Talk:TheocracyWatch

Sources

I added another source. If it is acceptable, we can take off the primary source tag. I'm going to look for more. FloNight ^talk 03:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Examining relationship with Cornell

From The Cornell Chronicle March 25, 2004. [3]

• The religious right and its effect on policy making is the focus of a six-day communitywide symposium titled "Church and State: The Radical Religious Right in U.S. Government," March 31 through April 5. The program includes free public lectures, panel discussions, films and a play, to be held on the Cornell and Ithaca College campuses, Tompkins County Public Library and elsewhere. The symposium is being coordinated through the Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy (CRESP) at Cornell, Cornell United Religious Work and TheocracyWatch, a project of CRESP.
• The symposium is co-sponsored by: Cornell Cinema, Planned Parenthood of Tompkins County, the Ithaca College Interfaith Community, the Common Ground, and eight departments and offices at Cornell.
• guest speakers include: Gary Simson, Cornell Law School associate dean for academic affairs and professor of law; Steve Schiffrin, Cornell professor of law; Rob Boston, director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State; Larry Moore, H.A. Newman Professor of American Studies-History and American Studies Program director at Cornell; Isaac Kramnick, Cornell vice provost for undergraduate education and professor of government; Gary Buseck, Lambda Legal Defense director; Ellis Hanson, associate professor of English, Cornell; Lisa Maurer, Ithaca College Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered Education, Outreach and Services; Anna Marie Smith, Cornell associate professor of government

Look it over and see what you think. FloNight ^talk 14:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed text for discussion

Conservative opponents have claimed founder Bokaer has maintained a close and friendly relationship with allegedly pro-Communist activists such as Chip Berlet,an individual whose work is listed as suggested reading on the Young Communist League's website, who spoke along with Bokaer at the 2005 “Examining the Real Agenda of the Religious Far Right” conference held at the City University of New York.[4]

The above text has a strong pov slant. The wording needs to be changed. --FloNight ^talk 22:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

References

TheocracyWatch's disputed neutrality

Here's the whole section, which raises the issue of WP:NPOV#undue weight which will need to be resolved FeloniousMonk 00:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC):

The organization has drawn criticism from its enemies for allegedly inventing conspiracies against its enemies in an effort to tarnish their image. They assert TheocracyWatch relies more upon innuendo and fear than hard facts.

"One can’t help from wondering: what’s the actual basis for the need to fear this supposed threat – especially since its “advocates” (Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, etc.) have explicitly committed themselves to religious pluralism, which necessarily brings with it opposition to Dominionism itself? (Dominionism would not allow any faith that denies God the Father to practice openly.) Opening the conference, Joan Bokaer, founder of TheocracyWatch.org, warned that prominent “Dominionists” or “Christian Reconstructionists” – interchangable terms – will lie in public forums (the scoundrels!), professing an innocent Republican agenda. That is to say that while Republican senators Bill Frist and Rick Santorum may vaguely be part of the supposed conspiracy to make the U.S. into an exclusively Christian country and to implement Old Testament law, there’s no way of proving it."[5]

Conservative opponents have claimed founder Bokaer has maintained a close and friendly relationship with allegedly pro-Communist activists such as Chip Berlet,an individual whose work is listed as suggested reading on the Young Communist League's website, who spoke along with Bokaer at the 2005 “Examining the Real Agenda of the Religious Far Right” conference held at the City University of New York.[6]

Can't stand the heat Felonius, it's only fair. You want to accuse Paul Weyrich of being a Dominionist/Theocrat. Then it's only fair to bring out Joan Bokaer's friends with Communist sympathizers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.161.241 (talk • contribs)

By your logic, if a Nazi group puts The National Review on its suggested reading list, I can call Bill Buckley a Nazi sympathizer. Absurd. Utterly absurd. FCYTravis 22:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It's tongue-in-cheek. Lighten up.--68.45.161.241 16:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

