Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Fundamentalism (disambiguation)

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 no consensus. Absolutely no consensus to do anything here, but it appears that this is not a deletion issue anyway, but a question of where certain articles should be located. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Fundamentalism (disambiguation)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This nomination was mistakenly placed at WP:MFD. Since there were a number of good-faith comments before the mistake was noticed, I am transferring the discussion already underway rather than closing and re-opening. See original nomination statement by Toddst1 below. RL0919 (talk) 23:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a completely unnecessary DAB page. Apple (disambiguation) doesn't point to Fruit as an entry. Apple is not an ambiguous term for fruit just as Christian Fundamentalism (religious movement) is not an ambiguous term for broadly constructed Religious Fundamentalism.

This was originally tagged and deleted under WP:CSD#A6 but the article's creator protests. I've restored it and am taking it to XFD as a courtesy. (note the article's creator removed the CSD tag). Toddst1 (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Speaking as the Creator Keep. The issue here is when people search "Christian Fundamentalism" it has grown into an ambiguous catch all term to refer to diverse number of movements not affiliated with the movement founded on "Bible Institute of Los Angeles's The Fundamentals: A Testimony To The Truth" the Scofield Reference Bible and Calvinist principals or . This is an important distinction and one lost on many people who have never studied the issue. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of you might be unaware of the history of the term "Christian Fundamentalism." Definitions are tricky since terminology shift frequently.

Christian Fundamentalism historically referred to Theological School of Christian thought that peaked around the 1920s. This movement centered itself The Fundamentals: A Testimony To The Truth (Thus the name "Fundamentalists") and the Scofield Reference Bible as holy texts.

Example of Scholarly Literature using that definition: Joel Carpenter's Revive Us Again: The Reawakening of American Fundamentalism.

That Historical movement is a separate from the Anthropological/Sociological/Psychology phenomenon of "Religious Fundamentalism." This is a much broader category of phenomenon which happen to share some characteristics originally observed in in the Christian Fundamentalists. Religious Fundamentalism has been observed in movements among Jews, Muslims, Sikhs and of course within Christianity.

Example of Scholarly Literature using the definition: Ralph W. Hood's "The Psychology of Religious Fundamentalism"

The issue here is in common discourse, many groups fitted with the label "Christian Fundamentalists" are completely separate from the theological school. From the Social Science definition "Christian Fundamentalists" includes group such as Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventist Church who are appropriately categorized as such. However, the traditional usage does not cover such a broad scope of christian religious groups.

