This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia 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.
This version of the article said "Cornell University's Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy acknowledges the linking of National Religious Broadcasters with Dominionism."
Now, there a couple problems. First, It's TheocracyWatch who said it. While the statement is literally true, it tries to pass Cornell's credibility onto TheocracyWatch. People can read the article on TheocracyWatch to find out what relationship it has to Cornell. I fixed that.
Second, the url http://www.theocracywatch.org/introduction2.htm, actually doesn't support what's said. Rather, it just points to the Harper's article. I didn't remove the text yet, as I'm sure TheocracyWatch does in fact consider NRB to be linked to dominionism (I would be stunned if they didn't have that opinion). But, there should be a more relevant link to provide. --Rob 01:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Rob, is my latest change a better way of spelling out the relationship? I think the university that sponsors the project is important information and needs to be included. I also reread the TheocracyWatch pages again and then tweaked the wording to reflect the point of the entry. FloNighttalk 17:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, the concern I have, is we're going by what TheocracyWatch and CRESP say. There's zero indication, Cornell supports or endorses TheocracyWatch. University's tend to be open places, that may have all sorts of affiliated groups on them. We shouldn't try to imply Cornell in any way endorses TheocracyWatch. A project of a project of a University, may have little to do with the University, other then geography. For all I know, Cornell, may well have other political organizations, on the opposite political spectrum, with similiar attachements. One concern I have is there is no indication of academic qualification here. The "founder" of TheocracyWatch is described on their site as an "educator". Now, if somebody at a University is called merely an "educator", that suggests they are not a professor and don't have much credentials, like a PhD. If they had something worth mentioning they would. Mentioning Cornell, seems to give TheocracyWatch, a phony suggestion of academic qualification and rigour. CRESP may well have such competetance in some areas. But, it seems unlikely TheocracyWatch does. I, by default, distrust any source that says they publish what no mainstream media is willing to publish. Having said all these, I will accept the current wording, because I think the name "TheocracyWatch" pretty much discloses the bias of the organization. I think the main thing, we should be looking to do now, is adding some good independent source information to the TheocracyWatch article, which can better explain the organization to readers of various articles that cite them. --Rob 19:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Isn't it kind of a reach to go back five years to add this section? I don't know much about either and never heard of dominionism, but devoting a quarter of the article to one writer's opinion to create controversy just doesn't seem objective. Why is it included?--it122 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)