Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 13

< Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JJay (talk | contribs) at 15:00, 14 April 2006 (→[]: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:00, 14 April 2006 by JJay (talk | contribs) (→[]: comment)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

< April 12	April 14 >

April 13, 2006

Template:Dominionism

Template:Dominionism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
All the parties listed in this template could be argued are not "dominionist". At least there needs to be proof. At least one of the persons listed (Schaefer) is not a dominionist. It is a relatively minor political philosophy, with very few adherents (even fewer who consider themselves adherents), and doesn't warrant a template. Most importantly, this template is seeking to push a biased POV (where those included who don't claim the title would consider it slander. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 21:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Dominionism is too minor to merit the attention it has been given. - C mon 21:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete, its an attack term, and not a very popular one. Sam Spade 22:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep Useful template. Whether some feel the term Dominionism is perjorative is irrelevant. FeloniousMonk 22:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep I see no reason to delete it. And I wish "GUÐSÞEGN" would spell God correctly. Jim62sch 22:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment -- unles the user is going for Old Norse, in which case, never mind -- but use runes! Jim62sch 23:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Uuuhhh, Icelandic (very near Old Norse), and that's a bit of a distraction, don't you think? GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 23:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. While term's meaning is controversial and has become an epithet in some cases, the same could be said of communism/fascism/socialism etc. As for adherents, the US Constitution Party outpolled the Greens in the 2004 election, and the Christian Heritage Party outpolled every minor party except the Greens in the last Canadian election. I'd certainly put its impact on the modern Anglosphere political environment ahead of Communitarianism and likely on par with Libertarianism. The Tom 22:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You are assuming said parties are "dominionist", which has yet to be proven/defended. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 23:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

In the case of parties like Socialists, etc.: those parties claim the term. It is part of their names. They think it represents them well. The same could not be said of the parties you labelled "dominionist" in creating the template in question. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 23:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Self-appellation isn't the litmus in our political articles, though. The National Socialist German Workers Party seemed to be under the impression it was socialist, but they were largely alone on that count. Likewise, while Misplaced Pages refers to certain organizations as "neofascist," most would self-identify as just "nationalist" movements. 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. The Tom 00:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

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 – U T E X – 04:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Dominionism gets 32 hits in google scholar, many of which are not relevant . By way of comparison, communitarianism gets 8,000 hits , libertarianism 6,200 , anarchism 11,700 , socialism 223,000 , etc. A standard google search gives 537 unique hits . Google books gives 35 unique hits, again with some that are not relevant . Thus, far from being on a par with these established idealogies, dominionism does not looks to be a widely accepted term. This raises the very real question of why we, as a serious reference work, are devoting this much attention to an ill-defined neologistic term? At what point do we cross the line from reporting on established concepts and definitions to establishing them ourselves in violation of NOR? And while the interest of certain editors to use any means possible to expose Christian, right-wing thinking may be admirable, if we have to lower our standards to do so the entire reference work suffers. -- JJay 15:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep - I don't see a valid case for deletion made here. Guettarda 01:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Care needs to be taken with who is added to the template, because in the case of living people, we'd need excellent sources showing they were widely regarded as associated with dominionism. But that's a question of how to edit the template, not whether to have it. And to include articles related to the concept is very useful. SlimVirgin 01:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. While The Tom looks to be alone in making a cogent argument for this, I'm not convinced that Dominionism is on a par with the other political ideologies included. -- JJay 01:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Slim. JoshuaZ 03:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. The template is not divisuve, it has a clear and encyclopaedic purpose and it does not appear to embody any bias either in its text or by its existence. This appears to be a valid term with credible academic references in the political science literature. Just zis Guy you know? 09:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per The Tom and Guy et al. KillerChihuahua 11:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep JeffBurdges 14:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Benin infobox

Delete, of course. —Nightstallion (?) 22:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:SS and Template:SO

Template:SS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:SO (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Ugh. Souped-up versions of {{support}} and {{oppose}} (see their TFD). Thankfully only the first of these is used, and in only one place, at present - Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. Please, never again! -- ALoan (Talk) 14:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

"Souped up" in this sense means that instead of having the picture and saying "support", it has the picture and says "strong support". Ditto for oppose. Recreation of previously deleted content - speedily deleted. Raul654 02:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Comune

Template:Comune (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I'm guessing this was someone's attempt to use the Italian version of the template. Obviously, it doesn't work (and I fixed all the articles that were using it), and Template:Infobox Italy town is the template this was intended to be. TimBentley (talk) 03:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

NYCS Culver templates

Template:Nndb name

In what sense do you mean spam generator? Do you think they plan to have advertising in the future? I have to admit their information doesn't seem to be particularly reliable.--Larrybob 00:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)