To sum it all up: Christian Fundamentalism (religious movement) were Christian Fundamentalists from the Study of religion perspective. However not all groups labeled from that perspective were/are a part of the historical movement of Christian Fundamentalism (religious movement). The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This shouldn't be a disambig, though; it's a WP:CONCEPTDAB. We should have an article similar to your explanation above that covers the various historic and modern meanings of the term; that would be the best service to the readers. We can do that by restoring and modifying the "religious movement" article, or by creating a new article. --JaGa^talk 15:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JaGa. Total war also doesn't have a universally accepted definition, but that's not a good reason to turn it into a dab. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnecessary dab. The subject is a type of religious fundamentalism, and as such does not need to be disambiguated (agree with the apple and fruit comparison above). More suitable as a hat note, maybe. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 00:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jsfouche. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary. Paul foord (talk) 03:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Klein zach 04:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ResidentAnthropologist. American Fundamentalism needs to be clearly disambiguated from the catch-all pejorative that "fundamentalism" became. --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient ambiguity to disambiguate. Someone searching for "Christian Fundamentalism" should be taken to Christian Fundamentalism (religious movement). That article has a hat link to Fundamentalism for searchers who didn't really mean to type "christian". This dab page only additionally lists "A form of Religious Fundamentalism", but Religious Fundamentalism redirects to Fundamentalism (since October 2002). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference, mainspace pages, including disambiguation pages like this, should be listed at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but then it would make sense. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 23:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. You're Wikipedian Fundamentalists. :) Toddst1 (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A hat note seems sufficient. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 23:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close, resubmit to AfD The reason we have different XfDs is because of community attention. There is obvious difference of opinion that requires the attention of the editors of the correct namespace. If this were a snowball I wouldn't raise this point, but it isn't. Is not about being a rules freak, is about being fair to the content.--Cerejota (talk) 04:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We must find a better peer review than this peer review? Really? Excuse my fuckup by posting it at the wrong *fd but that comment seems pedantic. Toddst1 (talk) 05:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it is to be moved, tt is not necessary to close it to move it. Just move it with the above !votes intact. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complex issue beyond the existence of the dab. I have some comments, but since this may not be the appropriate forum, I'll wait till the discussion is moved. It has to do, however, with the fact that Christian fundamentalism redirects to the dab, and that there is no article on Christian fundamentalism as such, since over at Christian Fundamentalism (religious movement) they insist that CF capitalized is a proper noun for a defined "movement". I don't know anything about that formal movement, but I do know Wikipedia needs a neutral article on Christian fundamentalism, even if it's a mythical beast. We have plenty of articles explaining mythical beasts, and as a lifelong resident of the American Midwest, South, and the Appalachians, I can assure you that there are frequent sightings of something called Christian fundamentalism. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If someone knows how to move it, please do so. Toddst1 (talk) 13:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to AFD. There are a few steps, so I will update when it is completely moved. --RL0919 (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC) UPDATE: Transfer complete. I left the MFD page as a redirect in case anyone looks for it, but the discussion is now exclusively listed at AFD. --RL0919 (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my !v now is Keep. There should be an article on "Christian fundamentalism" itself, rather than just a general "religious fundamentalism" article, but until which time as it is possible it is necessary to make a clear distinction between the religious movement and the common usage of the phrase. The hatting suggestion seems to not understand that overwhelmingly when people use this phrase, they are not referring to the religious movement, but the epithet.--Cerejota (talk) 11:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article may or may not be related to Fundamentalism because its exact context is not known. As written this article could go in any number of directions regarding content.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 04:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete - I'm not sure the idea behind this disambiguation page, but it seems POV. As a two-item DAB it is certainly not necessary, at a minimum, and a violation of guidelines, at a maximum.~~ Keep - Concerns resolved by addition of more items to list. Probably needs to lose the second capital letter in title, which is a minor editing issue. Carrite (talk) 05:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep, with question. ~~I agree that this dab doesn't seem to serve much of a purpose.~~ But what happens to Christian fundamentalism when it's deleted? Christian fundamentalism redirects to the dab. A contingent at Christian Fundamentalism (religious movement) asserts that there's a proper noun and formal "movement" called Christian Fundamentalism that can be distinguished from "Christian fundamentalism" (as the phrase is widely used in journalism and everyday conversation). Christian fundamentalism, however, has no article: it redirects to our dab to-be-deleted, which also offers the user Religious Fundamentalism (again the uppercase), which violates dab style by being a piped link to Fundamentalism, which presumably is capitalized only because it's the first word of the article title. At the section Fundamentalism#Protestant Christian views, however, we are told that if one is interested in Christian fundamentalism the main article is Christian Fundamentalism (religious movement), where, as I've already exhausted your patience by pointing out, editors on the talk page maintain that the article mustn't deal with Christian fundamentalism, lower case, and where the first paragraph presents a definition of "Christian Fundamentalism" as framed by an individual scholar by name. I think Carrite is right to suspect something to do with questionable content forking here, since Christian Fundamentalism (religious movement) is tagged for neutrality issues. My point is, if you delete Christian Fundamentalism (disambiguation), then Christian fundamentalism will presumably go to Christian Fundamentalism (religious movement), where it is unwanted. Cynwolfe (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does not meet gng Pass a Method talk 08:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You got to pass us all some of that primo stuff you been smoking, cause dude, of all the problems with this article, GNG aint it. I highly dislike google tests, but in this case the quantity of sources is a quality in itself: [1]. Notice they are books on the subject, not media mentions. --Cerejota (talk) 00:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are (rightly or wrongly) multiple articles about Christian Fundamentalism, using multiple definitions of the term, so a dab page is useful. -- 202.124.75.246 (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I agree that some of these can be solved by hatnotes, I don't see a good way to cover ALL of these meanings appropriately. I think keeping a disambiguation page makes the most sense here. Jclemens (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Several !votes date from the time that the page had only two links; it has more than that now. -- 202.124.72.198 (talk) 12:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is a step in the right direction, and I've changed my opinion to "keep." Still think we need Christian fundamentalism, lower case, as an overview article that addresses the questions readers are likely to bring to Wikipedia if they see "Christian fundmentalism/fundamentalists" used in, say, news stories and want a neutral description of what that means. The overview article would take a historical approach and have short sections on the more specialized, capitalized usages, to which the reader would be directed. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Classic WP:CONCEPTDAB. We need to restore Christian Fundamentalism (religious movement) to Christian Fundamentalism and improve its coverage of Reformed Fundamentalism and Conservative Christianity (it already has a section on the Christian right). There would be no problem with keeping this dab as long as we have the religious movement article restored as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --JaGa^talk 15:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another option is to create a whole new article that covers the history of the term, taking some of the content from Christian Fundamentalism (religious movement). --JaGa^talk 15:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with JaGa's reasoning here and the application of WP:CONCEPTDAB: A disambiguation page should not be created just because it is difficult to write an article on a topic that is broad, vague, abstract, or highly conceptual. The current dab page is OK by me, but Christian fundamentalism needs to have its own article, not redirect to the dab. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the concept is confusingly interpreted in multiple ways. However, with no article at Christian Fundamentalism or Christian fundamentalism, this disambiguation page should be located at Christian fundamentalism. older ≠ wiser 20:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ and move the main article to Christian fundamentalism which currently redirects to the redundantly titled Christian Fundamentalism (religious movement) - should just be Christian fundamentalism. Paul foord (talk) 01:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Improper use of a disambiguation page. Szzuk (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this page failing WP:DABCONCEPT because the items listed are not clearly distinct, and move main article to the non-disambiguated title per Paul foord. That article can and should cover all variations of this phenomenon with sources and explanations. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.