Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people and organizations associated with Dominionism (2nd nomination)


 * 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 was   delete because of severe NPOV and BLP problems.  Sandstein  19:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

List of people and organizations associated with Dominionism
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article inherently violates Neutral point of view. Dominionism is a label that is mostly used by political opponents of the Christian right, thus this article necessarily reflects a particular political point of view.Wkdewey (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It "inherently" violates nothing.  It reports on what others have said.  It is not an attack page.  Based on the logic displayed above Liberal, Neo-Nazism and other similar articles should be deleted.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 19:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Nah, I don't see it as "inherently" violating NPOV. The term "dominionism" is used by academics and journalists.  I think Wkdewey's statement "mostly used by political opponents of the Christian right" needs a fact tag.  It's a uselessly broad label.  Guettarda (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe so, but if you google "dominionism" none of the top hits come from proponents of "dominionism"--all but us and religioustolerance.org are from opponents of the concept. Wkdewey (talk) 13:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete article contains egregious examples of guilt-by-association and assertion of opinion as facts. The fact that the "usage not embraced" takes up other half of both the screensize and bytesize of the article says to me that there's POV pushing by over-referencing. The problem has existed for several months, and efforts to neutralise have been reverted and attacked. While deletion should not be used in disputes, it is sadly the only way to fix the POV problem. Sceptre (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Sceptre pretty much summed up what I would say. Tavix (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article doesn't seem to be 'inherently' violating anything, even if it could do with a tidy up. Skinny87 (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. As long as entries are properly sourced the article doesn't 'inherently' violate any policy. BTW, this list is the product of a community discussion whereupon by the community agreed that this list was a reasonable compromise in place of the Dominionism template, Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_October_27. I hate to see that discussion reopened, let's keep it. FeloniousMonk (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment To continue FM's history lesson, see also Template talk:Dominionism. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Kelly  hi! 00:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Neutral The whole idea that WP needs to obsessively detail name-calling against Christians is problematic, to say the least. However, there is a significant fraction of long-standing editors who feel that it does.  It was a long hard debate to get this content at least put into some context and limited primarily to this page.  I fear Sceptre may be sadly mistaken in thinking deletion will "fix the problem"; rather, deletion may cause the content to re-appear in other places where it belongs even less.  FM has already threatened as much.  I can't bring myself to say "keep", but unless there is clear evidence that deletion will not simply re-open old battles, I cannot support it.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the strong arguments being made by supporters of deletion, it appears to me that a consensus to delete (should it result from this discussion) would also be a consensus that this content is fundamentally unencyclopedic and should not appear on another page or template either. Supporters of deletion who disagree with this should say so. On this condition only I will support deletion.  I encourage the closing admin to address this topic, as it will surely be brought up by certain editors in the aftermath.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete This list is a mess. To start, people and organizations should be seperate lists. Second, the list becomes even more indiscriminate when it includes organizations who are not identified with Dominionism, but as Theocratic. Cut it down to sourced entries of one or the other with a single common label, and it might be worth keeping, but not anything close to this. Jim Miller (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * [T]he list becomes even more indiscriminate when it includes organizations who are not identified with Dominionism, but as Theocratic. I'm sorry - it does?  On this list?  Where?  Guettarda (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It may not. I didn't bother to go any farther than the line that says "Organizations that have been described as Dominionist or theocratic include:" since that made the list indicriminate by its own wording. Jim Miller (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - the first thing that jumped to mind was a 1950s version of Wikipedia having an article List of Communist infiltrators trying to topple the government, all edited by User:WisconsinSenator (and no doubt, he would have had references too). I don't doubt there are people/organizations who share this idea, but exceptional care needs to be paid to sources to make sure they are as neutral as humanly possible.  Having taken a very cursory look, I am not sure that this is the case. Even so, I can already foresee the edit warring that will take place over the neutrality of the sources. