Talk:Dominionism/Archive 2

message: I removed
:Religious historians, like Nathan Hatch, Mark Noll and others, also suggest that modern fundamentalists are nostalgic for a time that never really existed as they imagine it: a time in the indefinite past, before the turbulent sixties, when wholesomeness, and sanity, and harmony prevailed under a benevolent religion much as they conceive their own to be.
which had been uncited for a while. I looked through the books by Hatch and by Noll that I could search on Amazon and did not find this. Could someone find the specific book this is in? The same passage is in Christian Supremacy, where I added a citation request. Tom Harrison Talk 02:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that you'll eventually find the gist of the statement to be supportable; but you're right to remove it at least until a source is found, to that effect. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatch, Noll, and nostalgia 

message: I'm removing the clarification of the views of others who do not hold the described view, as it can only possibly be vague and incomplete in its attempt to explain what all other Christians think dominion means. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-dominionist Dominionism 

message: The see-also list is getting rather long. I just wrote a template which I would like to insert, to allow us to gain a clear oversight. It's :Template:Relpolnav (Religious Politics Navbar). Take a peek, comment there. samwaltz 22:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also/Template 

message: See the current front page www.conservapedia.com on 5 July 2007, and item 4 on their little list of things against Wikipedia. Comments? Jackiespeel 18:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See this link to get directly there.  I of course agree with the criticism. I think wikipedia's method of editing works fairly well when you are dealing with non-controversial issues, but when you have issue where people have axes to grind the system breaks down, and what you get is the tyranny of the majority (the majority in this case being defined by the majority of those who have the time, energy, and willingness to engage in what is often a quite nasty battle over the particulars of an article), regardless of the actual facts.  Frjohnwhiteford 23:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Conservapedia tells us that dominionism is a conspiracy theory invented by liberals with no factual basis. Wikipedia, what's your response? --Jonathan Drain 18:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No response is necessary. Conservapedia is explicitly and admittedly a biased, partisan source. They have no more credibility here than these folks. --FOo 19:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservapedia on Wikipedia and dominionism 

message: It is just silly to use the phrase "alleged tendency," The term "Dominionism" is used by scholars and journalists. There are numerous cites on the page.--Cberlet 12:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged? 

message: This has been a profitable discussion in many ways.  I know that my views have been corrected and clarified on many points.  I hope to work on a revised version of the article, taking into account the many good points and useful views expressed above, though I will be occupied with other responsibilities over the next few weeks.  If/when I come out with a new version, I will post it here for comment before editing the mainspace.  --BlueMoonlet 20:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks

message: Bluemoonlet was kind enough to provide sources in response to my question about the terms "Generic" "Soft" and "Hard" dominionism.  Based on those sources, it is clear that someone conflated the terms "generic" and "soft", despite the fact that the source that used them did not use them synonymously.  I did an edit to reflect that, attributed the definitions to the source that used and defined the terms, and then FeloniousMonk reverted the edits without comment on the talk page, but with simply the edit summary "rv. to last without WP:SYNTH issues".  After reviewing that section in the style manual, I fail to see how it applies.  I did not assume my edits would be the final form or the section... but rather than just reverting to an erroneous edit without comment, should we not instead improve a section with our edits... and to do so with some interaction and commentary here?
For those of you who have wondered why editing this article has moved slowly, this is why.  You commented that there was "complaining" without any actual movement... well the complaining has been an attempt to identify issues... but I personally have been slow to actually make edits myself just because have editors that do not engage in the discussion here, but who will just undo any work that is put into doing anything to address these "complaints".  Frjohnwhiteford 10:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This really is becoming a problem.  There is constructive conversation going on here at the talk page, and constructive edits are coming out of it.  For people to revert those edits without engaging in constructive conversation is quite unseemly.  --BlueMoonlet 13:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I am sure that FM will explain his edit. In any case I could not be satisfied with a paragraph that starts with "Some critics distinguish between...". It would be better to name the people that make the distinction and avoid casting assessments about them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally don't think the use of the word "critic" in this context is anything but an objective description of who we are talking about... it is certainly not the advocates that use this term, and there are precious few people who use it at all.  But I just modified it to reference Chip, since he provides a definition, and he is now referred to as a "writer" rather than a "critic"... though I would point out that the Dominionism Template refers to him as a critic... and no one has thus far objected.  Frjohnwhiteford 23:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am clearly a "critic" in my non-Wiki persona as Chip Berlet, and as such have no objection to that term being used in this entry. I thought the edit by Frjohnwhiteford was constructive. (just back from fly fishing in Maine).--Cberlet 00:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, but experience has taught me that there are some here who are not interested in good faith discussions to resolve content disputes, but rather see the talk page as a means of wearing down opponents to their treatment of articles as soapboxes. And WP:AGF clearly says "does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." There's been sufficient evidence to the contrary at this article and elsewhere. Established editors are under no obligation to respond to changes rejected previously for not stacking up well against policy, nor would I advise them to do so. Odd nature 00:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So which wiki policy entitles an editor, such as yourself, to just undo other edits, without making any effort to explain or defend your reasons for doing so?  I would say that there is good evidence that some editors are lacking in good faith too.  We probably disagree as to who they are.  I would suggest that continued unilateral edits without any regard for the opinions of others is a good sign of that lack of good faith. Frjohnwhiteford 02:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I should add that other than actually clarifying who it is that uses the term, and providing documentation that this was so (whereas the previous edit was simply an undocumented assertion), and removing the word "generic" which was misused in the previous edit, the content of this section has not substantially changed, and so I fail to see where the alleged [WP:SYNTH] issues are to be found in any change that I made. Frjohnwhiteford 02:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing without comment 

