The whole Dominionism series which appears to have been created to slander and defame living persons such as D. James Kennedy needs close watching.
Doctor Kennedy, I would presume, is not someone the Board would wanna fuck with.
Let's examine in cursory fashion the financial resources of the parties in question:
Political Research Associates
Assets: $872,658 (from Dec 31, 2004 Form 990)
Income: $809,011 (from Dec 31, 2004 Form 990)
Wikimedia Foundation
Assets: $277,409 (from IRS BMF)
Income: $361,618 (from IRS BMF)
Coral Ridge Ministries
Assets: $13,456,873 (from Dec 31, 2005 Form 990)
Income: $38,851,138 (from Dec 31, 2005 Form 990)
Alliance Defense Fund
Assets: $22,697,664 (from Jun 30, 2005 Form 990)
Income: $21,986,553 (from Jun 30, 2005 Form 990)
What is at issue is the intent of this alleged "scholarship". The problem of slander masquarading as "scholarship" from the offending party is nothing new, and was brought to the attenton of ArbCom (and presumably the Board) months ago. Nonetheless, special priveleges and the continued use of Wikipedia as a soapbox for defamation shows signs of reaching a new level.
Full Version: Dominionism
Example
Upto the minute example can be found here
D. James Kennedy biography reads,
the first See also in [[Christian right]] is, [[Christian fascism]], with a redirect to an AfD,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...sm_and_religion
where the value of this
It's not like Wikipedia was not warned about the authors of this series
(who are cited twice on the Template as "People who define and track Dominionism")
Upto the minute example can be found here
D. James Kennedy biography reads,
QUOTE
Kennedy is an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church in America, having transferred his membership there in the late 1970s from the Presbyterian Church in the United States. He is considered a conservative evangelical minister who is often involved in political activities within the [[Christian right]];
the first See also in [[Christian right]] is, [[Christian fascism]], with a redirect to an AfD,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...sm_and_religion
where the value of this
QUOTE
Strange article, mixing completly disparate concepts with no NPOV common denominator. 'Fascism', is in modern political context almost exclusively used as a pejorative, and the common denominator of all tendencies mentioned in the article is that they have opponents that have branded them as such.
is discussed. Other comments read,QUOTE
...a lot of stuff about extremely conservative religious groups with possible theocratic tendencies being called "fascists" by their opponents
QUOTE
--unacceptably POV. It's high time Wikipedia got rid of all of these concept articles, as most of them are little more than highly POV/OR/OR synthesis essays, like this one. OR synthesis is the big problem. Even if you base your essay upon reliable sources, it's still an essay and OR applies.
QUOTE
OR of low quality, war zone.
QUOTE
a lot of it is OR and pure POV, on topics such as these, sources are also inherently biased and tend to not present facts as they should be presented.
It's not like Wikipedia was not warned about the authors of this series
(who are cited twice on the Template as "People who define and track Dominionism")
QUOTE
There is nothing even vaguely impartial, objective or scholarly about [Political Research Associates] except the image it attempts to foist upon an unsuspecting public, including reporters and researchers who contact it for information."
Some Watchdog programs are valuable and important, especially as they help to ...dispel antagonism and hatred between groups of people. In entering into a program of political warfare against their enemies, real or imagined, they [Political Research Associates] have compromised this goal."
Intent, and the long trail of dubious methodology can be evidenced.
Some Watchdog programs are valuable and important, especially as they help to ...dispel antagonism and hatred between groups of people. In entering into a program of political warfare against their enemies, real or imagined, they [Political Research Associates] have compromised this goal."
WP:NOT
According to LA Weekly, his fellow right-wing "Christers" are pissed off:
So to "engage them" means developing "strategies to defeat them", evidently using the resources of Wikipedia. Another Goddamn scandal Wikipedia ought to wake up to.
The Newsday article that links from the Dominionism page is entitled,
QUOTE
Wikipedia is not a soapbox
Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:
Propaganda or advocacy of any kind.
Wikipedia Dominionism links to this page with this quoteWikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:
Propaganda or advocacy of any kind.
QUOTE
Chip Berlet isn't the devil. He doesn't even look the part....
These days, Berlet thinks of himself as an organizer, a researcher and a radical left-wing Christian. Yet he counts among his friends quite a few people whom his other friends consider whacked-out right-wing religious zealots.
"Actually," Berlet was saying on Friday afternoon, "I don't like those labels at all, calling people 'religious extremists' or 'radical religious right.' You can't have a conversation when you start that way. I want to talk to these people. I want to engage them"
Don't like name calling, huh?These days, Berlet thinks of himself as an organizer, a researcher and a radical left-wing Christian. Yet he counts among his friends quite a few people whom his other friends consider whacked-out right-wing religious zealots.
