list was removed. Now, the only party left linked here is the ECPM, which was also largely vindicated by that AfD. There has never been any verifiable proof put forward that links the ECPM to Dominionism. Letting it remain while being unverified is POV-pushing at least, a political attack at worst. Therefore, I am removing it from the template. Removing it will empty the category on the template, so I am erasing the category as well. If anyone can in the future present verifiable evidence that links the ECPM to Dominionism, then at that point the link can be reinstated, but not before.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 15:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

New additions

This edit added a few more names. Not all mention the word "dominionism". Please add well sourced references to dominionism in the articles, so its easy for others to verify the appropriateness. --Rob 04:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"Dominionism" is understood as a synonym for "Christian Reconstructionism" on both sides of the issue. For example, on the negative side, this article says "an extremist theology called Christian Reconstructionism, also known as Theocratic Dominionism"; ReligiousTolerance.org heads an article: "Dominionism (A.K.A. Christian Reconstructionism, Dominion Theology, and Theonomy)". On the positive side, Reconstructionist writers often classify themselves as "Dominionist" (e.g., David Chilton's book Paradise Restored is subtitled A Biblical Theology of Dominion; Kenneth Gentry's most well-known work is titled He Shall Have Dominion; a whole bunch of Gary North's books include "Dominion" in their titles, such as Tools of Dominion, see also his newsletter Dominion Strategies); and one of the Reconstructionist publishing houses is Dominion Press. Including prominent Reconstructionists should not be controversial or need any further support. » MonkeeSage « 04:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Only those individuals who would be considered Dominionists according to the strict criteria of adhering to R.J. Rushdoony's theories should be included. Citations by groups such as TheocracyWatch are ad hominem attacks at best. It's akin to citing the GOP press office regarding Ted Kennedy.
I say the template has to go or be whittled down to self-professing Dominionists. Howard Phillips of the Constitution Party definitely should be included. I interned for Howard once upon a time, and I didn't realize it until he had a guest on his public access TV show to discuss theonomy.--Pravknight 04:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Kuyper

Abraham Kuyper is cited as an influence on Dominionism:

At this point it is mandatory to recognize another distinction. Just as stewardship encompasses both the calling and charity, so the concept of the Kingdom of God includes the work of the institutional church and the godly activity of Christian men in all their legitimate human institutions. This point was made clear by the great Dutch thinker, Abraham Kuyper, when he developed his concept of sphere sovereignty. (Rushdoony, Institutes, p. 808).
Christian Reconstructionism's history begins in the late 19th Century in the Netherlands. The Prime Minister of the Netherlands from 1901-05 Abraham Kuyper, following a dramatic conversion to Calvinism, attempted to relate theology to every sphere of life. He subscribed to the theory of presuppositionalism which holds that all human behavior is inherently religious. Therefore, he began to form Calvinist schools, newspapers, political organizations and even hospitals. (Christian Reconstruction, Religious movements homepage, the University of Virginia[1]).
Abraham Kuyper's development of Calvin's thought, and formulation of a distinctively Christian approach to education and society, has exercised formibidable influence on twentieth-century Calvinism. Post-Kuyperian Calvinism has thought in an emphatically "worldviewish" fashion, that is, there is a regular stress on thinking and living Christianly in all areas of life. This pattern of thought was decisive in the so-called Dutch school, and influencial upon Dooyeweerd and Van Til in turn. Kuyper argued for an over-arching philosophy of life resting upon God alone as the epistemological foundation. "There is not an inch in the whole of temporal life which Christ, as Lord of all men, does not say, `Mine,'" said Kuyper.
Van Til took up and refined Kuyper and Dooyeweerd's thinking. One of his customary emphases was that there is no such thing as neutrality. A person cannot be neutral about God, nor can he be neutral in his thinking or living. There are only two options: for or against, God-centered or man-centered. Van Til said: "There is no alternative but that of theonomy and autonomy." Van Til meant that in the sphere of human thinking and behaving one has only two options: God's way or self's way.
The combination of Kuyper's concern for a distinctly Christian approach to the whole of life, and Van Til's insistence that one is always either theonomous or autonomous, when applied to the area of civil law and government provided a critical platform for the theonomic theory as we shall illustrate later. (J. Ligon Duncan, III, Moses' Law for Modern Government: The Intellectual and Sociological Origins of the Christian Reconstructionist Movement[2]).
Many theonomists claimed that Falwell and Robertson were reading and interacting with folks like R. J. Rushdoony, Gary North, Greg Bahnsen, and David Chilton, leaders of the theonomist movement. So, Robertson and Falwell were building on the theonomists, and for their part, the theonomists claimed to be bulding on the teachings of Cornelius Van Til and Abraham Kuyper. (David Wayne's weblog[3]).
See also: The Kuyper Foundation[4].
See also: S. Joel Garver, Theonomy lecture series, session 2[5]; David Skeel, session 3[6].
See also: James E. McColdrick, God's Renaissance Man: The Life and Work of Abraham Kuyper[7]; and review by Peter J. Wallace[8].
See also: John Bolt, A Free Church, a Holy Nation [9].

So I'm re-adding Kuyper as an influential person. » MonkeeSage « 22:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

latest removal

Tony Perkins (evangelical Christian figure) and Paul Weyrich do not mention domionism in their articles (at this moment). So, I removed them from here. The following is the required order of operations, when giving labels:

  1. Obtain a reliable source
  2. Write relevant content in the bio article, *citing* the source in the *article* (not the talk page, but the bio article itself)
  3. Update templates and categories appropriately

Please note, I did leave in Free Congress Foundation, as these steps (at first glance) appear to have been followed.

--Rob 18:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't waste time by putting the names back, without updating the bio articles appropriately with sources. I'll leave them alone, as soon as the appropriate bio article updates are done. --Rob 18:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
As you already know, relevant supporting cites exist. Either I or someone else will just add the relevant supporting cites to the articles and we'll be back to not just having Paul Weyrich and Tony Perskins listed in the template, but linked to dominionism through their articles now as well, so the silly game you've been playing to minimize any expansion of coverage of dominionism at Wikipedia is not working in your favor.
BTW, Tony Perkins is the president of Family Research Council. Paul Weyrich is founder and leader of Free Congress Foundation. Both are identified as Dominionist in their articles. The supporting cites in those articles lead to evidence that they are Dominionist as well, so there's no shortage of evidence. But you already knew that. FeloniousMonk 19:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Read WP:LIVING. It's not a game. Follow policy. --Rob 19:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm thinking more about WP:POINT and WP:NPOV here, but thanks anyway. You've been following me and rv'ing every dominionism-related edit I've made for several weeks now, a good number of which had nothing to do with WP:BLP. You may want to consider how that appears before you continue.
BTW, Weyrich is back in, supporting content has been added to his article and Perkins is next. FeloniousMonk 19:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, almost every properly (or even modestly) sourced contribution in dominionism you've made, has been left in place by me, and only edited for neutrality. If you want to see who's making a point to edit articles to push their POV on religion, there's a handy tool that lets you see the top articles edited by any editor (#of edits by the user per article). Given your top ten all involve similiar religious related POV battles, and almost none of my top ones relate to religion; I'm not worried of any person actually thinking I have a religious agenda, as you seem to imply. --Rob 20:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
By all means then, please carry on. FeloniousMonk 21:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The arguments supporting Weyrich and Perkins belonging in the "Dominionist" camp are ad hominem at best, and the evidence is weak and non-objective. In other words the only thing supporting those views are straw man arguments. The only folks who should be there are the followers of the Chalcedon Foundation, and unless you can furnish third-party research or first person comments it's as good as citing your friend David Horowitz's claims that MoveOn.org is the activist arm of the Communist Party USA. BTW, I tried that one and it got deep-sixed. So much for double standards and cited evidence. --Pravknight 04:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, Weyrich, unlike, many Evangelicals doesn't believe in anarcho-capitalism, which is a hallmark of Dominionist views. --Pravknight 17:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


The following was accidentally placed in the TFD talk page. -- nae'blis 08:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It has to go

Dominionism has become a buzzword used as an ad hominmem attack against Christian Right figures, and ones such as Paul Weyrich, I know for a fact do not believe in the tenets of Christian Reconstructionism. --Pravknight 04:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we know that your opinion is that any coverage of Dominionism at Wikipedia has to go from your objections elsewhere. That Dominionism is an ad hominmem attack or a buzzword is simply one particular viewpoint and opinion. That Dominionism is not is another. Wikipedia's NPOV policy prevents us from favoring one viewpoint over the other by deleting or surpressiong an opposing viewpoint; something you should know considering your claims elsewhere. FeloniousMonk 23:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
All you have ere are innuendos, not facts on most of these people.--Pravknight 01:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I see your single-handed campaign to bowdlerize WP of all references to dominionism continues apace despite the clear consensus at your user conduct RFC against it.
No, what we have are verifiable sources that meet WP:RS and a central policy, WP:NPOV, that calls for all significant and verifiable viewpoints to be presented. FeloniousMonk 02:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"Identified" vs. "Accused"

The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary (online edition):

identify /aɪˡden.ti.faɪ/ us /—t̬ə—/
verb [T]
1 to recognize someone or something and say or prove who or what they are:

Even the smallest baby can identify its mother by her voice.
The gunman in Wednesday's attack has been identified as Lee Giggs, an unemployed truck driver.
[R] The police officer identified himself (= gave his name or proved who he was) and asked for our help.

2 to recognize a problem, need, fact, etc. and to show that it exists:

The research will be used to identify training needs.
You need to identify your priorities.

accuse /əkˡjuːz/
verb [T]
to say that someone has done something morally wrong, illegal or unkind:

"It wasn't my fault." "Don't worry, I'm not accusing you."
He's been accused of robbery/murder.
Are you accusing me of lying?
The surgeon was accused of negligence.

I just wanted the lay out the defintions so we can discuss the issue rather than edit war. Personally, being a Dominionist, I have no problem with "identified" (several people in the template are self-identified Dominionists, e.g., North) — it is accurate, in terms of the primary meaning "recognize", as several sources linked in the Dominionism article recognize the persons and groups in the template as "Dominionist". The word "identify", itself, taken in that sense, does not even mean that the identification is accurate, just that it is made (just as when we say "Zeus was identified as the primary god in the Greek Pantheon", we don't have to agree with the identification as accurate). On the other hand, "accuse" has negative connotations which are not always correct, such as in the case of the self-identifying Dominionists. » MonkeeSage « 14:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

"said to influence"?

When I see constructions like "said to advocate," and "said to influence," I wonder who says. Having these headings in a template, where do we document who says? I think it might be better if the headings were Ideas, Advocates (if it's near-universally agreed who are the advocates), People, and Groups. It is hard to have balanced content inside of a template. Some of what's presented here might work better in the top-level article. Thoughts? Tom Harrison Talk 14:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Those "said to" phrases stink of weasel words in the worst way. Jinxmchue 19:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Yet saying that they do influence or are raises NPOV concerns. It seems to me that here we have to select from the lesser of two evils, unless someone has a better solution they want to propose. FeloniousMonk 05:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Christian reconstructionism

