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

The result of the debate was delete. Verification is non-negotiable. There appears to be some confusion in this debate: While the term dominionist may or may not be in common parlance, the question here is its association with the parties listed on the page.
brenneman{L} 03:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dominionist political parties[edit]

This list was created to push a biased POV. I could argue that none of the parties listed should be considered "dominionist". At the least this epithet needs some real proof. None was provided.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 20:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum (taken from the related TfD): According to the article creator, "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." I responded, "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   – UTEX – 05:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, how long do we wait until any defense is given for even one of these parties being "dominionist"? Granted, it's going to be very difficult to prove, since none of them (or even their critics, outside of Wikipedia) use the term. Until it's verified, it's just POV-pushing.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 18:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I can't say I agree with that. One AfD nom + one TfD nom does not equal a "binge", particularly given the propensity here for grouped noms that can include dozens of articles. However, your initial comment comparing the nom to a banned user and well-known puppeteer does violate WP:CIV and WP:AGF and is borderline NPA. -- JJay 01:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is more to it than those actions, including removing the template from some articles. It is not of the same order as Gastroturfing, but it is of similar character. Just zis Guy you know? 12:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Enough to ignore WP:V? Or to scream Speedy Keep in violation of numerous policies? Certain editors need to realize that opposing viewpoints exist and acting on those viewpoints is in no way proof of puppetry or bad faith. What I see are bunch of editors who make a habit of this type of sock puppet accusation without caring whether it's true or not [2], as part of a gastrosmearing campaign that conveniently ignores the issues and ensures that their own POV is over-represented through categories, backed up by lists, backed up by articles on non-notable subjects, backed up by poor sourcing/no sourcing. Where is the gastroturfing now? -- JJay 13:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then please add those references to the lists. Also you might want to edit each of the individual articles since none mention the term. -- JJay 13:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to conur with JJay on this. It's frustrating how, in so many AFDs people refer to sources that do not appear in the article. Please, put the sources in the article. Generally, a well sourced article speaks for itself, and needs little explanation in AFD. In this case, we need to confirm that the term is used by each party itself, or is widely used by reliable sources to refer to party. I find it very disappointing, that people are still making entirely unsourced new articles. Wikipedia seems to be adding unsourced information faster then we can add sources to old stuff. --Rob 05:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to delete per Rob above and below, and because although I can find some apparent evidence for the term, I can't find any reliable authority for the identification of individual parties as Dominionist, and in any case per my usual preference for categories, a category would be more likely to be picked up by the editor community on a given article and challenged if wrong, whereas lists can and have been used to attribute falsely. So I think on balance the best thing would be to delete this and have a category instead, which would have the benefit of being self-maintaining. This is not connected with the validity of the term, which I still think has at least some evidence of validity. JJay is right: I was being inconsistent, and extending existence of evidence beyond its real applicability. Just zis Guy you know? 19:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That first article you cited, from National Review [7], is absolutely an excellent article. I don't think it does the work you think it does, though. Kurtz points out how overblown the "academic" critique of dominionism is; how its critics (including the one with an article at Wikipedia) want dominionism to be bigger than it really is, for their own political purposes; how the critics are trying to draw connections to larger groups and political parties where none actually exist. You have to read through to the end, past the sarcastic bit at the beginning.  :-) Thanks for that link.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 22:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And precisely what work do you think he thinks it does? Are you assuming FM didn't read it through? If so, I have little doubt that your assumption is in error, as is what I believe your assumption regarding what work FM "think[s] it does". As a source, it merely supports the fact that Dominionism exists, although any importance of Dominionism would be downplayed in the National Review (editorially conservative publication) in the same way it would be played up in an editorially liberal publication. Nonetheless, the question is this: does Dominionism exist? The answer is yes. Thus, as with any other political or religious movement it rates an article in Wikipedia. It really is that simple. •Jim62sch• 08:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"does Dominionism exist?" is *NOT* the question for *this* AFD. That would be the question for Dominionism. You say "it rates an article in Wikipedia". Yes, it does, but this doesn't. Dominionist political parties requires citations from neutral reliable sources, that demonstrate at least some parties on the list, are in fact "Dominionist". How about citing a proper source for just one name? Show me it's "It really is that simple". --Rob 09:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me FM has, only to have them reverted. This is going to turn into one of those childish, "that source isn't good enough", "nope, not that one either", "nope, not close to what I'm wiiling to accept" battles isn't it? Simple enough? •Jim62sch• 19:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Please read the history of the article. User:FeloniousMonk has not edited the article, once. Nobody, as of the current version has added any sources. Please provide a diff or version-link, to prove what you said. Where is the revert you speak of? After User:The Tom made the article, no supporter of the article, has bothered to do anything for it. I have tried to find sources, but can not. --Rob 19:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, lack of critical support in an article simply reporting the existence of an organization is one thing. Lack of critical support in an article that can easily be taken as a slanderous accusation is quite another.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 23:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It could be taken as slanderous how? Certainly no harm has been shown to have been inflicted, thus it cannot be slander. •Jim62sch• 08:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would help to explain the slander this way. Say the article was called "World domination parties", and on that list was the same as this list, plus the US Republican Party (on the theory that since Bush is trying to export a political ideology, democracy, at the point of a gun; and since he's a nutty evangelical Christian). Can you not see how this is slander? Even with starting an unwarranted and foolish war in Iraq, and even given that he originally called it a crusade, he (and we America in general) have no desire to dominate Iraq in any way that doesn't mean letting the Iraqi people govern themselves. The party doesn't desire world domination. This is what this list is saying. So, combined with the fact that any rational human being who did not desire world dominion would not want to be labelled such, it is clear that the the very tag itself is slanderous.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 17:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I missed it, but nowhere in the WP article was the Republican Party mentioned -- in the Harpers article, yes, but not in a way that said the party itself was Dominionist (that the NRO took the quotes out of context is hardly surprising).