"Actually," Berlet was saying on Friday afternoon, "I don't like those labels at all, calling people 'religious extremists' or 'radical religious right.' You can't have a conversation when you start that way. I want to talk to these people. I want to engage them"
QUOTE
Christianist - “could be of some utility.â€
Another participant of the discussion, Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates, argues against the terms “Radical Religious Right†and “Religious Political Extremists.†He states that there’s nothing wrong with "Religious Right" or "Christian Right;" but, that the problem is the words "radical" and "extremist" tossed in as a label on top. The words "extremist" and "radical" are “difficult to justify when talking about people who are members of Congress and our neighbors and relatives.
He also warns against the term "Extreme Right," which for most people (and most scholars) means fascists and neo-Nazis. He thinks that "Far right" can be used sparingly, when it is descriptive.
Berlet also likes the terms “Religious Supremacist†or “Christian Supremacist,†and further recommends the terms “bullying†and its variants.
http://www.religiousrightwatch.com/2005/07...hings_peop.html
"I want to talk to these people. I want to engage them." Another participant of the discussion, Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates, argues against the terms “Radical Religious Right†and “Religious Political Extremists.†He states that there’s nothing wrong with "Religious Right" or "Christian Right;" but, that the problem is the words "radical" and "extremist" tossed in as a label on top. The words "extremist" and "radical" are “difficult to justify when talking about people who are members of Congress and our neighbors and relatives.
He also warns against the term "Extreme Right," which for most people (and most scholars) means fascists and neo-Nazis. He thinks that "Far right" can be used sparingly, when it is descriptive.
Berlet also likes the terms “Religious Supremacist†or “Christian Supremacist,†and further recommends the terms “bullying†and its variants.
http://www.religiousrightwatch.com/2005/07...hings_peop.html
According to LA Weekly, his fellow right-wing "Christers" are pissed off:
QUOTE
All that, says Berlet, is what is motivating the skein of Christer boycotts, protest campaigns and censorship drives bubbling from the bottom up — which get added emotional and pressure power from the fund-raising-driven crusades launched by political Christer organizations like AFA at the national level. The confluence of from-above and from-below is a powerful mix.
There’s one big problem: Nobody at the national level is tracking these Christer censorship and pressure campaigns in a systematic way, to quantify them or assess their impact, so that strategies to defeat them can be developed. “People for the American Way used to track this stuff, but they stopped doing so systematically in 1996. We at Political Research Associates would love to do it,†says Berlet, “but we don’t have the resources.
http://www.laweekly.com/general/features/t...-blacklist/574/
There’s one big problem: Nobody at the national level is tracking these Christer censorship and pressure campaigns in a systematic way, to quantify them or assess their impact, so that strategies to defeat them can be developed. “People for the American Way used to track this stuff, but they stopped doing so systematically in 1996. We at Political Research Associates would love to do it,†says Berlet, “but we don’t have the resources.
http://www.laweekly.com/general/features/t...-blacklist/574/
So to "engage them" means developing "strategies to defeat them", evidently using the resources of Wikipedia. Another Goddamn scandal Wikipedia ought to wake up to.
The Newsday article that links from the Dominionism page is entitled,
QUOTE
"A spiritual olive branch for the far-right faithful."
This calls to mind the Daniel Brandt quote that once graced the Political Reasearch Associates entry,QUOTE
...an organization that will "generally inbreed with their adversaries and mutate into a peculiar political animal." [3].
...this is really on your mind, isn't it?
QUOTE(Elara @ Wed 24th January 2007, 11:34am) 
...this is really on your mind, isn't it?
QUOTE(Elara @ Wed 24th January 2007, 12:34pm)
...this is really on your mind, isn't it?
This is why we like you, Elara - even if you do think Cyde is a good admin, you make up for it by being a master of understatement!
(Or "mistress" of understatement, if you prefer.
)
As far as I am aware, dominionism is not a perjorative. However the definition of dominionism on Wikipedia is inaccurate and perjorative.
QUOTE(nobs @ Wed 24th January 2007, 12:19pm)
QUOTE(Elara @ Wed 24th January 2007, 11:34am)
...this is really on your mind, isn't it?
I call 'em 'The American Taliban' Like that better? ;-)
QUOTE(FNORD23 @ Sun 1st April 2007, 10:27pm)
QUOTE(nobs @ Wed 24th January 2007, 12:19pm)
QUOTE(Elara @ Wed 24th January 2007, 11:34am)
...this is really on your mind, isn't it?
I call 'em 'The American Taliban' Like that better? ;-)
I call the democrats "The American Stalinist" so there...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.