"Dominionism" is an epithet. I hold no brief for the movement, far from it, but I do not see why the antis should use their terminology here. It is not anything like neutral to do so. Adherents of reconstructionism do not like the label and some explicitly reject it. So why are we using it? (Not that I don't know why. I mean why are we tolerating it?) Grace Note 04:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This template is simply a bunch of POV and OR claims promoting a conspiracy theory. Delete. Yakuman (数え役満) 12:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weyrich: A convert to Eastern Orthodoxy.
  • Farah: Baptist and Christian Zionist.
  • Olasky: Amillennial Presbyterian who is anti-CR.
  • Wildmon: United Methodist, the opposite theological pole
  • National Religious Broadcasters: broadly Evangelical body
  • Free Congress: nonsectarian and led by Weyrich
Stop calling these people CRs. These people would consider the accusation slanderous. Claims about living people must be supported. This sort of name-calling without facts is simply negligent. I hold no brief for the movement either, but at least get your facts straight. Yakuman (数え役満) 12:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with the change to CR (though, I'd shorten the section titles and change the template name to {{Christian Reconstructionism}}). I'd also add that while Dominionists may see John Cotton et al. as their forebears, that does not mean that {{Dominionism}}/{{Christian Reconstructionism}} should be on their pages. I don't object to them appearing in the template if a verifiable connection is reliably sourced in the article itself, but I don't think it's fair to so closely associate them with a movement that they had nothing to do with. In short, the presence of an article in a template does not justify the presence of the template in that article (compare, e.g., {{Lutheranism}}, which includes a link to Christianity but which does not appear in said article). --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. Just because its advocates feel the term has developed negative connotations and avoid it themselves doesn't mean its valid. Secondly, Dominionism and Christian Reconstructionism are not synonymous: the former is a political ideology and the latter is a religious movement. This is a political infobox. The Tom 18:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, on further browsing through the history and Dominionism, the change-over to Christian Reconstructionism does seem to be a misfire (there could be a template for that too, but I don't think it's necessary and indeed would probably have too much overlap with this one to be worthwhile/useful). Even so, everything but the first sentence of my post above still stands. --Flex (talk|contribs) 19:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Flex and I sometimes have strong disagreements, but I am inclined to agree with him in this instance. Yakuman (数え役満) 07:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
In light of this comment, I don't understand why you reverted the template back to what I did (and then modified it a bit further). Perhaps what you are implicitly suggesting is that there should be a narrower (and solely theological) Christian Reconstructionism template, as I mentioned above, but no Dominionism template because it is biased to apply pejorative labels to those who don't claim them for themselves. If this is a proper understanding of your comment/actions, I tend to agree. After all, the lede for Dominionism suggests that this is really just a lefty label for righty types: "It is most often used to describe politically active conservative Christians with a specific agenda. The term is rarely used as a self-description; many feel it is a loaded or pejorative term, and use of the term is primarily limited to critics of the Christian Right." Of course, this quote is weasely worded and unsourced, but if it can be shown to be accurate, I would support deleting the Dominionism template in favor of a Reconstructionism template, since some people actually like to call themselves that. --Flex (talk|contribs) 18:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Flex again. Wonders never cease. Iron sharpens iron. <smile> Yakuman (数え役満) 19:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. I'll suggest this as a plan of action: create a new CR template (done: {{Christian Reconstructionism}}), delete or replace {{Dominionism}} from all articles, and nominate this template for deletion as pejorative labeling. There's a big difference between someone being labeled, say, a terrorist by a wide spectrum of people with the "terrorist" rejecting the label and someone being labeled a terrorist by a small minority with the "terrorist" rejecting it. One reflects consensus, while the other reflects partisanship. The case here seems to be similar. Thoughts? --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I totally disagree with deleting this template or removing it from articles where there are WP:RS sources that say they are related to the topic of Dominionism, and I can think of at least a dozen other editors and admins who would object as well. 151.151.73.167 22:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I have no objections to the idea of standalone CR and Dominionism templates, with the former aimed at mirroring the style of the various Christian denominational templates and so on, and the latter staying part of the series of political ideological templates ({{Communism}} and {{Conservatism}} and so on.) However, I am absolutely opposed to any decision to delete this template simply because a few people believe the term is perjorative. Lots of political terms attract perjorative connotations; you could make the case that in certain quarters in the United States to identify someone as a "Liberal" is a slur. I'd say 95%+ of the people identified by third parties as Neo-Fascists today would dispute their labeling as such and offer up some sort of alternate self-appelation ("I believe in popular nationalism"). It is a truth, unfortunate or not or whatever, that the term "Dominionism" is used to group a series of beliefs into an ideological family. Even if someday the term "Dominionism" were to acquire the same degree of perjorative connotations as Fascism, that should have no bearing on the template's right to exist--nobody suggests deleting {{Fascism}}, for instance The Tom 21:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Have a source that says Dominionism is an epithet? It's the commonly used term in the media, not Christian Reconstructionism. 151.151.73.167 22:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It's POV. If one side uses a label and the other doesn't, we should not use it. We do not have other templates that label people with the name used by their opponents. I don't have an axe to grind for these people but I'm concerned that the same standard is applied to all. Grace Note 23:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
That's your opinion. Do you have a source for your claims. Oh, and read the Dominionism article; you'll see the term is in wide circulation in the media, Harpers, etc, so it's not nearly as porjorative a term has you suggest. If it warrants tis own article, Dominionism, then it certainly warrants a category as well. FeloniousMonk 04:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I have written to you on your talkpage. I recognise that discussing this with you will simply involve further utterly spurious bullshit and ignoring the arguments put to you, but what can a person do? Do I have a source for my claims that the people concerned don't call themselves "dominionists" but Chip Berlet does? Give me a break, will you? Grace Note 07:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I see you've made threats at my talk page, not an argument. Whether people call themselves Dominionists is hardly the issue, fundamentalist Christians seldom identify themselves as Christian fundamentalists yet the term is still commonly used by the press. The same is true for Dominionists. Explain to me how if there's a Dominionism article that is well sourced and neutral, why is there an inherent POV issue with having a Domionism template as long as sources are provided in the various articles to support it's inclusion? 151.151.73.167 16:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Dominionism requires theonomy, the belief that the Levitical laws of Moses in the Torah must be enforced by modern governments. Weyrich, Wildmon, Olasky, etc. explicitly deny this. Yakuman (数え役満) 07:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Yakuman, I agree with you about the incorrectness and dishonesty of the Dominionism label. However, it is an accepted academic label, which regardless of the uncharitableness and poverty of scholarship that sustains it, has gained wide acceptance.
You can't on the one hand say that Dominionism is nothing but a "POV", and then say that Dominionism is objectively definable (but only by people like you, who do not use the label). We must reflect that Dominionism is an accepted academic taxonomy, without implying either endorsement or rejection - that's what's meant by "NPOV". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I hear you, Mark. If a term is "incorrect and dishonest," however, then it does not belong. Tell you what, I've retained "Dominionism" on the improved template, just to take the semantics out of this. The larger problems involve unsourced claims about WP:living people, a few of which I have described below. Yakuman (数え役満) 17:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
In the MUD that we've created however, where the rule defining the virtual dimension we share is that we will pretend that neutrality is real, "incorrect and dishonest" DO belong - because it is verifiable that credible and relied-upon sources use terms this way. In the real world, what these sources produce is called "slander". Here it is called "content". I suggest that you leave the "content" alone, but don't fail to use it appropriately in the real world. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
If slander is the same thing thing as neutral content here, you're raising some huge questions, essentially questioning WP's mission and reason for existing. I don't believe that WP is a game, especially with claims about living people. Yakuman (数え役満) 18:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
If it is "verifiable", and "attributable", it is content. There is no such thing in the real world as "neutrality" - a world without right and wrong, true or false, good guys or bad guys. And yet, the WP experiment is to see, whether people who interpret the facts differently can work together in describing the same thing. In this sense, WP is only a reflection of the basic problem of the real world - but what we are creating here is a kind of DMZ, a standpoint from which we can reflect upon the state of affairs, instead of prosecuting the battle. What you are doing breaks the rules of the DMZ (neutrality), by operating according to the rules of real life (truth). By mutual consent, the battle doesn't belong here; but the DMZ serves the purpose of the battle. Don't prevent them from telling all their slanders, otherwise you deprive others in the real world of an accurate view of what's going on around them. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Self-identification

Joseph Farah and D. James Kennedy have self-identified themselves with Reconstruction/Dominionism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.95.73.2 (talk • contribs)

Citation please. --Flex (talk|contribs) 18:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Farah promotes the teachings of Hal Lindsey on WorldNetDaily, who has openly opposed CR for decades. Kennedy has issued stacks and stacks of sermons and books, so if be was, he would have said it. Also, the enormous shelf of the CR movement's own books would cite him as a fellow CR, not just a fellow member of the same church or fellow Evangelical. Yakuman (数え役満) 19:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if whether they self-identify or not. What matters is whether secondary sources say they are, and there's no shortage of those that do. 151.151.73.167 22:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
This "Christian Zionism" addition is pre rubbish, BTW. CRs attack that stuff in their sleep. See books like "Rapture Fever" or "The Judeo-Christian Tradition." They have no use for it. Yakuman (数え役満) 07:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The secondary sources fully support the use of the term "Dominionism", whether the Domionists (or as some of you prefer, "Cristian Resconstructionists",) object to or embrace the term. After all, what you are really doing is playing a piss-poor game of semantics, trying to pretend that Dominionism and Christian Reconstructionism are not synonymous, mostly on the basis of the preference of the people so-labeled. Such distinctions are as nonsensical as the US's use in WWII of "relocation centers" for concentration camps -- the euphemism only works in the minds of those afraid to face the truth. Dominionism stays -- it is accurate, well-sourced, and well-supported by scholars. •Jim62sch• 19:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:LIVING: Biased or malicious content

Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of positive or negative claims that rely on guilt by association.

There's a Dominionism article that is well sourced and NPOV, so there's no NPOV issue with a Domionism template as long as sources are provided in the various articles. 151.151.73.167 16:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a problem that we've all got to face someday, with navigation templates such as this one. These templates are essentially political placards or advertisements. Dominionism translates into "scary idea", and any name on the list becomes "scary people". Someday we'll have to address the problem - perhaps if we can provide CSS that would allow a choice of "views", that would solve the problem. That's a question for meta, and for developers; but surely this template is one of the most obvious examples of why papering articles with a Table of Contents for pamphleteers involves compromising the credibility of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Critics

The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.

See WP:LIVING FYI, 3RR does not apply to poorly-sourced material about living persons. Yakuman (数え役満) 06:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR doesn't apply here? Why don't you try it and find out.
There are plenty of regular media sources where the term used. Are you seriously going to try to claim those in the media are all "critics"? By your own reasoning the labelling of observers of socio/religious trends in the media as 'crtics' is perjorative.
One more time: Do either you or GraceNote have a single, much less notable, source saying that 'Dominionism' is a perjorative term? 151.151.73.169 17:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Enjoy! Not notable, but fairly accurate, I think. When I read some of the "antiChristers", I'm reminded of the tone (and accuracy) of some of the wingnuts who plague the blogosphere, who see all sorts of sinister conspiracy among liberals when all that the latter actually have in common is that they subscribe to some subset of a set of beliefs that can be called "liberal". All that's being urged here is caution in using a term that has a narrow validity too widely. Here is something you might enjoy: someone who sees dominionists under every rock. Clearly she feels it's a pejorative that needs applying very widely. Here is someone from the other end of the political spectrum who notes (correctly in my view) that the Christian Right may be "dominionists" but they are not "Dominionists". My view, 151, is that care should be taken with political labels. It's rather like calling someone a "fascist". Here is an essay I wish I had written myself on that subject. I hope that if you do not enjoy it, you at least find it instructive. Grace Note 06:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Show me where Bahnsen, Rushdoony, North, Chilton, etc. support Christian Zionism, when they spent decades opposing it! Here's just one of several CR books denouncing CZ:[10] Also, in"The Road to Holocaust," by Hal Lindsey, the guru of Christian Zionism, castigates Dominionism for not supporting CZ and even accuses them of anti-Antisemitism over it! I don't support Dominionism either, but I know what it is.

The previous template commits gaffes on the order of saying Barak Obama is a Maoist:

  • Some right-wing Christians are dominionists.
  • Some right-wing Christians are Christian Zionists.
  • Mr. X is a right-wing Christian.
  • Therefore Mr. X is both a dominionist and a Christian Zionist, even though the categories are mutually exclusive!

The previous template clearly says that Bahnsen, Rushdoony, North, Chilton, etc. are Christian Zionists, when that is demonstrably false.[11] See WP:LIVING. FYI, 3RR does not apply to poorly-sourced material about living persons. Yakuman (数え役満) 07:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

TheocracyWatch, the Anti-Defamation League and Harpers name various individuals as dominionists. As long as we have notable and reliable sources doing so, noting that they have done so is perfectly acceptable in WP articles. Period.

FeloniousMonk 18:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Show me where where Bahnsen, Rushdoony, North, Chilton, etc. -- card-carrying "Dominionists" -- support Christian Zionism, especially when I've given you primary sources saying otherwise. Yakuman (数え役満) 23:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Verifiability, not truth, is the criterion for inclusion. Stop pretending otherwise. 72.198.121.115 00:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I cited sources above! Verify that North, Gentry, DeMar, etc. support Christian Zionism. Here's just one of several CR books denouncing Christian Zionism:[12] ee WP:LIVING. FYI, 3RR does not apply to poorly-sourced material about living persons. Yakuman (数え役満) 02:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop pretending that your insistence on changing "Dominionism" to "Christian Reconstructionism" is anything other than a content dispute. 72.198.121.115 03:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I want to see citations. The cites, including a primary source, I provided above are just the tip of the iceberg. See WP:LIVING. FYI, 3RR does not apply to poorly-sourced material about living persons, dispute or no dispute. Yakuman (数え役満) 03:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a citation to support your claims that changing "Dominionism" to "Christian Reconstructionism" is somehow an application of WP:LIVING? 72.198.121.115 04:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
That wasn't my edit. The two phrases refer to the same thing, except that first one is used by conspiracy theorists. Show me that Gary North is a Christian Zionist. That's an application of WP:LIVING. Yakuman (数え役満) 05:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
You're kidding us, right? North, Chilton, Rushdooney and all in the template with the exception of Weyrich have self-identified as Dominionists outright. If you're not aware of this easily verifiable fact then you have no business changing this template. But hey, since you ask for sources: Bahnsen: ReligiousTolerance.orgPublicEye.orgThe University of Virginia, The Religious Movements Project Rushdoony: The University of Virginia, The Religious Movements ProjectPublicEye.orgMainstreamBaptists.orgServe.comReligiousTolerance.orgTheocracyWatchSperoNews[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1023410/posts Free Republic]Chalcedon Foundation (in Rushdooney's own words) North: The University of Virginia, The Religious Movements ProjectPublicEye.orgMainstreamBaptists.orgTheocracyWatchChristianScience Monitor Chilton: The University of Virginia, The Religious Movements ProjectReligousTolerance.orgPublicEye.orgTheocracyWatchSperoNews[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1023410/posts Free Republic]Chalcedon Foundation Now please stop disrupting this template with the baseless objections and edit warring and find a more constructive way to contribute to the project. FeloniousMonk 05:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
You could do with reading the policy on neutrality. It suggests that we should represent all views fairly and without bias, not simply fill articles with views that we can find a website supporting. You're keen on brandishing policies in content disputes, FM, but I do wonder whether you've actually bothered with reading them. Grace Note 06:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If that wasn't your edit, then you should do something about the person who has hijacked your account. 72.198.121.115 13:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

See here for original edit. See also below. Yakuman (数え役満) 16:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced Claims

  • I didn't ask if the advocates (North, Chilton, Gentry, Demar, Rushdoony, Bahnsen) are dominionists. I asked for verification that they are Christian Zionists, which the template claims (cluelessly[13]) is a core part of dominionism. Cite, please.
  • As far as who is dominionist, Olasky, Kennedy and Weyrich are not it. Repeated requests for verification have been answered with edit warring. Cite that they support theonomy and reconstruction, per disputed template, please.
  • Weyrich is an Eastern Rite deacon, so Dominionism is anethema to him. Cite that he supports theonomy and reconstruction, per disputed template, please.
  • Free Congress is non-sectarian, so what does that have to with dominion theology? Cite that it supports theonomy and reconstruction, per disputed template, please.
  • The NRB is a radio industry trade association, so what does that have to with dominion theology? Cite that it supports theonomy and reconstruction, per disputed template, please.

