Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 13

< April 12	April 14 >

April 13, 2006[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep Circeus 01:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dominionism[edit]

Template:Dominionism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
All the parties listed in this template could be argued are not "dominionist". At least there needs to be proof. At least one of the persons listed (Schaefer) is not a dominionist. It is a relatively minor political philosophy, with very few adherents (even fewer who consider themselves adherents), and doesn't warrant a template. Most importantly, this template is seeking to push a biased POV (where those included who don't claim the title would consider it slander. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 21:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: One of the here so-called "dominionist" parties, the ECPM, according to its website has a rather compassionate (or leftist) socio-economic agenda (not the right-wing reactionary ideology expected by the Wikipedia-imposed label "dominionist"); and in its first congress made the resolution that because they are "convinced of the special responsibilities of the government for those who have special needs within the society. Therefore we want to point out the importance of collective rights of minorities, freedom of religion for individuals, communities and organizations, recognizing ethnic diversity within the different European countries", they are therefore resolved to respect "1. Freedom of religion - On the issue of the freedom of religion, the ECPM states that each person should have the possibility to practice his or her religion within the boundaries of peace, justice, human dignity and in line with documents such as the European Convention of human rights.", and they disavow "2. Extremism - History has taught us that the danger and the consequences of all types of extremism are always present which can lead towards violent outbursts and repression. Extremism appears when groups of people feel themselves superior to other groups within the society and are eager to rule over them. ... The ECPM states that we must choose to favour a respectful approach to those who think otherwise, because we want to encounter ethnic-religious diversity in our society as a challenge and benefit, without closing our eyes for societal problems emanating from this diversity." Sounds reasonable to me. So, how are they "dominionist" again? ... Sources? GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 09:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dominionism is too minor to merit the attention it has been given. - C mon 21:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, its an attack term, and not a very popular one. Sam Spade 22:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful template. Whether some feel the term Dominionism is perjorative is irrelevant. FeloniousMonk 22:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reason to delete it. And I wish "GUÐSÞEGN" would spell God correctly. Jim62sch 22:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- unles the user is going for Old Norse, in which case, never mind -- but use runes! Jim62sch 23:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uuuhhh, Icelandic (very near Old Norse), and that's a bit of a distraction, don't you think? GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 23:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While term's meaning is controversial and has become an epithet in some cases, the same could be said of communism/fascism/socialism etc. As for adherents, the US Constitution Party outpolled the Greens in the 2004 election, and the Christian Heritage Party outpolled every minor party except the Greens in the last Canadian election. I'd certainly put its impact on the modern Anglosphere political environment ahead of Communitarianism and likely on par with Libertarianism. The Tom 22:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are assuming said parties are "dominionist", which has yet to be proven/defended. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 23:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of parties like Socialists, etc.: those parties claim the term. It is part of their names. They think it represents them well. The same could not be said of the parties you labelled "dominionist" in creating the template in question. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 23:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-appellation isn't the litmus in our political articles, though. The National Socialist German Workers Party seemed to be under the impression it was socialist, but they were largely alone on that count. Likewise, while Wikipedia refers to certain organizations as "neofascist," most would self-identify as just "nationalist" movements. Dominionism is, as the article describes, "a term used to describe a trend in Protestant Christian evangelicalism and fundamentalism [...] that seeks to establish specific political policies based on religious beliefs." These parties and thinkers meet that standard by any fair and NPOV assessment. The Tom 00:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No that is a very poor definition of dominionism and probably needs to be improved. If dominionism is a "trend" then then the political parties listed may be "part of the trend" or have the trend within them if they are a broader party than the trend, but for the most part they should not be labeled "dominionist" parties.