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Let me get more to the meat of my concern. What if someone started an article List of known homosexuals?  Now the easy part of that list would be to document anyone who, in a reliable source, admits as such.  No problem.  However, there are definitions of homosexuality (ranging from the fairly clinical to the likely grotesque from homophobes, and I'm certain all documented in reliable sources), which could end up getting someone labeled as such, when they may or may not be, but only because they fit a definition that someone essentially invented.  This is the problem with such lists.  If you wanted a list of "admitted Dominionists", and could document in a reliable source where they say "I am a Dominionist", OK fine, but if you decide to use a particular definition, and apply it to anyone who fits the bill, I think that this bends into something that is very concerning. I'm not yet casting my decision here, and arguing by analogy is not the best way to argue, but I'm using it because I have a genuine concern about the direction of this list after reading the article.LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete We don't need articles that list people by some label made up by their political and ideological opponents. The fact remains this term has almost never been used by any mainstream news source. We don't have a list called "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" that contains the names of world leaders because a reliable but biased right-wing political magazine does, so we shouldn't list these people as "Dominionists" because some activist left-wing magazines do. Merzbow (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Besides the BLP and NPOV problems mentioned, WP is really supposed to be an encyclopedia. To me that means articles for people to read. We have the article Dominionism. (But if you like lists how about one on Americans who have been compared to Adolf Hitler, with good references of course? :-) ) Steve Dufour (talk) 06:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable topic, notable orangizations, all should be able to be sourced. Can't be compared with embarrassing personal information that I can see. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Commenting on the nomination statement re: NPOV. Since the list is technically a split-off from Dominionism, all POV concerns should be directed there. Additionally, from the nomination, I get the impression that you think we could achieve greater accuracy and neutrality by e.g. renaming the articles from Dominionism to so-called "Dominionism", which albeit is not compatible with our article naming guidelines and also not necessary: Article titles are not meant to be strictly encyclopedically accurate; they are meant to improve accessibility and usability for the reader. Whether or not the term "Dominionism" reflects an immanent non-neutrality is entirely irrelevant for the article title. The accurate, referenced info is in the article itself. Ergo: Don't nominate an article for deletion just because you expect other people to not read past the title. Don't nominate articles for deletion for non-neutrality (real or otherwise) in the first place. Improve as necessary and useful instead. Also, keep the list as discriminate, referenceable, legitimately article-size-based split from the parent article. user:Everyme 13:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Struck and changed my opinion to delete per A.B.'s valid concerns. user:Everyme 20:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Having an article on dominionism is fine (though it should be checked for neutrality). We have lots of articles on contentious terms, and they do not violate NPOV as long as they explain who accept the term and who doesn't. Lists based on contentious terms are another story, as by their existence they imply that the term is valid. We have an article on new antisemitism but a list of people accused of new antisemitism would be very problematic. I think list of dictators and list of cults have been deleted for similar reason. Wkdewey (talk) 13:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per the LonelyBeacon's wonderful McCarthy argument. At long last, sirs, have you no decency? -- Relata refero (disp.) 18:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - saying someone is "associated with Dominionism" is an opinion. Quoting someone saying the same thing doesn't turn it into a fact. --D. Monack | talk 19:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The funny thing about LonelyBeacon's "List of known homosexuals" example is, of course, that such lists exist here as well (one is up for deletion now).  This list is, in my view, just as poisonous as that one.   I have yet to see a list of this sort that was not full of completely unsourced (or poorly sourced) "pushing" of political opponents into it.  Wikipedia is already used by many parties as a political football.  