I'm don't support Dominionism. But fair is fair and there's just too many unverified, unverifiable claims here. Yakuman (数え役満) 07:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring occurs when a few refuse to accept the fact that their objections fail to find acceptance with the many, which is what you've been doing. The rest of us, FM, Guettarda, 72.198.121.115, and me say the template as it has stood for a year is correct and supported. The points you try to make above show how one-sided your opinion on Dominionism is. And we wouldn't be having to respond to your edit warring if you bothered to accept sources other than those that support your personal ideology, like those given by FM. Stop ignoring sources that you simply do not agree with. 151.151.73.163 16:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I asked for cites. I'm allowed to do that, especially about living persons. Show me. Yakuman (数え役満) 18:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I provided over 15 cites here yesterday, here they are again, with some for Paul Weyrich now as well:
I hope this finally puts an end to Yakuman's ridiculous white washing and edit warring. FeloniousMonk 05:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I should explain more. The template brings up several more specific fact claims: that he is a theonomist, a presuppositionalist, etc. Ergo, it would show that Weyrich believes that the Levitical Laws are binding on modern government. Show me cites supporting that, because they aren’t there now. Yakuman (数え役満) 05:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC) 06:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Weyrich sources

  1. Chalcedon Foundation Primary source mentions Weyreich only in passing, doesn't identify him as anything. RS, but nothing here.
  2. Insider Magazine Non-RS Polemic talks about Weyrich in conjunction with NCPAC, Joseph Coors, etc. Nothing here, even if RS.
  3. MIT: This is a pay journal article titled "Evangelicals and World Affairs." Nothing here.
  4. BeAware Magazine Another non-RS polemic that mentions Weyrich with the Moral Majority, Goldwater and the New Right. Nothing here, even if an RS.
  5. ReligiousRightWatch.com Another polemic and it's a blog, so obviously not a RS. Nothing here.

Enough already. This is not verification. There's at least two problems here. Let me explain:

Say I have the "Lincoln Conspiracy" template and I want to add a certain left-wing researcher to the list. Even if a source from the Snake-Handling Fundamentalists' Society Quarterly claims Chip Berlet shot Lincoln, it would not be an RS. And if talks about Berlet without saying he shot Lincoln, it isn't even an S, even if it mentions Abe in another part of the essay. Yakuman (数え役満) 05:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC) 06:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You're cherry picking: You've ignored both the sources from Anti Defamation League and TheocracyWatch, either of which is sufficient for including of Weyrich in the template. And I've read both WP:RS and all the sources FM provided and they are acceptable according to the RS guideline. Your objections that they are not supported by RS are groundless. Also, secondary sources, as FM provided above, are preferred to primary sources.
So stop your edit warring, violating 3RR and being generally disruptive. 151.151.21.104 15:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources for Kennedy, Monaghan, DeVos, Land, Moore, Balmer

  • Rolling Stone: [14]
  • Christian Science Monitor: [15]

151.151.73.164 17:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Both articles use the term in a different way, not referring to theonomy paradigm of the North/Rushdoony movement. Better sources, yes, but they aren't talking about the same thing. Both versions of the template say that Dominionism means the North/Rushdoony theology, not as a synonym for "religious right." When you start bringing in an ultra-Catholic like Monaghan and a Dispensationalist like Land, you're confusing categories. I was ready to walk away from this discussion if the shoe fit, but it doesn't.

To see what Dominionists believe, read their stuff. For example: Gary North and Gary DeMar, Christian Reconstruction: What It Is, What It Isn't. (Tyler, TX: Institute of Christian Economics, 1991). It's not exactly fun reading, but [its available online.] Yakuman (数え役満) 00:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

First you tried cherry picking, now you're trying to split hairs. Reading the two articles, it's clear they mean the same thing. Give it up, we have reliable sources, an abundance of them. Are you going to nit pick each one? 151.151.73.171 16:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless I am overlooking it, the CSM article does not mention DeVos. Tom Harrison Talk 19:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources for James Dobson, Focus on the Family, National Religious Broadcasters, Southern Baptist Convention,

  • Harpers: [16] (subscription required, reprinted here: [17])
  • Discernment Ministries.org: [18] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.151.73.171 (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Sources for Rick Warren, Jay Grimstead, Bill Bright, Ralph Winter, George Otis, Coalition on Revival, Campus Crusade for Christ International, Center for World Mission, Sentinel Group

BLP policy

It is not completely clear how the BLP policy applies to templates such as this one. Please take care to only add names of individuals when doing so is clearly appropriate. If they are removed, please discuss rather than immediately reverting. Everyone should take care to follow the three revert rule. Edits that consist of more than the removal of names of individuals may fall under this rule; the purpose of this message is to warn that BLP may not apply to such edits. CMummert · talk 23:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No individual should be listed in the template as a Dominionist unless a WP:RS source is presented on this page, and I've been adding and organizing sources above. 151.151.73.170 23:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
"Prophecy Forom?" "SeekGod.ca.?" "Discernment Ministries?" Not RS, as explained above. 23:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Typical. There's plenty of other sources provided there, so just keep on cherry picking and splitting hairs. 151.151.73.170 23:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I support Yakuman's reverts. Anyone with a passing familiarity with this subject knows that it refers to an extremist ideology clearly not used in neutral sources to identify mainstream Religous Right figures like Rick Warren. The above sources are frankly mostly garbage, from extreme POV sites of the type clearly warned against by policy, ESPECIALLY WP:BLP. - Merzbow 23:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Reliable sources have been provided for Warren, your personal opinion as to their value does not trump WP:RS. 151.151.73.170 23:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:BLP - "Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject (see below). These sources should also not be included as external links in BLPs, subject to the same exception.". You must provide sources acceptable as such to a consensus of editors. Right now that's not the case. Acceptable sources would include cites from major mainstream, non-partisan publications or books. - Merzbow 23:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify: I agree that BLP does apply to including names of individuals here. But it doesn't apply to the rest of the template, which is just a navigational aid. This makes it hard to tell BLP reverts from non-BLP reverts. So to make it clear that a revert is for BLP reasons, please make sure it only involves naming individuals and not other parts of the template. In the end, you will have to work out a consensus on the talk page about which names to include. CMummert · talk 23:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That is clear; I am only removing the names of people and organizations in dispute. - Merzbow 23:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Then list them here after you remove them and we'll discuss the sources. 151.151.73.170 00:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, anyone invoking BLP here as a grounds for removal of names from the template while being exempt from 3RR as Yakuman has argued first needs to explain how being included in this template is somehow harmful to those listed. Yakuman claims the term Dominionist is pejorative but has failed to back up that claim with a single source despite being asked to many times already. If we're going to let disruptive serial 3RR violators walk all over this template, they should least have to explain why doing so is somehow necessary. 151.151.73.170 00:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The term is used almost exclusively by partisan left-wing sources like the collection you've acquired above, in combination with claims of "fascism in America" and so on. Feel free to show otherwise, but I think you've been hoist by your own petard here. Furthermore, none of the names or organizations in dispute above are willing to identify themselves as "dominionist". What I'm asking is simple - either provide reliable non-partisan sources that describe these people and organizations as dominionists, or show that they self-describe as such. - Merzbow 00:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
"The term is used almost exclusively by partisan left-wing sources..."
Really? Is SeekGod.ca a partisan left-wing source? ThePropheticYears.com? ProphecyForum.com? Can you even provide a non-partisan source that says the term is used almost exclusively by partisan left-wing sources? I doubt it since I just listed 3 sources that obviously put the lie to the claim. 151.151.73.170 00:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Those three sites appear to be random web forums. Salon and Harpers, two well-known left-wing magazines, both rail against Dominionism using hysterical hyperbole, in the articles you link above. From their bylines: "Across the United States, religious activists are organizing to establish an American theocracy. A frightening look inside the growing right-wing movement" and "Feeling the hate with the National Religious Broadcasters". If you feel the term is not used pejoratively, then you won't have any trouble finding sources that show the names in question self-label themselves as such, or trouble finding sources in the non-partisan media that label them as such. - Merzbow 01:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Given your hysterical characterisation of these sources, I don't see how you can expect anyone to see [your actions] as anything but [those of] a far-right activist. Wikipedia is not a place for activism. 72.198.121.115 04:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
He just made my point for me while undoing his own. And he's the guy who claimed I'd been "hoisted by my own petard." Irony bites.
So far no evidence has been presented that any of the sources given violate WP:RS, personal opinions about them being too "left-wing" notwithstanding. And despite his claim, a quick look at SeekGod.ca, ThePropheticYears.com, ProphecyForum.com show that they neither "forums" nor "left-wing." Next. 151.151.21.104 16:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
If you can't see how these are not reliable sources for a controversial claim from the WP:BLP excerpt I gave above, then nothing else I say is going to matter. You remain the only person here who disagrees. If you want ten more people to come here and say the same thing, I'll be glad to post a notice on article RFC or the BLP noticeboard. I really don't think I'm wrong here. - Merzbow 16:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Eh, I'm far from the only one making the same point here, there's 72.198.121.115, Jimsch62, Guettarda, and FeloniousMonk participating above as well. No doubt they'll weigh in later.
Sorry, but both Harpers and Slate have long been considered reliable sources at Wikipedia, regardless of your personal opinion as to their suitability. Reliable sources have been provided and yet both you and Yakuman rush to dismiss them out of personal bias and delete the content they support. That sort of behavior is prohibited by the NPOV as described here: WP:POVPUSH says "It is against Wikipedia policy to remove well-referenced information which is germane to the subject, if one's only grounds for doing so is that "the material advances a point of view" This is backed up by Arbcom ruling: It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view. Should you continue to ignore and dismiss proper sources to obstruct the inclusion of properly sourced individuals in this template, you'll compell us to take this to the next level of dispute resolution. So think carefully about how you want to procede with considering the sources we'll be discussing here soon. 151.151.21.104 16:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
No, some of the last three editors you named made the point above that people who SELF-IDENTIFY as dominionists can be listed as such, not those identified as such just by partisan sources. I am perfectly happy to proceed to the next level of dispute resolution, which is bringing more opinions into the article, therefore I'm posting a notice on the BLP messageboard. - Merzbow 18:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll let them speak for themselves, but I seriously doubt that they support your assertions and notions about which individuals and organizations belong in this template. 151.151.73.167 19:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Good Faith

  • Yes, "Dominionist" is pejorative, but I left it in recent edits. So why is this still an issue?
  • How is quoting obviously non-RS material like "Discernment Ministries" supposed to be reconciled with AGF?
  • What about these subtle layout changes, possibly to justify 3RR complaints about "layout" down the road? See here:[29]

I used to think this was a serious disagreement, but this has me scratching my head. Yakuman (数え役満) 00:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Can you even provide a non-partisan source that says the term is pejorative? I doubt it, as I've been asking for one for over a week now and have yet to see you provide one.
  • Exactly why is Discernment Ministries not a WP:RS?
  • WP:AGF applies to editors of Wikipedia, not articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.151.21.104 (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Hey, WP:RS sources have been provided, see the sections above. Ignore them all you want, they're not going away.
151.151.73.170 00:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If one checks Google Scholar, you can easily see that the term "Dominionism" used here only stems from the 1990s. Now why is that you think? If Dominionism is not a pejorative term, one should be able to ascertain a long tradition of adherents the doctrine of Dominionism. Where are they? --LC 01:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

151.151.73.170, why not sign up for an account? Also, I'd say DM fails as an RS because it is self-published material and has no fact checking or editorial standards. Here's a published editorial (though that is not a reliable source, if interpreted strictly) criticizing the arguments made by Chris Hedges, the author of the Haper's piece, and calling the use of "Dominionism" a pejorative, and here's an article from National Review Online (certainly as reliable a source, if not moreso, than most of the websites already given on the other side) calling Dominionism "conspiratorial nonsense," "political paranoia," "guilt by association," and "flat-out looniness." The term is also rather novel to the latter author, who is quite familiar with the right political landscape.
The issue for me is that Dominionism is used by CRs themselves as a synonym for Christian Reconstructionism as a theological movement but also in a broader sense by the lefties for any righty Christian (whether a CR or not) who wants to apply his Christian ethics to social structures or government or who hints at doing anything not restricted to the "spiritual" world. CRism as a theological position is sometimes conflated with the lefty's Dominionism such that all Dominionists are accused of trying to reinstate the OT law (stoning adulterers, etc.) today. It's just a bit sloppy on these lefties' part. Add to this that no one that I know of (except CRs proper) accepts the label of "dominionist," which is not true of other political pejoratives such as "fundamentalist." Moreover, while "Fascism" is a term used by both the left and right, "Dominionism" is used almost exclusively by the non-centrist left, making it a political pejorative label.
In short, "Dominionism" has made brief appearance in reliable sources, but that does not mean it is not a political pejorative urged (and abused) by the left. --Flex (talk|contribs) 02:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
If you believe that "Dominionism" is nothing but a pejoritive slogan, why don't you edit the actual article, rather than trying to whitewash the template? Verifiability, not truth, is the issue here - we have verifiable, reliable sources for this material. Is your "analysis" supported by any reliable sources, or is your dismissal of these sources simply your own, novel conclusions? 72.198.121.115 04:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately you're still the only person who considers these to be reliable sources. Several editors have now explained why they aren't. The relevant policies are at WP:A and WP:BLP. Please read them. - Merzbow 05:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Really? So the Dominionism article contains nothing that anyone considers reliably sourced? What about 151? As I said, if you thought you had a case, you would address it in the main article. 72.198.121.115 14:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
OTOH, User:72.198.121.115 is probably right that we should focus more attention on Dominionism itself. That would make getting a neutral and accurate template (or even reaching a consensus to delete) easier. --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Sources for the inclusion of individuals in the template have been provided here, and we will be reviewing each of those in depth presently. 151.151.21.104 16:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Issue here is not AFG, but NPOV