The example provided is essentially a misdirection; while domination and dominion have the same etymology they do not inherently have the same meaning. As for the Republican party itself, you are correct. As for the neo-cons within the party and the Administration, you are incorrect read through this carefully. In any case, proving slander against a political party is a difficult thing, and something most parties aren't even likely to take to court: they fear opening themselves up to charges of slander or libel. •Jim62sch• 20:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When Joe Sixpack or Susie Sixth-grade is reading this article on Wikipedia, an encyclopedia (presumably a source of knowledge), do you think they will not come away with the impression that these parties desire world dominion (or at least national dominion)? Neither of them will have a court judge or an etymologist next to them. Nor will either of them have proof that any of these parties is "dominionist"; just a cold dead source-less assertion of "fact".    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 21:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If they got that impression that could only come from a lack of reading comprehension and not bothering to read what dominionism was. Under that argument we should be worried that we should be worried about the name of the People's Republic of China or the name of the Congo (whatever ridiculous thing it is now) because "Susie Sixth Grade" might get an erroneous impression if she only sees the official name. JoshuaZ 21:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, after that first sarcastic article in NRO, the PBS page, just had a reference to the NRO story. Another one of your links, didn't even use the term (and I can't figure out why you used it). You actually only cited Harpers, as using the term on its own. Also, the dispute with references isn't the existence of the term Dominionism. It is it's usage when applied to specific parties. You gave exactly one source (Harpers) that (sort of) applied the term to a party. But, it applied it to only some people in the Republican party. Just try and add the Republican party to the page (and related category). You'll see how fast it's reverted. Given how your efforts to find sources, have failed so miserably, its clear there's little hope of sourcing this ever. This is unverifiable, and must be deleted. --Rob 23:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you only spent half as much time looking for sources to improve the article as you've spent arguing to see it deleted. Then you'd know that there are plenty of notable instances both in and outside of the mainstream press associating certain political parties with Dominionism. That they exist merely need to be added to the article are the only relevant points here and put the lie to your jusitification for deleting this article. There is no dearth of sources for Dominionism: [8] FeloniousMonk 00:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, that's just a link to Google. I know about Google. I used it already. If you have a source that is reliable, that proves *any* of the parties listed is Domionist, then put it in the article. What is the delay? If there are so many reliable sources, then why can't you go and reference this article. Every time you argue here, *instead* of fixing the article, you prove you can't fix the article. Incidently, from the beginning, I've been willing to be proved wrong. If you can prove there is a properly sourced list of "Dominionist" parties, from *neutral* *reliable* sources, I'll happily accept the article, and change my vote. --Rob 00:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, strangely enough, those google hits stop at 535 [9], and the wikipedia article ranks third, and they look to be mainly blog posts. Meanwhile, back at wikipedia, the list remains completely unreferenced, although I will say that it is shrinking nicely. Perhaps in between the sock puppet accusations, some of the speedy keep editors would like to add some of those mainstream sources to the list. Or are they more interested in keeping the article for personal reasons than in fixing it?-- JJay 00:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if either of you bothered doing some actual research for sources in the Google results instead of hastily dismissing them, you'd find these:
  • WSWS: New York Times columnist David Brooks proposes the 'good crusade': "A strand known as “Dominionism” believes that Christ will only reappear once the world has made a place for him and that a first step is the Christianizing of America. One of its representatives, James Kennedy of the Coral Ridge Ministries in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, whom Bush consulted before his run for the presidency, has proclaimed, “Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost. As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors—in short, over every aspect and institution of human society.”
    • Also at: New American Media Writer Challenges New York Times Columnist David Brooks Concept of the 'Good Crusade' Muslims Weekly, Commentary, David Walsh, Feb 15, 2006
  • NPR: Christian Dominionism
  • Liberty magazine "A recently articulated philosophy which argues that it is the moral obligation of Christians to recapture every institution for Jesus Christ." This idea, also called Dominionism, states that Christians are mandated to gradually occupy all secular institutions until Christ returns."
  • The Washington Times Left aims to smite 'theocracy' movement "Dominionism is the theory that the account in Genesis in which God gave man dominion over the earth has become a political teaching advocating that Christians gain and hold power. ...Understanding and answering the "religious far right" that propelled President Bush's re-election is key..."
  • Christian Science Monitor For evangelicals, a bid to 'reclaim America' "Frederick Carlson, author of "Eternal Hostility: the Struggle between Theocracy and Democracy," says that if Kennedy is not a theocrat, "he is certainly a dominionist," one who supports taking over and dominating the political process."
And that just from the first few pages. There's plenty more for anyone who's interested in bettering articles rather than deleting them. FeloniousMonk 01:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have given good references for the dominionism article. I agree "dominionism" is a real term, and dominionism should not be deleted. Nobody is saying it should. We're asking for citations to prove each of the parties listed on *this* article have citations. We need neutral and reliable sources to say *these* parties belong on *this* list. You still haven't done that. Why did you waste your time, making irrelevant quotes. Regardless of the outcome of this AFD, any uncited name, *will* be removed from this list, and the related category. So, I suggest you go fix the article. Also, it seems the only party you "link" to Dominionism is the U.S. Republican party. I dare you to just try and add Republican Party (United States) to this list, and to Category:Dominionist parties. Then, we'll see what happens. --Rob 01:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More