Talk:Constitutional theocracy

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006 May 3. The result of the discussion was No consensus to delete, Keep.

Religion

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Politics

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Original Research

I removed the entire unverified list of so-called "constitutional theocratic" political parties. The article gave no citations/references for such a list. I found no mention of said parties when Googling (regular and Scholar) "constitutional theocracy". As far as I can tell, none of these parties uses or claims the title. If you want such a list, research it and cite sources in the article. It would be seen by most not advocating such a system as an epithet. In addition, I tagged the article as original research (or unverified claims) because the definition does not seem to be that which is used by the few sources that mention the phrase. The only nation I saw called a "constitutional theocracy" was Iran (and curiously you didn't include their parties in the list). I tend to think the definition was made to fit the pre-conceived list of parties. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 21:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If source citations for the definition/article are not forthcoming within a week, this article will be placed up for an AfD. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 22:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redesignate: Evangelical Protestant Political Parties?

Personally, I'm in favour of redesignating this topic. What about 'Evangelical Protestant political parties?' It seems to be the most appropriate description of their ideological orientation, as they don't fit the Catholic, welfarist 'Christian Democratic' political party model that existed in Germany, Italy and elsewhere for most of the twentieth century. I've rigged up a page so that readers can judge for themselves.

User: Calibanu 10:45, 02 May 2006.

Keep article, build it out

As a person who took a few political science courses in college, the meaning appears obvious, but for me to put it in the article would be OR. A "constitutional theocracy" is to a theocracy as a constitutional monarchy is to a monarchy. Here are a couple places meeting WP:V that I've found the term used: [1] is a paper from an academic journal; TIME magazine had an article in its Nov. 24, 2003 issue that used the term; [2] is a wire-service article using the term. A serious attempt to find other WP:V sources will succeed, but Google might not be the best tool.

The deletion of the list of parties was appropriate where they lacked individual citations. But the term itself is a legitimate term in political philosophy and law, so an article on the subject is needed. GRBerry 02:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree it is certainly "a legitimate term in political philosophy and law" - and also that the parties' list needed deletion. Some description of how this phrase is used in US political discussions might be useful, if referenced. --HJMG 07:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]