message: I would like to submit for consideration this strawman draft for overhaul of this article (current version here for posterity).  Keeping in mind the many good points made above, I have tried to do several things in rewriting the article:
:1. Clarity and readability:  In many cases, the original (current mainspace) article has statements on the same subject scattered through the article, and some topics are "introduced" multiple times.  Furthermore, its readability is often quite clunky, as if it were written by committee (which it probably was).  I have collected statements on similar subjects and tried to group them together.  I have eliminated lengthy sections with vague titles ("Range of Dominionist ideas", "Dominionism debated") and tried to keep to short tightly-written sections with descriptive titles.  In the course of doing this, much of the language in the original (current mainspace) article has been reworked, but most of it is still there in some form.  Some language blocks that were removed entirely, along with my reasons, can be found in this outtakes page. 
:2. I have scrupulously tried to maintain the orientation of an NPOV discussion of how the term is used, without assuming that any one definition of Dominionism is "correct."  
:3 I have scrupulously tried to cite reliable sources for all major and/or controversial statements in the article. 
:4. Explain infobox items:  Every person or organization listed in Template:Dominionism (current version) is now mentioned in the article with the best citations I could find (I scoured Talk:Dominionism and Template talk:Dominionism, including archives) for including them.  This format should help us in the future to discuss what should and should not be in the infobox. 
Of course, you may think that I have gotten some things wrong.  You may even be right.  :)  I have tried as well as I can to understand this subject matter and write about it fairly, but I gladly welcome constructive criticism.  Insults, assumptions of bad faith, and unelaborated citations of WP policy pages will be ignored.  You are welcome to make relatively minor (on the "sprucing-up" level) edits to the strawman on your own initiative.  I would prefer that any substantial issues be discussed below before action is taken on them.  Given the contentiousness of this issue in the past, let's aim for at least an approximation of WP:CONSENSUS before editing the mainspace.  Thank you in advance for a productive discussion.  --BlueMoonlet 03:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your hard work on this, BlueMoonlet. I think your draft is a great improvement on the current version. I have taken the liberty of tweaking a few minor things, and two others that I would like to suggest: standardize to italics in phrases like "the term dominionism" (cf. WP:MOS#Italics), and convert the footnotes to a notes/references model  by taking the page numbers into the notes rather than listing them inline (cf. WP:CITE#Maintaining_a_separate_.22References.22_section_in_addition_to_.22Notes.22 and, as examples, Demosthenes and Islam). Also, I think it a little dubious to list former advocates in the Template unless they played a significant role as dominionists, which it doesn't appear that they have. --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Flex.  I did not feel I had the interest/energy for either of these tasks.  Please feel free.  --BlueMoonlet 14:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Flex, I didn't take the time to look at the links you provided before saying "yes" to your notes/references idea.  Now that I have, I'm not sure I agree.  There are only a few places where specific page numbers are cited inline, and I don't know that that number is enough to change over to a (as it seems to me) more confusing system in which the reader first has to follow a footnote to get the author and year, and then has to find that author and year in a separate alphabetical references section.  I had thought you just meant to separate notes and references in separate sections, which Demosthenes does do by sequencing the notes with letters instead of numbers.  But this is done by hardwiring the letters into the code, which (as a LaTeX user) offends me greatly on principle. :) I suppose I wouldn't mind if you want to go ahead and do that, but it would be nice if someone would develop a <note> tag that advances alphabetically to go along with the <ref> tag that advances numerically.  Anyway, that's a long and only marginally relevant ramble.  --BlueMoonlet 02:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I would rather just swap the new version into the mainspace and edit from there. It is a more democratic and collective way of editing an entry. It is the only real way to determina consensus.  Editing in sandbox space is great for a rewrite, but dubious once a solid version has been written.--Cberlet 16:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's what you think is best, I am happy to comply.  Done.  --BlueMoonlet 17:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Odd nature has reverted this change. I hope s/he will soon enlighten us with his/her specific criticisms here. I think the changes improved the article overall from the previous version, even if it needs more work. --Flex (talk/contribs) 18:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted it back. A majority of active editors prefer to fix the new version rather than fight over the old. I have lots of suggestions and changes, but to be honest, the new version is better written and better cited.  I will dig up more cites to authors other than Diamond, Clarkson, and Berlet; but until I do it is fair to suggest the current version is properly cited. It will be much easier to tinker with a well-written version than to go back to a rather choppy and repetative old version. This is less about POV than recognizing a good editing job has having intrinsic value, even if the POV has shifted in one direction. If we want to shift the POV back to a more critical stance, it is up to us to find the cites.  That's only fair.  --Cberlet 19:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:BlueMoonlet/Dominionism|Strawman draft for article overhaul]] 