References

Dominionism section

What seemed to me a common-sense housekeeping edit was just reverted by FeloniousMonk. This content has been forked to its own page, List of people and organizations associated with Dominionism, and it seems unnecessary to duplicate it here. Furthermore, it seems that this article should contain information that is primarily about TheocracyWatch, while the content in question focuses on the wider issue of Dominionism. What is the objection to removing redundant material and refocusing this page on TheocracyWatch itself? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 06:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Per the Dominionism template AfD, these lists need to be watched for BLP problems as well. Including living persons in these lists requires some serious sourcing and single sourcing back to a student group isn't going to cut it. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Kyaa's reasons are completely unrelated to mine, but they indirectly add support to my reasoning, I think. Since this material is subject to controversy, it makes that much more sense to confine it to one page only. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

As well as misplaced since the source is merely primary source of what TW itself says, not presented as a secondary source to support definitive conclusion or fact at any individuals bio. Kyaa needs to read WP:PSTS again.

I restored the list because it is central to TheocractWatch's central claim, and the list you refer to is neither complete nor definitive. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"rm coatracking section"

If I recall correctly, "coatrack" is just somebody's essay, not a guideline or policy. Hence, it has little meaning other than being someone's ruminations on what he perceives to be a problem. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

COAT is one of the more accepted essays, to the point it has its own problem template. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It's still an essay. Period. I don't care that it has a template, any essay can have a template, it's not like they're hard to make. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC) BTW, by whom is it accepted? Have you the data that prove it is "one of the more accepted essays"? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Even aside from COAT claims (which I agree is just an essay and moreover cannot simply be invoked arbitrarily) I'd feel more comfortable about this list if we had some indication that the individual claims being made here are notable in the sense that independent sources have picked up and discussed them. (We don't for example feel a need to list on our article on Conservapedia every single thing they criticize about Wikipedia unless it goes to a secondary source). Which of these could be sources to secondary rather than primary sources? JoshuaZ (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that these are groups and individuals identied by Theocracy Watch as being Dominionist and given that the article is about Theocracy Watch I'm not sure I get your point. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It's time for them to go...

I think the burden of proof is upon those who deny that the reasoning and strong consensus at AfD/Dominionism List (2) applies to the long listy section on this page. The content is very nearly the same, and definitely identical in its spirit, and the arguments both for and against the list can be applied just as well to the section here.

If disagreement on the issue persists, then I can invite all users who commented on the AfD (without exception, so it's not WP:CANVASSing) to comment on this section. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. In case anyone would be inclined to interpret my headline as being directed against any individual users, let me state now that it applies to the content in question. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe that its blatantly evident from the discussion on this page that I believe that the spirit of the afd would call for the removal of this list from this article. I second JoshuaZ's concern that these claims do not have adequate sourcing as well. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree totally. The list clearly constitutes the sum and substance of TheocracyWatch's views, and so is central to understanding the topic. The TheocracyWatch articles provided in the list are primary sources for TheocracyWatch's views, and as such fully support the content of the list. I've restored it and am more than happy to debate this point here. FeloniousMonk (talk) 08:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

If the information is so crucial for understanding TheocracyWatch, then you should summarize it briefly and then link to the TheocracyWatch page that contains the list.

The conclusion of AfD/Dominionism List (2) was "delete because of severe NPOV and BLP problems." It was explicitly stated during the AfD that the conclusion should apply not just to the article then in question, but to the content at any location. Not a single person objected during the AfD, and not a single person objected when the AfD's conclusions were implemented by removing the list from this page. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

As no reply appears to be forthcoming, I have gone ahead and reverted FM's changes for now. If disagreement persists on this matter, I am still willing (as I said above) to contact the users who were involved in the Dominionism List AfD to solicit comments. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Like FM said, the list clearly representative of the TheocracyWatch's own views, and as such is fine and needs to stay. Seems to me you're ignoring the issue and trying to whitewash this article. Why is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.237.4.140 (talk) 01:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP, WP:Consensus... single determined user opinion noted and plonked. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)