While we can't avoid that completely, we could at least not hang up a sign that says "Kick Me". Nandesuka (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The "sign" doesn't actually say "Kick me". As with everything else, we should kick people who misread the sign as saying Kick me. user:Everyme 15:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete - I've really spent some time trying to look at this from a different perspective, but I don't see it. I would certainly approve, as I think Everyme is bringing up, that any self admitted person that can be reliably references be included in the article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there anything that speaks against merging the referenceable parts into Dominionism as simple formulations? I.e., not asserting the association as a fact, but the association having been made. user:Everyme 03:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not really, or rather: not all of what I'm suggesting. Even for a person who has not self-identified, a simple statement that they have been associated with Dominionism by author X in publication Y is fully in order. That way, we avoid both asserting opinions as facts and censoring Wikipedia. It follows, that all of the referenced material in the article is basically suitable for inclusion, if appropriately worded. The main article would thus get overlong if the material were merged into it, thus the list should definitely be kept. user:Everyme 07:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If any individual claim is notable enough, it can go in that person's main article. It's the act of collecting these controversial and political claims made against unwilling subjects into one ugly list that's the problem. - Merzbow (talk) 08:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's Wikipedia's purpose to collect and categorise sourced information. The question of adherents is certainly relevant to the reader, and it belongs in the main article. Hiding it in individual's articles is not an option. user:Everyme 11:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - My reading of WP:CENSOR is that it would not apply here. Wikipedia should absolutely be free of censorship ... an article being offensive is not a reason to delete an article.  My support of deletion (and as I am reading in general, those of most people opposing deletion) is that this article is written in such a way that anyone in a community of scholars who wants to say "so-and-so acts as if (s)he is a dominionist" makes this list, even if the scholarship is on shaky ground. LonelyBeacon (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment [edit conflict] I'm a little uncertain about this now. the main Dominionism article can certainly include information about various opinions as to the scope of dominionism--though such information would need to be properly attributed and framed. I'm still not convinced that these allegations can have a page of their own. This list may be a "spinout" but it seems too much like a WP:POVFORK. The page has also somehow become embroiled in intelligent design-related disputes, even though its only tangentially related to intelligent design. Wkdewey (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - the only 2 sources for characterizing most of these people as dominionists are:
 * "Eyes Right! Challenging the Right Wing Backlash".
 * The book cover pretty much says it all
 * "Dominion Theology: The Truth About the Christian Right's Bid for Power".
 * Originally posted in Z Magazine; here's the magazine's self-description: "Z Magazine is a radical print and online periodical…."
 * Whether you agree with the dominionists, their critics above or just don't care, these two plainly partisan works should not be the only sourcing for putting most of the people on these list. I see this article as an ongoing BLP-sourcing problem and squabble-pit -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per Sceptre's and A.B.'s rationale. Cla68 (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per A.B. Merzbow and Sceptre. Especially A.B. Characterising people as being 'associated with dominionism' solely using obviously partisan sources is as clear an example of POV as they come. Probably some kind of BLP issue too. Naerii 23:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Noxious violation of NPOV/BLP. Would need an NPOV title and actual unpacked "allegations" (that is what they are&mdash;they don't call themselves this). In other words, a rewrite from scratch. This content has no place here. We are not Sourcewatch, and are certainly not an indiscriminate list of political insults. Cool Hand Luke 00:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is an inherently biased article simply because of the nature of the claim. If someone is falsely accused of being a Dominionist, there's at least a pretty decent chance that they aren't even going to give credence to the source by refuting it.  Karl Rove, for example, probably has better things to do than to respond to a claim by a website called "Theocracy Watch".  This article is used to source about half of the people on the "usage not embraced by the subject" list.  For one thing, the article doesn't even accuse them of being "dominionists" or claim that they support "dominionism" so even if you believe everything the article says, it doesn't justify including someone on this list.  The article claims that Rove said "We need to find ways to win the war" and was talking about "the war on secular society".  It does not describe his views as "dominionism".  Even if it did, what Rove was really talking about was the war on ABORTION .  So this article that is being used to source half of these people doesn't even call them "dominionists" and it lies about at least one of the people here.  This is nothing more than a BLP nightmare. --B (talk) 01:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per B's well reasoned argument, per Sceptre, per A. B., et al. Jim62sch's rather shrill denial of what's plain to most notwithstanding. ++Lar: t/c 05:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for BLP/NPOV reasons described ably above. I would also second BlueMoonlet's call that, apart from BLP/NPOV being resolved in a far more comprehensive and satisfactory way than has been attempted thus far, "this content ... should not appear on another page or template." --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 13:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.