message: Frjohn, why do you think that the POV tag should remain on the article?  It's not clear to me that ON was wrong this time.  --BlueMoonlet 21:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not had a chance to go over the lattest version of the article thoroughly myself, and I suspect I am not alone. I think there should be a consensus that all NPOV issues have been resolved before it is removed.  I do think we are getting there, if we are not there yet. Frjohnwhiteford 21:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: After reviewing the article, I think it is about as close to neutral as we are likely to get any time soon.  So I am OK with removing the NPOV tag.  Frjohnwhiteford 23:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: There are lots of references on the cultural mandate, and I will work on collecting some.  I have no disagreement with your other two criticisms.  The discussion of the concept of a "Christian nation" in that section is idiosyncratic and way too brief.  It really should be the basis of an entire article on "Christian nation," which is a much more widespread term than Dominionism.  But I do not have the interest or energy to write such an article.  --BlueMoonlet 15:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag again 

message: Wouldn't Christian leftists who want to enforce their morality upon non-Christians-- William Jennings Bryan, Al Sharpton, Hugo Chavez, et cetera-- be considered as "dominionist" as Focus on the Family, if not more so? Revolutionaryluddite 20:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the label is not aplied to them in a reliable source, then it doesn't belong in Wikipedia.  --BlueMoonlet 20:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chip Berlet, who's article says "is senior analyst at Political Research Associates in the Boston area. Berlet is co–author of Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort (Guilford, 2000) and editor of Eyes Right! Challenging the Right Wing Backlash (South End Press, 1995), both of which received a Gustavus Myers Center Award for outstanding scholarship on the subject of human rights and bigotry in North America", defines and describes 'dominionism' as this article does and lists 'Catholic' as a 'dominionist' theology. Berlet wrote in Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort that "These subcultures were Protestant Christian Reconstructionism and apocalyptic Catholic traditionalism. They took the lead in shaping dominion- ism". Dr. David R. Koepsell wrote in the Secular Humanist Bulletin that "Now, dominionism is not limited to the pentecostal and fundamentalist Christian communities, but sweeps through Episcopalian and Roman Catholic communities". These are partisan sources, but the term 'dominionism' itself is a relatively obscure term used almost exclusively by partisan sources. See the google results for 'moonbat' and 'bush derangement syndrome', which are as popular or more popular than 'dominionism' and are used in the same way. Revolutionaryluddite 01:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian Leftists: Domonists? 

message: Is "Christian Fundamentalist" meant to be an insult directed at me?  Or justification for removing text?  I am far from fundamentalist.  In fact, in case anyone cares, I quite strongly disagree with the Christian Right on both political and theological grounds.  My purpose here is only to ensure that the topic is discussed accurately and without hostility.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't sweat the personal attacks. They happen all the time and they will keep happening. Revolutionaryluddite 00:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to point out that that user recently wrote on his or her talk page "I rarely good faith to editors" and "My edit summaries can be anything from somewhat sarcastic to downright rude. I have no tolerance of fools." Again, don't sweat it. Revolutionaryluddite 00:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names 

message: I'm concerned that this section constitutes original research. We seem to be making a synthesis based on primary sources. JoshuaZ 15:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems pointless to blank out all of the references in a single paragraph and replace them with fact tags; what you're left with is unacceptable: a string of 8 fact tags and no references. I attempted to correct this absurdity by directing the matter to talk and reverting the section so that it actually displayed the citations under discussion. Since that attempted reversion has now been characterized as "vandalism" I've instead deleted the section entirely. Looks like it'll be that way for awhile. Mike Doughney 19:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dominionism as the Christian Right