A reminder to those here who have been removing individuals from this template:

151.151.21.104 16:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Presenting the names of individuals in that list is stating a controversial opinion as fact, because a list is not article text. In article text, you can say "source A says X, but source B disagrees". You can't say that in a list, it's an either/or thing whether a name is included, and there is no room for commentary. Therefore, those names cannot be there without a consensus of neutral, reliable sources that state they are dominionists. Your sources are exclusively partisan. I don't see how this can be any clearer. - Merzbow 16:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. Exactly what do you and Yakuman consider a "neutral, reliable" source on the issue? So far you've dismissed all and accepted none. Keep in mind what is a neutral, reliable source is described at WP:ATT and WP:RS and WP:V, and they determine what constitutes an accept source, not you, Yakuman or me.
  2. Clearly the Dominionism template needs to list the prominent and notable characters related to the subject. We can all agree on that, right?
  3. Anyone that reliable sources say are prominent and notable persons related to the topic of Dominionism should be listed, right?
  4. Then we just need to list them in such a way that does not assert that they are Dominionists as a fact and the way to do that is to not list them as "Advocates" but as "Said to be associated with the movement" or somesuch. Don't you agree? 151.151.21.104 17:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Listing people as "said to be associated with" is still not appropriate. On controversial issues, the article text has to say exactly who is making the accusation that these people are members of this group, and who disagrees, including the alleged members themselves. This is not a political thing, I would be advocating the same restraint if it was people trying to add left-wingers like Noam Chomsky to a template titled "Anti-Americanism" as someone "said to be associated with anti-Americanism". - Merzbow 18:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
"On controversial issues, the article text has to say exactly who is making the accusation that these people are members of this group, and who disagrees, including the alleged members themselves."
True enough, but this is not an article, it's a template, and if the supporting sources are properly inserted in the relevant articles then their inclusion in this template is supported and justified.
How about answering the questions? Especially number 1. 151.151.73.167 19:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
1 is answered by WP:BLP - non-partisan, mainstream sources like the New York Times, scholarly books or articles, and so on. Once you have found such sources and inserted them into the relevant articles, then we can list the figures as Dominionists. But no such sources exist, because as has been shown repeatedly, the term is only used by partisan opponents of these Religious Right figures. - Merzbow 19:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
"non-partisan, mainstream sources like the New York Times" Both Harpers and Slate (magazine) Salon (magazine) are considered to be in the same journalistic category as the NYT.
WP:BLP#Reliable_sources does not say which specific sources are reliable, only what to watch out for. Since neither Harpers nor Slate Salon have reputations as particularly "partisan websites" or "obscure newspapers" "that print gossip much of which is false" and no one has presented any actual evidence that they are I think it's safe to use them as sources. 151.151.73.167 19:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Umm there is no Slate cite, only Salon, which is a left-wing partisan source, as is Harpers, and the articles on them acknowledge that. (Plus the Salon cite does not label any of the figures in question here as dominionists, so it's not even valid). Regardless, the standard for stating a controversial opinion as fact is very high. See WP:RS: "In the absence of a reliable source of consensus or majority view, opinions should be identified as those of the sources." A simple list states facts. You'll need to be satisfied with going to the articles on Dobson and Warren and mentioning that "Harpers claimed Dobson/Warren is a Dominionist". But in no way will this be stated as fact. - Merzbow 20:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Salon and Harper's are reliable journalistic sources, and have long been accepted as such on Wikipedia. FCYTravis 20:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Certainly, just like The Weekly Standard and National Review Online. Tom Harrison Talk 21:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. For every source on the Left that claims persons X and Y are dominionists, and that dominionism is a threat, I can produce a source on the Right that claims that dominionism is a manufactured threat, and that persons X and Y are not members. By the standards of the IP editor above, I could even add a section to the template called "Not adherents" and add the exact same names to the list, except using the right-wing sources. - Merzbow 21:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you need to read WP:NPOV again, you're way off base. Harpers and Salon are far more mainstream and middle of the road than the right-wing Dominionism denialists you refer to and you'd like to have us believe. 151.151.21.101 22:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Hardly an apt analogy; neither Harpers nor Salon have reputations as being particularly partisan, except with maybe die hard partisans who object to their articles, see entire conversation above. 151.151.21.101 22:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Political opinions expressed in political articles are not truth, and will not be represented as such. With that I've said all I can say on this issue until someone else is willing to stick up for your position, that people can be grouped in categories in Wikipedia solely on the say-so of their political enemies. - Merzbow 23:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
FCYTravis just did. We have two reliable sources, Harpers and Salon, that I and a number of others here support, your objections that they are "biased progressive media" notwithstanding. 151.151.73.164 23:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Where does that quote about "biased progressive media" occur? Tom Harrison Talk 23:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
That would probably be based on Merzbow's "Salon and Harpers, two well-known left-wing magazines, both rail against Dominionism using hysterical hyperbole" and "Your sources are exclusively partisan" (higher up the page). So he actually characterised them as "partisan" "left-wing magazines" employing "hysterical hyperbole". Pretty amusing descriptor of two centrist publications ("left-wing" media in the US? Yeah, really). 72.198.121.115 04:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
He does so here. FeloniousMonk 05:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Merzbow never actually said the words attributed to him in quotation marks. It seems like the commenter would not need to tendentiously paraphrase other people's words if he had a strong argument to begin with. I hope he does do not apply that approach to article-writing. Tom Harrison Talk 12:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Toning down what someone said isn't tendentious. 72.198.121.115 15:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually FCTravis did not agree with you, he simply said that "Salon and Harper's are reliable journalistic sources, and have long been accepted as such on Wikipedia", which I wholeheartedly concur with. Like National Review and Weekly Standard, they publish political opinion pieces, and policy tells us how we may quote them - as opinion, not as fact. It is their reliability that allows us to quote them at all, but their political leanings preclude them from being NEUTRAL sources. - Merzbow 23:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, Salon and Harper's are indeed reliable journalistic sources and have long been accepted as such on Wikipedia, FCYTravis and our anon friends here are absolutely correct. FeloniousMonk 05:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent> Harpers and Salon are reliable sources. They are not the sort of "extreme partisan" sources that you claim them to be. Chris Hedges, the author of the Harper's piece, whose journalistic integrity you are attacking, is a noteworthy and reputable journalist, not the hack you claim he is. The author of the Salon piece has written a book on the topic which was published by Norton. Your assertion that these are unreliable partisan hacks is ridiculous.

More to the point, while there are reliable sources which argue for the inclusion of these people, do you have any reliable sources which argue against them being associated with dominionism? Do you have any sources at all? Or is this just your own unsourced, partisan opinion? 72.198.121.115 04:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If you don't think they are left-wing magazines, then you disagree with the Wikipedia articles on them, which state for Harper's_Magazine and Salon_(magazine), respectively: "Harper's Magazine (or simply Harper's) is a monthly general-interest magazine covering literature, politics, culture, finance, and the arts from a progressive, left perspective" and "Salon covers all of these issues from a liberal political viewpoint". If you are so sure these are neutral, non-partisan magazines, you can easily prove this to me by editing out the words "progressive", "left", and "liberal" from those two sentences in their articles, and making it stick. Let me know when you've done so.
And BTW, here are choice quotes from the two articles you want us to believe are "non-partisan" - "Feeling the hate with the National Religious Broadcasters" and "Across the United States, religious activists are organizing to establish an American theocracy. A frightening look inside the growing right-wing movement." That is hysterical hyperbole by any definition of the term, way beyond partisan.
And these reliable conservative sources argue against the existence of a dominionist movement and/or its misapplication to practically every right-wing Christian by the Left: [30] [31] [32]. Further, there is NO mention at all of the term "dominionism" in any of the numerous major newspapers or magazines acceptable universally as non-partisan in Wikipedia: The NYT, Newsweek, Time, Washington Post, etc. And for the umpteenth time, none of the figures in question identify themselves as such. - Merzbow 04:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
You cite the National Review and Front Page Magazine as reliable sources but you call Harpers and Salon so partisan they are not reliable sources? Amazing. The two sources you offer are the very definition of partisan and make Harpers and Salon look like USA Today. To put it simply: No. Harpers and Salon are fine as sources. Now move along. FeloniousMonk 04:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Harpers and Salon are reliable sources per WP:RS and WP:ATT. They have been considered RS at the project for years. Period. Those who insist they are not RS should either provide some evidence backing up their position or back off; those who misrepresent reliable sources run the risk being viewed and treated as disruptive editors. FeloniousMonk 04:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You're putting up a straw man. The issue is not whether they are RS, which I agree with. (They are also partisan, which is not incompatible with reliable, please look up the definition of the term). The issue is NPOV. Believe it or not, there is another side to the debate (represented by the equally RS National Review, for example) about whether mainstream right-wing Christian figures like Dobson are in fact "dominionists" that is NOT being represented in a template that unequivocally asserts they are "advocates" of it. What would you propose to fix the NPOV issue? - Merzbow 04:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the only issue here is whether policy supports accepting Harpers and Salon as reliable sources for the listing in this template individuals named in their articles as being central to Dominionism, and it does. How many admins have to drop by and tell you this? I see 2 here doing just that already. I can get more if you don't believe us. Your reasoning here is no substitute for the reliable sources we already have. You should reconsider your position and method and find another less disruptive way to contribute to the project. FeloniousMonk 04:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
If you are counting me, I said they are reliable sources just like The Weekly Standard and National Review Online. Chris Hedges is fine. So is Bernard Goldberg. Tom Harrison Talk 13:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to count you. That makes 3, you, Travis, and myself. FeloniousMonk 14:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
A year ago you made this suggestion about a category - "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?" In the spirit of that suggestion would you agree to renaming the "Advocates" header to something more neutral, like just "People"? - Merzbow 05:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

How is it that none of the references you provided to support your deletions from the article actually do so? Did you even bother to read the sources you provided?

I asked for sources to support your deletion of material from the template. For the most part, they don't even mention the people and groups you removed. Once again, do you have anything beyond your own opinion, unsupported by any sources whatsoever? 72.198.121.115 12:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

In general we need sources to include material, not to remove it. If it were obvious that Rick Warren is an advocate of dominionism, I would expect that to be presented and cited in his article. Until it is, his name should not be listed on this template. Tom Harrison Talk 14:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely - we need sources to include material. Of course, we have sources. Merzbow is removing sourced content, claiming that the material is too controversial, despite these sources. But is this true? Does anyone credibly challenge the fact that these people and groups should be considered dominionist? I have nothing to go on but Merzbow's assertion (which, based on the assertions s/he has made elsewhere in this conversation are prone to be unreliable) and Yakuman's (again, a highly unreliable source). If we are to represent material fairly we need to balance reliable sources with reliable sources, not reliable sources with uncited opinions. 72.198.121.115 15:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Go edit Rick Warren and add the source then. Tom Harrison Talk 16:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you always this rude, Tom? 72.198.121.115 17:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
You obviously don't understand Wikipedia policy on sourcing very well, do you? Material has to be "supported by sources", not "included in a Wikipedia article". You really shouldn't comment on policy and guidelines if you are unfamiliar with them. 72.198.121.115 13:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

protected

I protected the page from editing until the content dispute is resolved. This is not an endorsement of the current content of the page. CMummert · talk 00:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

How about deleting this template

Dominionism seems like it is an opinion held by very few people. Why does it need its own template? Steve Dufour 06:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That was my suggestion above, but others voiced strong opposition. If that's a path we should pursue, I'd suggest that some work should be put into making Dominionism more neutral by including reliable sources from the other side so that the case for deletion can be made from the stable and neutral text of the article rather than scattered, back-and-forth rhetoric on a talk page. --Flex (talk|contribs) 12:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Because it is informative, making it particularly necessary since Dominionism does not get huge media coverage and is subject to all sorts of misinformation. Still, I suppose the purpose of an encyclodia educate it's readers is a silly notion when easily-offended sensibilities are in play. I say keep it. 151.151.21.104 00:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no Template for Deletion discussion at the cited page, so I removed the notice at the top of this page. Dominionism is a tendency within the U.S. Christian Right. The term can be found in scholarly studies, popular books, and numerous periodicals widely used on Wikipedia as Reliable Sources. This template needs to be used cautiously, and all links tied to credible sources, but it deserves to be retained. --Cberlet 01:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I still don't see why a template is needed for such a minor topic. Wouldn't it be better to just have an article so that the relationships could be more fully explained rather than just slapping someone's name in an info box? Steve Dufour 04:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I've yet to see any compelling reason why it should be deleted. It's informative and useful. FeloniousMonk 15:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Dominionism has been so much used by academics that JSTOR gives me a total of 10 results for the term. I have checked major newspaper outfits, like the LA Times, WSJ, NY Times and Washington Post, and the story is no different. I did find a letter to the editor by D. James Kennedy, that he does not see himself part of the movement around Christian Reconstructionists, like North and Rushdoony, but this was when I searched for that term instead. There does not seem to exist a self-conscious Dominionism movement. I believe that even North and Rushdoony are not that happy with each other, but have to look that up again. --LC 18:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
It's pointless to challenge FM or others here with facts. This template is entirely belief-based. Grace Note 00:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is a fact. Sara Diamond's book, Roads to Dominion. A major sociological study. Just because you don't like the term does not mean it is invalid.--Cberlet 02:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Nice projection, Grace. Let's see, in your world view material that is supported by citations to reliable sources as "belief based", while your opinions, unsupported by any sources, are "facts"? Terribly funny. 72.198.121.115 03:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Chip, you must be having a slow on the uptake day. I don't dispute that your faction calls these people "dominionists", nor does anyone else. (And as usual, you cite to your own faction as proof that a position is widely held.) I suggested that labelling a set of articles with your faction's description of the people you were labelling is POV. Spare me though, any more proofs that a very small subset of commentators uses the term. I know they do, Chip. You might more profitably use your time reading the section on undue weight in the NPOV policy. As for me, I have better things to do than fight a clique who are WP:OWNing an article. Grace Note 05:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Really? Chip replied to: It's pointless to challenge FM or others here with facts. This template is entirely belief-based, so calling someone "slow on the uptake" for reply to what you said is clearly a gratuitous insult. You actually have to say what you mean. Thnining it isn't good enough - people can't pick up on your unspoken thoughts. Calling people "slow on the uptake" for replying to what you actually wrote, instead of what you meant to write... that's just funny. 72.198.121.115 12:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
How WP:OWN appliess here is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. And since when did Wikipedia only allow templates/categories that have the approval of the subject group they cover? This template is well supported by reliable sources and is informative and useful. Grace Note's seething tone in his responses here is far more informative than his reasoning. Odd nature 00:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Dobson and Dominionism