--Silverback 23:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This definition is both too general to be useful and too specific not to be discriminatory. Is a Catholic party that "seeks to establish specific political policies based on religious beliefs" not a dominionist party? Or isn't it just a Catholic party. Is a Hindu party that "seeks to establish specific political policies based on religious beliefs" not a dominionist party? Or isn't it just a Hindu party. Is an Atheist party that "seeks to establish specific political policies based on religious beliefs" not a dominionist party? Or isn't it just an Atheist party. Etc. Etc. ALL parties seek to establish specific political policies based on a set of moral beliefs, religious or otherwise. All laws are based on some moral belief. Driving 55 mph was a law based on moral belief. If a person is religious, ALL laws he advocates are "religious" by definition, because everything is filtered through his worldview. If he proposes a 55 mph speed limit, it because he believes that God wants us to value human life, and driving 55 will save more lives than 75. Does this make him a religious fanatic? Does this make him a dominionist? By your definition it does. But, of course, that is absurd. He is not radical in his beliefs. Your definition is flawed. Your list is flawed, and slanderous. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 04:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dominionism gets 32 hits in google scholar, many of which are not relevant [1]. By way of comparison, communitarianism gets 8,000 hits [2], libertarianism 6,200 [3], anarchism 11,700 [4], socialism 223,000 [5], etc. A standard google search gives 537 unique hits [6]. Google books gives 35 unique hits, again with some that are not relevant [7]. Thus, far from being on a par with these established idealogies, dominionism does not looks to be a widely accepted term. This raises the very real question of why we, as a serious reference work, are devoting this much attention to an ill-defined neologistic term? At what point do we cross the line from reporting on established concepts and definitions to establishing them ourselves in violation of NOR? And while the interest of certain editors to use any means possible to expose Christian, right-wing thinking may be admirable, if we have to lower our standards to do so the entire reference work suffers. -- JJay 15:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wiki includes articles on a great many subjects that Google far fewer pages than "dominionism." Popularity should not be a deciding factor in determining whether information belongs in Wikipedia. If there is an ongoing debate over "dominionism" -- and it's clear from those Google searchers that there is -- then it belongs in Wiki. As for those who want it removed because it offends some people, I know a great many promoters of false health claims who object to the term "quackery." Should we appease them too by removing the Quackery article from Wikipedia? Askolnick 16:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see a valid case for deletion made here. Guettarda 01:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Care needs to be taken with who is added to the template, because in the case of living people, we'd need excellent sources showing they were widely regarded as associated with dominionism. But that's a question of how to edit the template, not whether to have it. And to include articles related to the concept is very useful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While The Tom looks to be alone in making a cogent argument for this, I'm not convinced that Dominionism is on a par with the other political ideologies included. -- JJay 01:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Slim. JoshuaZ 03:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The template is not divisuve, it has a clear and encyclopaedic purpose and it does not appear to embody any bias either in its text or by its existence. This appears to be a valid term with credible academic references in the political science literature. Just zis Guy you know? 09:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per The Tom and Guy et al. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep JeffBurdges 14:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
undecided The template needs some work, I made an attempt to improve it. Dominionism is more in the minds of those who fear it, label others with it, and attempt to track it, that in the minds of those who are labeled with it. People following dominionism templates, should be also be referred to articles on those who study it, and who use the term, not just on those who are being fear mongered about. Unfortunately, only Chip Berlet and the Political Research Associates have articles about them. I've added other figures that don't have articles yet. Those who are serious about this template should flesh those out.--Silverback 22:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and whack with an axe. There is enough contention surrounding well-established philosophical/theological/political categories without spinning more troll-webs. John Reid 02:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many who follow Rushdoony, North and Bahnsen call them "Dominion theologians" — the term is certainly not pejorative. See, e.g., Gentry's "He Shall Have Dominion." The template could use a bit of work (e.g., where is Kuyper?), but it is useful and should be kept. --MonkeeSage 12:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't including Kuyper be a bit anachronistic? He lived a century before the term was coined. If we're going to get anachronistic, then why stop there ... why not include Queen Elizabeth I, and Oliver Cromwell? Surely they meet the definition. Why stop at Protestants? For every Protestant "dominionist" in history, there are at least a dozen Roman Catholic "dominionist" leaders. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 18:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on whether you accept the assertion that "Dominionism" is a recent development. Many who adopt the view/title would claim to trace their ideological roots to the Protestant Reformation (or even further back), as they came to expression in Calvin, Bullinger, Knox, and so on, down to the New England colonies. As for people being labeled who reject the title, I think an analogous situation would be where a group holds all/almost all the Marxist distinctives, yet claims they are not Marxist. Since "Marxist" is an established description, and they fit that description, it seems fair to label them as Marxist, and let them clarify in their particular articles. I'm not sure how situations like that are usually handled on WP though. If that approach is unacceptable, perhaps the template could be limited strictly to persons/groups which claim the title. Of course, if the person/group doesn't hold to the distinctives, the point is moot and they don't belong in the template anyhow. --MonkeeSage 09:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep with constant monitoring that the template doesn't turn into the POV witchhunt that the article Dominionism began as being. This phenomenon does exist, it just isn't mainstream. As I have said in the past, LaRouchites exist, but not in the same numbers as Republicans or Democrats, and their philosophy is encyclopedic, but with the annotation that it is not a widespread popular movement. Trotskyites exits, but they are not major contributors to liberal/left thought, at least not in the United States in 2006, and this is important to note. We should note that the mere act of giving Dominionism a template doesn't say that it is a huge movement or that it is equivalent in size, scope, or influence to evangelicalism or the Pentecostal movement or something along those lines. Rlquall 15:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By including people/groups who never used (or never would use) the title, and people/groups who would adamantly and successfully reject (to a fair-minded judge) the title, like ECPM, then it is already POV-pushing. What an encyclopedia this is turning out to be. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 18:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see the justification of the article Dominionism. As the existence of the term is verifiable. But this template, brings together a group of articles, some of which don't even mention the term. Some that mention it have no reliable sources. This goes against rational order. First, put all the relevant information in the relevant articles. Put proper reliable sources in each article. Then, if useful, have a template like this. Our readers must be perplexed when they follow a link on this template, and find nothing relevant. --Rob 21:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This kind of tripe is why WP:NOR exists. Tom e r ^talk 10:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:No original research (many of the entries haven't been supported, and none are cited) and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (whether of not most of the entries belong on the list is highly disputable, and is a matter that should only be addressed in article text, properly sourced and presenting both sides of the issue, not plain-facedly stated as fact in a nuance-lacking template). Plus it's realllly easy to link to all those pages without a template, and there aren't enough articles on Dominionism to warrant its use. -Silence 23:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as well as the blatant POV pushing categories associated. It's one thing to mention in an article that someone is accused of dominism (always by the left), but to put a group in a list of "domininst ogranizations, based on a fringe accusation, is so POV that I can't believe it's being proposed. Pollinator 00:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS policies support. After reviewing the dominionism sources, I find most of them reliable and able to support encyclopedic material. The template and the related category should exist based on verifiable encyclopedic content found in related articles. Wikipedia neutral point of view says that all significant points of view should be represented. Eliminating the dominionism template (and categories) would show a systemic bias against this particular philosophy. FloNight ^talk 10:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per the comments of SlimVirgin. It's a (fairly) widely used term, see Google (although the first hit today is Wikipedia's entry on the subject). --Plumbago 08:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Credible published sources both online and in print support informative and cohesive use of the term in Wikipedia. Larvatus 09:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)larvatus[reply]
keep— Dunc|☺ 18:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems notable enough to me. Content/POV issues are of little concern regarding deletion. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep. There is enough evidence that the term is actually used. The fact that being labelled as such may be considered as undesirable is not justification (by itself) to merit deletion.--CSTAR 20:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject to care in listing individuals, as Slim's comment. ..dave souza, talk 20:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]