Have ignorant reporters, who don't know theology from their rear ends asserted that Dobson was a Dominionist? Yes. Is there any substantive basis for those assertions. No. Read the articles on Dominionism and Christian Reconstructionism. Disagree with Dobson all you wish, but let him speak for himself. Don't stupidly attribute a splinter strain of Calvinist thought on a Wesleyan Arminian who hasn't ever taught anything approaching what Christian Reconstructionists have taught. Frjohnwhiteford 04:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

To illustrate my point here: Hal Lindsey is listed as a critic of Dominionism. Can anyone tell me why he is not a Domionists, while Dobson is? Also, Hal Lindsey is also a member of the National Regious Broadcasters Association. So is he both a critic of and an advocate of Dominionism at the same time? Frjohnwhiteford 10:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:V - the standard for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. That you "know" something to be "true" just doesn't cut it. 72.198.121.115 11:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Verifying that people who hate Dobson claim he is a Dominionist does not make the claim that he is in fact an advocate of Dominionism "verified". People claim the moon landing was faked. This has not been verified... beyond the fact that nutty people claim it to be so. Frjohnwhiteford 17:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it is best for the template to be renamed to Christian Reconstructionism, because that is what we are actually discussing here, not Dobson, not Kennedy, not Weyrich, but Christian Reconstructionism. That's how the movement is actually discussed in few academic source I could find, which make no explicit mention of these last mentioned persons being Reconstructionist as well. Dominionism here has almost taken up a sort of conspiracy theory. --LC 17:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Christian Reconstructionism is one subset of dominionism. Main source is Sara Diamond's PhD dissertation and the book that came from it - clearly academic work. 72.198.121.115 22:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
And what substantive proof does she offer that Dobson is a Dominionist? Frjohnwhiteford 00:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The sources provided are acceptable reliable sources, as a number of admins mention in sections above, and indeed support the inclusion Dobson et al in this template. I don't see any real issue here. Odd nature 00:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The sources don't provide any substantive basis for the claim. If they do, tell me why Hal Lindsey is not a Dominionist and Dobson is. Politically, Hal Lindsey is slightly to the right of Dobson. Name any example of why Dobson is called a Dominionist, and I will show you why it is more so the case with Hal Lindsey... and yet it is asserted that Dobson is an "advocate" of Dominionism, and Lindsey is a "Critic". Why? Frjohnwhiteford 00:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The sources given are perfectly acceptable and support the content. FeloniousMonk 01:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have a Kook Liberal Conspiracy Theories Template

And add "Dominionism" to it. Frjohnwhiteford 19:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

All we need is verifiability, not truth. :-) Here's one source. --Flex (talk|contribs) 19:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Scroll up a bit, Flex, or check out the main article - there are dozens of references. 72.198.121.115 22:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Read WP:POINT. Perhaps you should just drop it and move along... Odd nature 00:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Why should baseless claims that are contrary to fact be allowed to remain? Why don't those making the baseless claims let it drop, and deal with Dobson on the substance of his actual positions rather than engaging in ad hominem and guilt by association (and false association, in this case)? Frjohnwhiteford 00:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The bar for inclusion at Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. And proper sources have been provided, see the previous discussion. Your edit warring and misrepresenting the sources provided here and that of your friend is becoming disruptive, please reconsider your method of contributing to wikipedia. FeloniousMonk 01:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
In what way have I misrepresented the sources here? Dominionism is a theological set of beliefs... if the label means anything. What are the theological credentials of the authors of the sources in question? In other words, what is it about their assertions that would incline us to assume that they know what they are talking about? I have yet to see anyone in this discussion produce a single quote from Dobson himself in which he has ever advocated Dominionism. A search of Focus on the Family's web site did not turn up any reference to Dominionism or to any of the real advocates of Christian Reconstructionism. So we are left with the mere assertions of people who don't like Dobson, and wish to portray him as something that better fits their preconceived notions about Christian Conservatives. Frjohnwhiteford 02:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Fr. John, as I said above, I think the best way to resolve this dispute is to neutralize Dominionism itself. For one, it's a lot easier for independent observers to read a polished article and check its sources than to assess mounds of (sometimes vitriolic) discussion. The contents of the template should come directly from that, not from sources listed here. BTW, you might consider adding a "Dominionism doubters" section to the template for those who think it is bunk and have said so in reliable sources. :-) --Flex (talk|contribs) 00:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Advocates and Alleged Advocates

Now we have User:FeloniousMonk refusing to allow the words "Alleged" in the template, on the basis that sources have been provided. No source has been provided that proves anything other than that this is "Alleged". Please provide the substantive evidence for these allegations that proves them? If you want to avoid weasle words here, delete the template, because otherwise the Template is making assertions of fact that the sources do not substantiate.Frjohnwhiteford 01:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You need to read WP:WEASEL along with WP:V and WP:RS. Until you even acknowledge these policies and guidelines, much less demonstrate that you understand them, I see no reason to take your objections seriously. FeloniousMonk 01:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
What are the sources that support listing Dobson as an advocate of dominionism? Tom Harrison Talk 02:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
It is listed in the section above "Sources for James Dobson, Focus on the Family, National Religious Broadcasters, Southern Baptist Convention," The source is Harpers: [33] (subscription required, reprinted here: [34]) You already conceded Harpers is a reliable source at that time this was being discussed. FeloniousMonk 02:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Tom Monaghan

Under provisions of our policy on biographies of living people, I am removing "Financier of Dominionism" Tom Monaghan until citations establishing this are provided. I'll also post at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Tom Harrison Talk 02:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, the sources for Monaghan are Rolling Stone [35] and Christian Science Monitor [36] and are presented above two weeks ago in the section "Sources for Kennedy, Monaghan, DeVos, Land, Moore, Balmer" This is really getting ridiculous (and transparent) Tom. Please read the sources already given before removing any more content. FeloniousMonk 02:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Um, the Rolling Stone article proves that Tom Monaghan donated to Focus on the Family. Focus on the Family has never advocated Dominionism... please cite the evidence to the Contrary. Tom Monaghan is not even mentioned in the Christian Science article you reference. Got anything else? If not, you don't have any evidence to substantiate your assertion here. Frjohnwhiteford 02:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The CSM appears not to mention Monaghan, and the passing mention in Rolling Stone is not near adequate to support tagging the guy as a Financier of Dominionism. Tom Harrison Talk 02:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, sure, I believe you. And you never use dishonest edit summaries either. 72.198.121.115 03:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
More to the point - if you can't tell that rollback shouldn't be used in content disputes, if you don't understand that you should not use threats to win content disputes, and if you don't understand that you BLP doesn't apply to organizations... Given that you haven't got a shred of credibility on this topic, why are we supposed to accept your pronouncement that a reference isn't "good enough"? Just because you say so? If you can't even figure out what the BLP policy says, I see no reason to trust your opinion on this issue. The Rolling Stone article clearly lists Monaghan as a financier of Dominionist groups. 72.198.121.115 04:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely right, Rolling Stone clearly lists Monaghan as a financier of Dominionism. The misrepresentation of sources here is appalling and unbecoming an admin. FeloniousMonk 04:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Rolling Stone merely states: "And Tom Monaghan, founder of Domino's Pizza, is a major source of cash for Focus on the Family, a megaministry working with Kennedy to eliminate all public schools." As if Focus on the Family's purpose was to eliminate all public schools. This article only proves that Monaghan has given to a Family oriented organization... which even the Communist Chinese have seen the benefit of, and so they play translations of some Focus on the Family shows in their media... not because they want to promote religion, but because they have concerns about the state of families in China... and this is a militantly atheistic government that forces women to have abortions. Does that make the People's Republic of China an Advocate of Dominionism? See this article. Be consistant, please put the PRC on the Dominionism Template. Frjohnwhiteford 04:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
What the heck... it's not truth that matters, after all, just verifiability. Since we have verified that Tom Monaghan is a supporter of Dominionism because he supports Focus on the Family, so is the Chinese Communist Party, for the same reason.Frjohnwhiteford 04:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
What source are you talking about? All I see is a dead link, so I have no idea what sort of source you are using, and what the context may be. The Rolling Stone article discusses TM's support for Dobson in the context of dominionism. You need to read the whole paragraph...context matters. 72.198.121.115 07:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
These sources:
"Dobson’s estimated listening audience is over 220 million people every day, including a program translation carried on all state-owned radio stations in the Republic of China." People for the American Way.
"His commentaries are heard by more than 220 million people by way of radio every day, including a translation of a program carried on state-owned radio stations in the Republic of China. Focus on the Family
"His commentaries are heard by more than 200 million people every day, including a program translation carried on China National Radio in the People's Republic of China. The Evangelical Outpost (website run by the Director of Web Communications for Family Research Council).
"My commentaries are now heard on the vast state-owned China National Radio Network across the country and read in the Beijing Evening News." James Dobson, from the Focus on the Family Website Frjohnwhiteford 10:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


Also: Jon Sugg, Sojourner Magazine[37] 72.198.121.115 04:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

That article is probably based on the Rolling Stone article, or some other such article that speaks of James Kennedy and Dobson together. I wouldn't say it is impossible, but I think it is not very likely that Monaghan would give money to James Kennedy, who is a pastor of a Presbyterian Church. Focus on the Family is a non-denominational ministry which a pious Roman Catholic could more easily support. I would need to see references to donation records before I would be convinced that Sojourner had it right here. However, even then, James Kennedy's ministry does not openly advocate Dominionism. I wouldn't say emphatically that he is not sympathetic to them, because he is a Calvinist, and so is not opposed in principle to the starting assumptions of Dominionism (unlike Dobson), but I have never heard him advocate such ideas, and I have listened to him a lot over the years. Even if he is sympathetic to some Reconstructionist ideas, I would say very few people would have noticed this, and so could hardly be assumed to endorse ideas that are not emphasized by the ministry. Frjohnwhiteford 04:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I have again removed Tom Monaghan. No new sources have been provided, and the passing mention in Rolling Stone is not adequate to support listing him as a 'Financier of Dominionism'. Tom Harrison Talk 13:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No new sources? Are you simply making false claims to be disruptive Tom? 72.198.121.115 14:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I have again removed Tom Monaghan, and blocked the anon above to keep him from re-adding it. Posted for review and comment here and at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Tom Harrison Talk 14:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

While it doesn't call him a financier, Mother Jones also links Monaghan to dominionism [38] 72.198.121.115 15:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Mother Jones says he supported the Pat Buchanan for President campaign. It says nothing about him supporting Dominionism.Frjohnwhiteford 10:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism and WP:POINT

This is simple vandalism in the name of WP:POINT, something Frjohnwhiteford has already been warned about. FeloniousMonk 05:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

How is it Vandalism? I have provided verifiable sources that the Communist Party of China supports Focus on Family. Tom Monaghan is labled a Dominionist for the same reason. Why is it not vandalism (or rather slander) to put his name on there? Truth doesn't matter, just verifiability. Want mores sources to prove that the Communist Chinese play Focus on the Family on all their State Owned Radio Stations?Frjohnwhiteford 05:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Please, we both know that the PRC, being communist, are avowed atheists. You're simply trying to make a point, which is a very bad idea; hence vandalism. I suggest you revert yourself immediately, your point has been made. FeloniousMonk 05:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
We also know that Tom Monaghan, is an avowed Roman Catholic, and James Dobson, is an avowed Wesleyan Arminian, and as such are not Calvinists... and Dominionism is a theory that comes from Calvinism. But in Tom Monaghan's case it seems that supporting Focus on the Family alone qualifies him as a Dominionist, and so the Chinese Communists, who support Focus on the Family are just as much Domonionists as he is.Frjohnwhiteford 05:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
"Want mores sources to prove that the Communist Chinese play Focus on the Family on all their State Owned Radio Stations". More than zero? That might be nice. And I take it that if you are being honest and this isn't vandalism, that these sources that you have promised (but not supplied) discuss Chinese support for Dobson in the context of dominionism, right? Surely a priest wouldn't be making false claims here. 72.198.121.115 08:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is more than sufficient proof that the Communist Chinese support Focus on the Family:
"Dobson’s estimated listening audience is over 220 million people every day, including a program translation carried on all state-owned radio stations in the Republic of China." People for the American Way.
"His commentaries are heard by more than 220 million people by way of radio every day, including a translation of a program carried on state-owned radio stations in the Republic of China. Focus on the Family
"His commentaries are heard by more than 200 million people every day, including a program translation carried on China National Radio in the People's Republic of China. The Evangelical Outpost (website run by the Director of Web Communications for Family Research Council).
"My commentaries are now heard on the vast state-owned China National Radio Network across the country and read in the Beijing Evening News." James Dobson, from the Focus on the Family Website Frjohnwhiteford 10:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frjohnwhiteford (talk • contribs) 10:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

I rewrote the entry on Dominionism becasue it was full of demonstrably false claims, uncited POV essays. and a whole section on Rushdoony and Christian Reconstructionism that belonged on the Christian Reconstructionism page where it has been moved to. Dominionism is a political tendency based on a particular reading of the Bible. Christian Reconstructionism came out of Calvinism as a postmillennial theology. Please read the page on Dominion Theology. Sara Diamond and other scholars are quite clear that Dominionism is a political tendency that crosses denomination and non-denominational lines, and includes both premillennialists and postmillennialists. There ae also a number of hard line traditionalist, Integralist, or neo-Carlist Catholics who are Dominionists as defined by Diamond and others. Monaghan's penchant for dominionism should be cited with better sources, but much of the discussion of Dominionism above is based on a misunderstanding of what it is. Diamond, Clarkson, Goldberg and others explain it very well.--Cberlet 14:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Better sourcing would solve most of the blp issues. Is it just me, or is 'Financiers' a bit tendentious here? It leads me to imagine Snidely Whiplash twirling his mustache and demanding the rent. Tom Harrison Talk 15:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Since whenn are Rolling Stone, Christian Science Monitor and Harpers not reliable sources at Wikipedia? And why? The sources provided are plenty sufficient to support the names being included in the template. FeloniousMonk 15:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say Rolling Stone (the only source that mentions Monaghan) was not a reliable source. It is a fine source, and so far the only one that mentions Monaghan, if only in passing. The Christian Science Monitor does not mention Monaghan, as I told you already above. Neither does Hedges' article in Haropers mention Monaghan. Only the Rolling Stone article mentions Monaghan, and only in passing - certainly not to the point of supporting a characterization of 'Financier of Dominionism'. I don't understand why you would list sources in support of including Monaghan that do not mention him. Because, you know, the Christian Science Monitor does not mention Monaghan. Also, Hedges' article in Harpers does not mention Monaghan. So far, only Rolling Stone mentions him. Not Harpers, not the Christian Science Monitor - no mention of Monaghan in those. So I wonder why you keep mentioning those in support of including Monaghan on the list when they do not mention Monaghan. Tom Harrison Talk 15:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
There are too many articles here in order to make a concerned contribution, it is quite frankly a mess. For example, there is this article Dominion Theology, that talks about Kingdom Now being part of a "broader movement." This is bullocks. Kingdom Now is Pentecostal, and shares little with Christian Reconstructionism, except for its postmillennialism (personal contacts between the two are few). It's like saying that Hitler is a vegetarian and Joan Rivers is a vegetarian, and that therefore, they are part of the same movement of "Vegetarians Unite." There are other points, such as the mentioning of Genesis 1:26 (Dominionism#Dominion). Another dubious claim. Christian Reconstructionists do not take their ordering of society from Genesis 1:26, they use other sources for that. Besides, Genesis 1:26 is not at all controversial, many Christian democratic political movements refer to it when talking about stewardship over the Earth. --LC 16:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocks over alleged BLP vios

Before any more admins involved in the content dispute here issue anymore blocks on participants, anon or not, they'd better: 1) Seek a neutral, and I meanneutral, admin to review and make the block if required. Take it to WP:AN/I and let the community decide. 2) Make sure there is an actual BLP violation. Blocking someone because you think a source widely recognized across the project as a reliable source, like Rolling Stone, Christian Science Monitor or Harpers, is suddenly not acceptable is simply indefensible and unacceptable. 3) Not ignoring, misrepresenting or dismissing notable sources long accepted as reliable sources at Wikipedia. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Ignoring and misrepresenting sources is a hallmark of disruptive editing, and no more acceptable than blocking someone you're personally involved in a content dispute with. If this sort of behavior continues the community's patience will soon be exhausted and will result in the matter being escalated through one or more of the various avenues available. FeloniousMonk 15:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Did I mention that the Christian Science Monitor and Harpers do not mention Monaghan? Because they do not. Tom Harrison Talk 16:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
It looks to me like a neutral admin reviewed the block and declined to lift it. Then you went against BOTH of them and undid the block. I think it's your own behavior you need to be worried about, not Tom's. Frise 21:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Tom keeps making the false claim that there was only one source, when there are two independent sources. People expect him to tell the truth - something he isn't doing. 72.198.121.115 01:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
One source that states he gave a lot of money to Focus on the Family, and one source that says he gave money to the Pat Buchanan for President Campaign. Frjohnwhiteford 10:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I am a neutral admin, and I am following the discussion here. I protected this page earlier this month for edit warring, but I don't think that more protection will solve the problem, which is to find a way to provide source information for the bullet points in the template. CMummert · talk 01:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see the section below about the workshop page I have created. CMummert · talk 01:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Rich DeVos

Under our policy on biographies of living people, I have removed Rich DeVos from the list of 'Financiers of Dominionism.' The only source I can find is one article in Rolling Stone. That is not adequate to support listing him here. Tom Harrison Talk 19:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Additional advocates of "Soft Dominionism"

If this is the definition: "Within the Christian Right, concern over social, cultural, and political issues such as abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, sympathy for Israel sometimes expressed as Christian Zionism, the banning of teacher-led prayer in the public schools, and the reduction of overtly fundamentalist Christian perspectives in the public square has prompted participation in elections since the 1970s. Activists and intellectuals in the Christian Right work in a coalition of religious conservatives, operating through the Republican Party to promote their influence."

By this definition, three Critics listed on the Dominionism Template need to also be listed as advocates of Dominionism:

All three fit this definition perfectly.

Also, aside from their not being active in the Republican Party or Zionists, I think we should add these notable Dominionists as well:

Another problem with this definition, aside from its sweeping all pro-life Christians under this heading, is that it contradicts the Supersessionism part of the Template, which is in fact a belief held by real Christian Reconstructionists.

Frjohnwhiteford 00:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I really must object to the continuous misrepresentations and false statements by Frjohnwhiteford. I resent having my time wasted with disruptive trivializations and bogus arguments. The paragraph cited above is not a definition of Dominionism. Dominionism, Dominionism Theology, and Christian Reconstructionism are three related but different things. The same material is posted by Frjohnwhiteford on the Dominionism entry. This discussion is contentious and difficult enough without this type of disruptive juvenile crap.--Cberlet 04:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
That is the definition in the article given for "Generic Dominionism". If it isn't, where can we find such a definition in that section, and why is this how the generic Dominionism section begins? I don't believe it is trivial, bogus, contentious, or juvenile crap to point out that the definition of Generic Dominionism applies exactly to three of the primary critics of "Dominionsim" list on the Dominionism Template, or that it is so broad as to include any pro-life Christian who doesn't think gay marriage should be the law of the land -- because that does in fact include the Pope and Mother Theresa. Tell me why it isn't so, rather than engaging in ad hominem. Frjohnwhiteford 10:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Rather than describing them as "continuous misrepresentations and false statements", one generally describes others' views as "others' views" on this encyclopaedia. Also, one should try not to attack others' opinions, however poor one feels they are, as "disruptive juvenile crap". If you weren't a protected editor, you'd likely be facing sanction for your behaviour on this page. As it is, I'll remind you that however poorly you think of others' views, you should oblige yourself to treat them with respect. This is not a forum for you simply to express your point of view, Chip, particularly not when you are synthesising a novel approach to a subject but one in which we report various views fairly. I know I am wasting my time telling you that, but you do need reminding of it. Grace Note 05:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


I think when an editor is obviously being disruptive through snide remarks and unconstructive haggling it needs to be pointed out. The page on Dominionism is a wreck. It is barely coherent. The section on generic dominionism was cobbled together in a way that through rewrites created a reference to dominionism that was supposed to refer to "Christian Nationalism" and instead followed a section that was originally a historic account of the rise of the Christian Right that was for context. It was not a definition of generic dominionism, it was a series of unrelated sentences. Constructive editing would involve rewriting the Dominionism page based on cites to reputable published sources. Go back and look at this early version. What has happened is that the original cites have been buried in incoherent garbage. This incoherent garbage is then cited on this page to argue that there is no proper use of the term "Domnionism," or that the term itself is POV. The first step is to rewrite the related pages Dominionism, Dominion Theology, and Christian Reconstructionism based on reputable published cites. I am not a "protected editor," I am an editor who loses his temper when forced to wade through the type of "disruptive juvenile crap" that a number of editors here have engaged in during the past few weeks. Grace Note, I see your claim above that:
  • "Dominionism" is an epithet. I hold no brief for the movement, far from it, but I do not see why the antis should use their terminology here. It is not anything like neutral to do so. Adherents of reconstructionism do not like the label and some explicitly reject it. So why are we using it? (Not that I don't know why. I mean why are we tolerating it?) Grace Note 04:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
So please do not for a moment pretend you have not brought a combative POV into this discussion, just like Frjohnwhiteford, and frankly several others on many sides of this dispute. The edit wars on this and related pages are not helped by this type of POV rhetoric. There are numerous pages where terms developed by scholars and used by reputable journalists are considered appropriate. So I ask both Grace Note and Frjohnwhiteford, do you want to continue to feed a pointless and time wasting edit war, or do you want to help rewrite Dominionism, Dominion Theology, and Christian Reconstructionism so they meet Wiki guidelines and have proper citations? Otherwise we can expect more "disruptive juvenile crap" rather than constructive collaborative editing.--Cberlet 02:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I do not see how pointing out the illogic of a current line of argumentation is disruptive... at least not how it would be seen as disruptive to people who are interested in the truth rather than obscuring it. The fact is "generic dominionism" is a made up term that is so poorly and broadly defined that it does encompass Mother Theresa. If you disagree, please tell me how I am wrong. Frjohnwhiteford 03:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The term is used by reputable scholars in printed publication. It is not "made up." I have rewritten the entire "Dominionism" article using published cites. Please go back and read the new definitions.--Cberlet 13:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

New workshop page created - important notice

I have created a page named Template talk:Dominionism/Workshop to allow editors to present evidence for proposed additions to the template. Just put the references, preferably with dierct quotes, into the appropriate section of the workshop page.

Following the edit warring policy, I am willing to block editors who add material to the template without first presenting source(s) on the workshop page, who delete material without explaining why the sources are invalid, etc. I have no stake in whether material is included in the template or not; this solution is intended to move the discussion here forward. CMummert · talk 01:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Important question

I do not see how we can proceed with this page until the basic page on Dominionism is rewritten with proper cites to establish a proper definition of the term "Dominionism." There seems to be substantial confusion about the differences among Dominionism, Dominion Theology, and Christian Reconstructionism. I think this page is needed to find all the proper cites, and weed out improper entries, but does it not make sense first to clean up the basic entry on the term itself?--Cberlet 02:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Tom Harrison makes a good point. I just went back and rewrote the entire Dominionism page using published cites.--Cberlet 13:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that is a good way to go, as long as any blp issues on this template are dealt with as they are discovered. Tom Harrison Talk 13:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
It is hard to object with that, but this template needs to be handled. Can I propose that we retask this template as a "Series on the Religious Right" instead of a "Series on Dominionism"? Unlike Dominionism, Religious Right is a term used widely across reliable media of all viewpoints; it is probably 50 times more familiar to the average reader, and is thus a better choice anyways. I have no objection to any of these people or organizations being labeled as a member of the "Religious Right", and 100 articles (not just political opinion pieces) from the NY Times, Wash Post, Newsweek, and so on can be cited to back this up.- Merzbow 02:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that is a much better idea, and might actually illumine the matter rather than obscuring it, as the current template does. I also agree with the need to clean up the Dominionism article, however, to do so properly will require that its focus narrow to a properly defined set of ideas, rather than the "evil Christian blob" that it describes now. Frjohnwhiteford 03:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Well said, and that seems to be in progress. Tom Harrison Talk 13:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
This would also have the advantage that most of the organizations and individuals who would be included in such a series would not argue with the "Religious Right" definition; many would and do embrace it. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
There is already a category for New Right. A template would be unwieldily large. --LC 12:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The New Right includes a subset called the Christian Right which includes a subset dubbed "Dominionist." They are not equivalent. I just rewrote the Dominionism page to make this more clear. Not everyone in the Christian Right is "Dominionist."--Cberlet 13:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your continuing effort to provide precision and accuracy, which in my view is under-appreciated by those who wrestle with you. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ideas?

The half-baked nature of this template is shown rather clearly in it's first category -- Ideas:

1) Biblical Theology

Not a word in this article about dominionism. One might as well put Monotheism into the mix here.

2) Separation of church and state

At least a topic related to the matter at hand.

3) Postmillennialism

Let's see... the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Reformed Church, the Lutheran Church, the Anglican Church... just the vast majority of Christendom is included here. Also, not a single word in that article about Dominionism.

4) Supersessionism

Ditto. It is actually a very small minority of American Evangelicals who do not adhere to this idea, and of those who do, some are listed as advocates of Dominionism... such as James Dobson. Again, not a single word in the article about Dominionism.

5) Theonomy

This is the only article that really belongs here, and is the only one that has the Dominionism template on it.

Frjohnwhiteford 03:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Frjohn raises some good points. Much of the problem with this template is that there are at least three distinct definitions of "Dominionism" in use today: 1) Reconstructionism/Dominion Theology, 2) the Diamond/Berlet definition of people who (allegedly) hold to a particular interpretation of Genesis 1:28, and 3) the Hedges et al definition of people who think Christians should have political influence. The template conflates these definitions, and it is often unclear under which definition a particular item is listed.
Postmillenialism and Theonomy are particular topics related to Reconstructionism and not other definitions of Dominionism. Supersessionism, as Frjohn points out, is a somewhat technical point of theology held by some "Dominionists" but not others, and I'm not sure why it is here (perhaps it was intended to mean God's law superseding secular law?). I agree with Frjohn that Biblical Theology is rather too broad to belong here, though I think Separation of C&S does apply to Dominionism regardless of the latter's definition. --BlueMoonlet 13:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
There are two problems with including Separation of Church and State under "Dominionists Ideas": 1) It isn't a Dominionist idea, and 2) the article makes no mention of Dominionism. It would make more sense to put Theocracy here. Now if there were a section on issues related to Dominionism, it would certainly fit... but the Template is already too long, in my opinion.
As for Supersessionism this is the historic Christian belief that the New Covenant supersedes the Old... and that there are not two plans of Salvation in God's economy (one for the Jews, and another one for the Gentiles). This is not a unique idea to Dominionism, and if you are going to include this, you might as well include Christology, Trinitarianism, Justification, Sanctification, and a whole host of Christian concepts that Dominionists happen to share with the rest of Christendom. Frjohnwhiteford 02:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Separation of C&S is not a Dominionist idea, but it is a specifically anti-Dominionist idea, so it is relevant to the topic. I agree with you on Theocracy and Supersessionism. --BlueMoonlet 13:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The template could be more useful if it were simpler and shorter. Headings could be 'Ideas', 'People', and 'Critics', or maybe list critics under 'People' and have a heading for 'Organizations'. Tom Harrison Talk 12:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have had this template on my watchlist ever since the disputes over it a few months ago, and am continuing to watch it in case problems arise. As an observer, I would like to point out that the extreme length of the template (two screens high) might justify changing it from a side box to a box that goes at the bottom of the article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox policy?

I am surprised that I cannot find very much in the WP policy pages on infoboxes. WP:IB is simply a list of the infoboxes defined on WP. WP:IBT gives some practical advice on creating an infobox, but does not give any guidelines as to appropriate content. There is a list of proposed infoboxes, but it does not appear that much of a review is conducted to ensure compliance with any policy.

My concern, as some of us have extensively discussed on Talk:Dominionism, is whether listing a person/organization/topic under a category in an infobox is implicitly a claim of consensus, and what the standards for such should be. Is there any relevant policy statement that I am missing? --BlueMoonlet 17:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. There is a statement on WP:TFD that templates must satisfy WP:NPOV, which of course they must. But WP:NPOV does not mention infoboxes or templates, and does not discuss whether their very nature prevents any kind of balance of multiple POVs, or whether they constitute WP:RS#Claims of consensus. --BlueMoonlet 17:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Reported?

I will agree that adding "reported" is an improvement over the previous text, but "alleged" would be far more accurated. One might wonder who is doing the reporting here. Also, one reports facts that are witnessed. One alleges facts that are yet in dispute. There is no proof that most of those who are alleged to be dominionists are such. The only thing we can say with certainty is that there are some who make the claim... and in many cases, the claim is made without any evidence having ever been presented to substantiate it beyond the fact that someone has made the assertion, and the assertion was published. Frjohnwhiteford 02:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I rather agree. --BlueMoonlet 13:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Oddnature is again pressing this question, and now makes the amazing claim that "alleged" is a "pejorative term". "Alleged" is in fact a very neutral term, and it simply states what is known for sure here... that there are people who make the claim. To say that someone is "reported" as an advocate, implies that there are facts to report. It also begs the question of who is doing the reporting. There are also people who "report" that many of these people are not advocates. Since templates do not afford citations, or context, if you are going to include people as "advocates" who do not agree that they are advocates, and about whom others do not agree that they advocates, you cannot simply attach the label without a very clear qualification that it is simply alleged that they are such. No one can deny that it is alleged. No if you want to remove from the list the names of those who are not generally acknowledged to be Dominionists, then feel free to remove the qualification "Alleged". Frjohnwhiteford 04:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Qualifiers

I would like to restate the consensus that was reached here regarding qualifiers in the template's subject headings. It is clearly appropriate for WP to report a reliable source stating that "X is a Dominionist". However, WP does not endorse that statement as a fact, but attributes it the source as his/her opinion. However, listing a person (or organization) under a category in an infobox goes a step beyond this; it does not report the judgment of a RS and attribute the statement to that source, but rather endorses the identification as a fact. In short, it is a claim of consensus.

If no consensus exists identifying a person or organization as Dominionist (and clearly it does not exist, either among RS's or WP users, for many listed in this infobox), then the infobox must qualify the identification with "reported" or "alleged" or the like. Alternatively, the identification could be dropped altogether. The point is that the qualifier is not itself a viewpoint; rather, it exists to prevent the infobox from endorsing a viewpoint. Cberlet and Tom harrison have both supported this solution.

User:Odd nature claims that such qualifiers violate "policy or guideline". I was only just now musing on the lack of clear infobox policies that we can apply to this discussion, but perhaps I have missed something. I would be grateful if ON could point out the policy to which he is referring. --BlueMoonlet 00:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"Alleged" as a pejorative term

Arkalochori has now argued in his edit summary that "alleged is pejorative, compared to reported, and it is reported by sources used as citations". The problem is that this template has no citations. If it were a part of the Dominionism article, you might have a point, but it isn't, and it appears on many other articles without such citations. Secondly, the template does not specify who reports it, or on what basis they report it. Thirdly, the idea that "alleged" is a pejorative term is simple nonsense. It is a legal term, and is quite precise. The news media uses it all the time to distinguish that which is asserted as fact from that which has been established as fact. That James Dobson is a Dominionist, for example, is an assertion of fact that has not been proven, nor does this assertion reflect a consensus of opinion. It in fact reflects a very small minority of people who hold such an opinion. In an article you can say "Joe blow asserts that Susie Q is a Dominionist", if you can in fact cite where Joe Blow has made such an assertion, but to say "Susie Q is a reported as Dominionist", without any context or qualifications... when Joe Blow is the only one making such an assertion is falacious, unfair, and contrary to the NPOV policy of wikipedia. Frjohnwhiteford 01:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not assertion that we are making, we are relying on the work reported by others wherever in the media or books. These people were not alleged to be Dominionist, they were reported as such. When compared to having something be reported or "asserted as in an accusation" reported is the favorable term to use. :However no allegations or accusations were made, just a report of an affiliation or advancement of an idea. Such was said. --arkalochori |talk| 08:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
You cannot cite secular press news reports that state that James Dobson or Focus on the Family are Dominionists. You can only cite statements of opinion by individuals who are making the assertion... which is a disputed assertion. Thus it is "alleged". You assert: "When compared to having something be reported or "asserted as in an accusation" reported is the favorable term to use." But on what basis do you make this assertion? When secular news reporters report assertions made by individuals that are disputed and not proven, they use "alleged" all the time. Frjohnwhiteford 10:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
It isn't for us to decide whether a reliably sourced statement should be characterised as being "alleged". Using "alleged" like that violates NPOV. Guettarda 05:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
You assert that "alleged" violates NPOV, but you have offered no basis to support that assertion. You have sources that substantiate that the claim is made. To report that claim as being anything more than a claim violates NPOV. That which is witnessed is reported. That which is asserted is alleged. Alleged is used every day in the media to report assertions that have not been substantiated as fact. Frjohnwhiteford 10:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I would also point out that a google search of the wikipedia site shows that in approximately 32,600 pages... and so if the term violates NPOV, it seem to be a rather frequent violation that has thus far gone undetected.
To use an example, which of the following statements has the least NPOV problem: "Bill Clinton is Reported to be a Rapist" or "Bill Clinton is Alleged to be a Rapist"? It can easily be documented that people have called him a rapist.Frjohnwhiteford 10:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Replacing "reported" with "alleged" violates NPOV because it replaces a neutral description of fact with your bias. And replacing a neutral description of fact with your own bias violates NPOV. Maybe you should read WP:NPOV. Guettarda 13:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
So you assert, and yet the NPOV policy says nothing about "alleged" being biased. Are you asserting that 32,600 pages on wikipedia violate the NPOV policy? Upon what basis do you make these assertions? Frjohnwhiteford 00:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
"Maybe you should read <WP policy page X>" is never a helpful statement. It seems to me that we have a lot of vague talk about "pejorative" and "biased," and I think it would help to be more concrete. As I said below, it seems to me that the issue is whether calling someone a Dominionist is a criticism (and, thus, an "allegation"). What do you think about that, Guettarda? --BlueMoonlet 16:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Sure it is. Odd nature 17:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I am sure Bill Clinton would prefer to be called an alleged rapist rather than a reported rapist, and I suspect if I were to insert into Bill Clinton's bio that he was a reported rapist I would not have Guettarda to back me up when I was accused of violating the NPOV policy for having done so. Frjohnwhiteford 00:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
John, this is a talk page for discussing this template. If you want to create {{rapists}}, this isn't the place to discuss it. Guettarda 03:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
This is a talk page in which we reason through issues to try to resolve them. My analogy shows that the term "reported" suggests more than has been proven in this case, and that "alleged" is clearly the more neutral term. Frjohnwhiteford 11:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
That's an analogy? You're joking, right? You have reliable sources saying he's a rapist? He's a notable example of a rapist? He has never disputed the title? Your example bears absolutely no resemblance to this template. Guettarda 13:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
There are certainly sources that are at least as reliable as the sources in question here. We have an actual eye witness/victim (Juanita Broaddrick) who would know empirically if it were true... and so it is not just her opinion. You have numerous conservative writers who believe her accusation, and have been published making the allegation that Bill Clinton is a rapist. There is also empirical data that a significant number of people hold the opinion that Clinton is a rapist... unlike the claim to consensus that Dobson is a Dominionist (an opinion likely held by about a dozen people). There is also corraborating evidence to support Broaddrick's story. In the case of the claims that Dobson is a dominionists, we have people who have made a gratuitous assertion, without offerring any proof to substantiate the claim. Frjohnwhiteford 10:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
What is reliably sourced is that the listed people and organizations have been called Dominionist, not that they actually are. "Alleged" or "Reported" makes not much difference to me. "Alleged" is not pejorative on the person making the allegation/identification. On the other hand, it does imply that the identification is a criticism of the person so identified, while "Reported" is more neutral on whether being called a Dominionist is good or bad. But is it not true that calling someone (excluding CR) a Dominionist is a criticism? Is there a counter-example? --BlueMoonlet 05:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
"Alleged" is clearly a far more pejorative term than reported, period. Odd nature 17:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Pejorative against whom? Didn't you just affirm above my proposition that "calling someone a Dominionist is a criticism (and, thus, an "allegation")? --BlueMoonlet 18:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
According to the relevant guideline here Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#So-called.2C_soi-disant.2C_supposed.2C_alleged.2C_purported
“ These all share the theme of explicitly making it clear that a given statement is not necessarily factual. This connotation introduces unnecessary bias into the writing; Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view, and in general, there will be someone out there who will view a given statement as highly probable — at the very least the person who said it! Where doubt does exist, it should be mentioned explicitly, along with who's doing the doubting, rather than relying on murky implications. ”
While the page lists a couple exceptions, this is exactly the sort of situation where the word "alleged" amounts to an addition of "unnecessary bias". They have been described as dominionists. Some activists maintain that all characterisations of people as dominionists (except for Reconstructionists) is incorrect, but these assertions have rarely (if ever) gone beyond the "by definition..." fallacy. Guettarda 03:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Guettarda should read the entire section he is referring to:
"Alleged (along with allegedly) and purported (along with purportedly) are different from the foregoing in that they are generally used by those who genuinely have no predisposition as to whether the statement being cited is true or not. Newspapers, for instance, almost universally refer to any indicted but unconvicted criminal as an alleged criminal. Therefore, there is no neutrality problem with using them. However, there may be a problem of ambiguity — they should only be used where the identity of the alleger is clear."
There is nothing in that section that suggest that "alleged" violates the NPOV policy. That is the claim you have repeatedly made... and this section proves you have made that claim erroneously. This section also points out that the term can be used when you can say who makes the allegation. In the article, we do. Since we are talking about a template, which affords little opportunity for clarification or qualification, "alleged" very accurately notes that these people are all alleged to be Dominionists. Some of them would be self-described Dominionists... in which case "alleged" is unnecessary. However, many of them reject the term, and only a few people with their own agendas allege that they are Dominionists. In an article, you can specifically state who alleges they are Dominionists, and that they reject the term. In a template... you have to use an accurate qualification... or else remove these people from the Template... which would be my first choice.
Also, I have asked several times for anyone to explain the basis for claiming that people such as James Dobson are dominionists based on the definitions provided in the article, and so far no takers... instead, we have only had people citing the allegations made by leftist activists with an ax to grind. Frjohnwhiteford 10:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm with BlueMoonlet on this not being a big deal either way, but the guideline you cite specifically mentions "alleged" as being useful and proper. --Flex (talk/contribs) 04:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


Reported is less biased sounding than alleged, and I'll support it over the latter moving forward. FeloniousMonk 04:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It is unacceptable to use editorial insertions to cast doubt on the veracity of the content. John is being very clear that this is his intent when he inserts the word "alleged". He says:

we have only had people citing the allegations made by leftist activists with an ax to grind

Sure, there are places where words like "alleged" is not used as an editorial comment. But in this case it is being used for precisely that reason. John wants it there because he doesn't like the "allegations" of "leftist activists". NPOV requires that we report sources fairly and proportionately. It is unacceptable for us to modify an article based simply on our opinion. Guettarda 13:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that "Reported" and "Alleged" cast doubt on the veracity of the content to the same degree. The fact of the matter is that the identification of non-CR figures as Dominionist is hardly a matter of consensus. In fact, I continue to be surprised that this infobox exists in this form, rather than under more neutral wording like "Christian Right" or "Christian Nationalism". But be that as it may, it seems to me (saying this for the third time, and still awaiting a reply) that the difference between "Reported" and "Alleged" is that the latter implies that the identification is a criticism. Is that so, or is it not? --BlueMoonlet 16:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
An "allegation" is a claim. The OED lists the following meanings for "allegation"
  1. The action of making a charge before a legal tribunal; the charge or matter undertaken to be proved
    This meaning isn't applicable here; this is the sense in which the word is considered "acceptable" (per the second paragraph that John quoted)
  2. A statement made in excuse; a plea; the alleging of a reason Obs. (="obsolete usage")
    Obsolete usage, not applicable here.
  3. The action of asserting or affirming what one is prepared to prove; an assertion, affirmation, averment.
    Related to #1; not applicable
  4. An assertion without proof, a mere assertion
    This is the sense in which John is using the term; using the term in this sense violates NPOV, since it is designed to cast doubt on the statement
  5. The action of citing or quoting (a document or author); the matter cited or quoted; citation, quotation. ? Obs.
    Again, this usage appears (to the editors of the OED) to be obsolete. We are writing in modern English - we can't pluck a usage that most readers would not understand and claim that is what we mean.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that "alleged" implies criticism, while "reported" does not.[Brain and fingers didn't quite connect there] Reported is a statement of fact; alleged, in the sense John wants to use it here, is an opinion about that fact. Guettarda 19:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Guettarda is now arguing based on what he thinks my opinion is that a completely neutral term has a biased intent behind it. To substantiate this, he engages is a number of leaps of logic. First he dismisses definition #3 as not being applicable... when there is no basis for such an assertion. Logically, either definition #3 or #4 applies in this case. It does not matter which one I think applies, because it could be either -- because either an allegation that is capable of proof has been made, but the proof has not yet been provided in such a way as to definitively settle the case, or an allegation has been made that is a matter of opinion, and cannot proven one way or the other. In either case, there is no NPOV violation, as the policy Guettarda references has proven, and the fact that the claim does not reflect a consensus view is made clear. Guettarda is simply reaching here, since the policy he referenced proves that the word has no NPOV problems, but only a potential problem when it come to ambiguity (when no such ambiguity exists, unlike the current case), and so now Guettarda is hunting for justifications for his position. Frjohnwhiteford 10:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. My interpretation of Frjohn was more along the lines of defs 1 and 3, rather than 4. Making a charge against someone is clearly criticizing them. Anyway, I'm glad you finally explained yourself, which was my goal in jumping into this conversation. My final comment on the Reported/Alleged topic is that the controversy would go away if we made the infobox about the "Christian Right" or "Christian Nationalism," rather than the disputed term "Dominionism." --BlueMoonlet 20:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Allege and report have very different meanings. I may report that there are wildfires scorching Southern California right now, but to say that I alleged same would be asinine as there are indeed wildfires scorching Southern California at present. If, by the same token, Gov. Schwarzzenegger states that he believes that terrorists set those fires, he would be alleging, and the newspaper would be reporting the allegation.
To allege, in the sense John seemingly wishes to use it, has a negative connotation regarding the veracity or legitimacy of the statement; however when it is used as legal terminology, it has no such negative connotation. Therefore, to further clarify (as if I needed to), if an item is reported by a newspaper on a non-editorial page or in something other than an opinion column, it is reported: only if same charge is made in an editorial or opinion column can one even begin to think that allege would be appropriate. •Jim62sch• 20:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The section Dominionism#Identifying dominionists collects all RS references to specific people as Dominionists (please add anything that is missing). The only newspaper article in the bunch is Lampman's 2005 article in the Christian Science Monitor, and there the label applied to Kennedy is in an attributed quote to Clarkson, not a statement of fact by the reporter. --BlueMoonlet 01:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I am not aware of any news papers that have "reported" that Dobson is a Dominionist as a matter of fact. Please cite one to the contrary. Frjohnwhiteford 10:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh really? Were this true I'd say that you're not sufficiently versed on the topic and shouldn't be editing, but knowing that you have participated heavily at Dominionism and knowing thatSoldiers of Christ II - Feeling the hate with the National Religious Broadcasters in Harper's by Chris Hedges is a prominent source there, I have to say you appear to be misrepresenting the sources. Odd nature 23:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
You could have made your point without the sarcasm, ON. But Harper's is not a newspaper, and thus does not satisfy the conditions we are currently discussing (see Jim62sch's post above). The article you cite is a reliable source that demonstrates the undisputedly notable opinion of Chris Hedges. But it does not establish that his opinion is correct. --BlueMoonlet 00:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you cannot tell the difference between an opinion piece and a reporter doing a news article, but there is one. In the article you cite, there is no attempt being made to provide a objective report of the news, but it is clearly an individual who is commenting on the news, and giving his views on what is good or bad about it. Frjohnwhiteford 11:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
"Perhaps you cannot tell..." Frjohn, can we try not to render sarcasm for sarcasm? --BlueMoonlet 13:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Warning about edit warring

This template is the subject of an ongoing edit war (see its revision history). Rather than protecting the template, I am leaving a note here: any editor who continues this edit war before consensus is reached on the talk page may end up blocked for edit warring (see WP:EW). If discussion here is not fruitful, you might consider trying informal mediation. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus has already long been reached, it's just that Frjohnwhiteford refuses to acknowledge it. Odd nature 17:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Clearly consensus has not been reached, since there is an edit war going on. I was serious about my statement that editors who continue to revert will be blocked. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Upon your return or during your break please read m:The Wrong Version. The 0RR solution imposed upon the edit war is effectively protection with the advantage of leaving the template open to unrelated edits. Read especially the definition of "consensus version" in the Terminology section. GRBerry 17:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There does seem to be a consensus here. I count at least 4 editors supporting the version that Oddnature supported and exactly one editor going the other way. I have trouble seeing this as not a consensus. JoshuaZ 17:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that there are four editors who agree to the language. The problem is that rather than coming to some sort of agreement or compromise, everyone is just reverting back and forth. The ultimate test of consensus is whether edits "stick." In this case, they don't stick. I think informal mediation would be a good next step if discussion has not been successful. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
They aren't "sticking" because one editor is warring back against them. By your defintion almost nothing on any controversial topic would have any consensus ever. Furthermore, there's no intrinsic need to compromise when there is a clear consensus supported by policy. JoshuaZ 17:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
If just one editor is reverting, then you need to find a way to convince that editor not to continue reverting. That is what is usually done of controversial articles - editors who make clearly inappropriate changes are eventually convinced to stop. But in this case, the dispute is a genuine issue, and none of the edits on its own is clearly inappropriate. I think both sides are trying to improve the accuracy of the template as they see it. So it's only the long-term edit warring that is an issue, not the intentions of the editors. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
They have been. There appears to be at least 4 days of attempting to get this editor to stop. At a certain point, one accepts the consensus and moves on. If there were, for example, a hundred editors who had one opinion and all agreed on their reasoning, and one who disagreed would you not generally call that a consensus? JoshuaZ 18:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there is a disputed possibility that part of the apparent consensus is due to sockpuppetry. ArbComm has not yet sorted that out. GRBerry 19:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Playing the baseless allegation card? I'm not FeloniousMonk's sock puppet. By Wikipedia's policy if there was any credibility to the allegation I wouldn't be here to tell you this. Odd nature 19:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Not baseless in anyway. That is better evidence than most sockpuppety cases receive. There is credibility, and some admins would block on sight based on the evidence; I even considered doing so myself. It isn't clear if it is correct or not though, and I am willing to let ArbComm to sort it out. If you look carefully at my comment, I linked both to the workshop page and the the evidence one word for each. GRBerry 19:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Go for it, block: make an utter fool out of yourself. BTW: first, this issue really doesn't belong here, but since you brough it up just let me tell you that I've provided forensic evidence to Arbcom that proves that B's allegations are utterly false. Hell, shall I run the same test B used, based on the same methodology as B did between you and another editor with whom you frequently agree? I'm sure that I'll find sufficient circumstantial evidence to point to one of the two as being a sockpuppet of the other. Cheers. •Jim62sch• 20:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


I note that another admin has now protected the template. GRBerry 18:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

<edit conflict> Since a novel interpretation of WP:EW seems clearly inappropriate as a way of resolving this dispute, I've protected the page in the normal procedure under that guideline. I now urge editors to work towards an agreed consensus as defined at WP:CON. .. dave souza, talk 18:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a particularly novel idea; see WP:EW and User:Dmcdevit/Thoughts. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I've seen them, you're obviously finding things in them that aren't apparent to me. A short term of protection is, in my opinion, a much more productive arrangement for finding and improving consensus than dishing out blocks with inadequate notice. Trust you'll now endeavour to "talk down" the involved parties, or encourage them to enter the dispute resolution process. .. dave souza, talk 18:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Dmcdevit/Thoughts is not policy, guideline or even an essay. CBM seems to be applying a personal set of rules here and they're clearly overkill. He also seems to be ignoring the fact that a certain individual or two here are ignoring consensus and obstructing a settlement of the issue in order to force in their opinions. We have to ask why is that? Odd nature 19:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Good move on the protect Dave. Carl, are you spoiling for a fight here, or are you just being self-righteous because that's your gig? Really, how are you helping to resolve the issue?•Jim62sch• 20:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The goal is to stop the edit war. Everyone involved has enough experience, in my opinion, to refrain from edit warring without needing the page to be protected. Fully protecting pages is itself a disruption to the project, and the point of Dmcdevit's essay is that there are times when just protecting the page is not the right solution. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Page protection would have accomplished your goal without the heavy handedness and fallout. You shouldn't be going out and writing your rules when policies and guidelines already exist. When your only tool is a hammer you tend to view every problem as a nail, CBM. Odd nature 23:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Fully protecting pages is never required by policy and is increasingly regarded as a way to treat the symptoms of an edit war without treating the cause. WP:BLOCK authorizes blocks for disruption, including edit warring. So I am only following existing policy here, not creating new policy. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the problem is that blocks for disruption actually require disruption, CBM. You're going to have a hard, hard time making the case that my 1 edit to this article was sufficiently disruptive to warrant such a block, particularly since I've only made 4 reverts of the article in the last month. Contrast my history here to the history of Frjohnwhiteford, and you'll see who the edit warrior is, how misguided your response was, and why I'm pissed. Not only did you over react you missed the actual edit warrior and hit a passerby. Odd nature 23:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

New Approach?

Part of the problem with the template, I think, comes from its conflation of three distinct but related ideas into one template without attending to the differences between the three ideas. These three ideas are set out at Dominionism#Dominion Theology, Dominionism#Dominionism as a broader movement, and Dominionism#Dominionism as the Christian Right. The template would be better off if it was divided by those three ideas and people/organizations/etc... were classified according to which of the three ideas was allegedly/reportedly applicable. A reader who is interested in exploring one of the ideas or the differences between a pair of them would then find this template useful, in a way that they don't now because of their inability to use it to explore just one of the ideas.

All the people that are only listed because of Hedges and his followers would be in the third category (which might even just be replaced with a pointer to a less offensive term or more comprehensive list, such as that at Christian right#Notable persons and organizations said to be members of the Christian Right. Those that hold to the full Dominion Theology would be in the first, and those who meet the characteristics defined by Diamond but don't hold the full Dominion Theology would be in the second category. GRBerry 17:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea. My only concern would be that the distinctions between categories are not always clear cut. JoshuaZ 18:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
See Dominionism#Identifying dominionists for the break-down. 60% of the infobox falls under definition #1, which in my opinion is not notable enough to deserve an infobox in the first place. Most of the rest falls under definition #3, which is pejorative and should be renamed as GRBerry suggests. The only items that clearly belong under definition #2 are critics Berlet and PRA. The only cited example of a specific person or organization being called Dominionist under definition #2 is Clarkson applying the label to Kennedy in the 2005 CSM story. --BlueMoonlet 18:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you would even need to qualify the list of people associated with the Christian Right with the phrase "said to be" because I don't think anyone has a problem with the term. If you used that term, there would be no controversy here. Frjohnwhiteford 19:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. The most notable leaders of that movement agree with their detractors on the appropriateness of that label. --BlueMoonlet 19:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we finish arguing about who done wrong to whom, and get back to writing an encyclopedia? A proposal has been made here and no one has spoken against it, though I don't dare to think that consensus will be as easy as that. --BlueMoonlet 13:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, logically the next step would be to draft it as an example and place that draft here. GRBerry 13:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Now that we have a TfD, I think the best thing would be to let that run its course. A useful infobox on the Christian Right could just as easily be created from scratch. If anyone cares to work on such a thing, posting a notice here might be nice. --BlueMoonlet 13:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion

As an uninvolved editor I've nominated this template for deletion. Giving notice here in case folks don't see the small type at the top of this page. Raymond Arritt 01:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Since that should be on the template itself, I went ahead and added the TFD template to it. Better to do that on a protected page than to get a procedural DRV for failing to do it. GRBerry 02:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. This is the first time I've done a TfD, and it wasn't clear (to me) where the notice should go. Raymond Arritt 02:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Due to BLP violations, I have remove names of living people from this template. despite the protection. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggested addition

Why in the world is Dominion Theology not in the ideas section? It would seem that it should have been the first article put there. GRBerry 18:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

With no response for two weeks, and protection lapsed on the template, I've put this one in. This one obviously belongs, I have doubts about some other things in the ideas section. GRBerry 05:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)