This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 15:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article is original research and a newly coined term. Any article on whether this or that ideology or system of government has traits in common with a religion is also hopelessly POV. Whatever content can be salvaged from Political religion (and there isn't much) should just be added to the article on Totalitarianism. Mihnea Tudoreanu 17:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: "political religion" gets 307 hits on Google Scholar, and is in an academic journal title (Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions). The term refers essentially to secular ideologies which are dogmatic enough and successful enough to have a cultural and political power equivalent to a religion, as well as sharing memetic qualities with religion, such a degree of utopianism and the aim of transforming society. Quintessential examples are Marxism and Nazism, but totalitarianism is not a requirement (eg neo-liberalism can be analysed as a political religion). I would urge all those who voted to delete on grounds of neologism or original research to reconsider. Rd232 17:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd wager that the presence of the term in that academic journal is more of a coincidence than anything else. "Political religion" is not an established term in political science or anywhere else. Furthermore, it carries an inherent POV (the association of some ideologies with religion), which obstructs good discussion of the real issue at hand: the dogmatism of those ideologies. "Political religion" assumes that (1) being dogmatic means being religious, and (2) dogmatism is the KEY element of all religions, while other things - like, I don't know, belief in a deity and an afterlife - are just unimportant details. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a coincidence, and the rest is your interpretation. The fundamental analogy with the cultish aspects of religion by using the term is perfectly valid, I think - there's no need to get hung up on the spiritual element - that's what the political qualifier distinguishes. Rd232 23:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vs civil religion: although some scholars use the terms as equivalent, others see a useful distinction, using "civil religion" as something much weaker, which functions much more as a socially unifying and essentially conservative force, where a political religion is radically transformational. Rd232 17:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vs theocracy: nothing to do with it. There need not be any conventionally religious or spiritual element at all - eg (atheist) Marxism. Rd232 17:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of the whole point. Calling something with no conventionally religious or spiritual element at all a "religion" is inherently POV at best and utterly absurd at worst. If spirituality isn't necessary for a religion, then what is necessary? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a sociological term. Ergo what is of interest are the sociological aspects of religion, and it is these which the analogy implicit in the term is drawing on. Rd232 23:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, seems a perfectly acceptable article to me... Dan100 (Talk) 17:46, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Change to keep This is an article that has some encyclopedic points, but for me to make a definative Delete vote, I'd have to research the topic in depth, and compare it to what has been presented. As the article is in some sections incomplete, perhaps this is more of a work in progress type thing. The section on Japan initially swayed me to vote for deletion, but the more I considered it, the more it seemed to fit with the thesis. Certainly in recent history certain political movements have sought to ally themselves with an existing religion, or to create a religion to suit their purpose (ie Nazism), An interesting topic, it probably just needs some fleshing out. Hamster Sandwich 18:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much of the information itself may be correct and encyclopedic, but placing it all together and writing an article on Political religion is original research and inherently POV - not a proper way of presenting that information. Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a useful article, treating what appears to be a newly recoined term (possible ideologically inspired) as if it was an established political concept. I can't see much of a future for it, not without further sources at least. A google search doesn't seem to support the idea that this is an established term with a defined usage. In fact there seem to be a number of usages, and the one portrayed in this article seems to be a rather politically loaded one to me.Palmiro 19:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as neologism or redirect to State sponsored religion. The article looks like it has useful information, or could. Mmmbeer 19:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment this could also be related to theocracy.
• Weak keep. I'm not comfortable with the neologism, but the subject matter genuinely exists. I could be persuaded to change my vote to delete if someone could show me an already-existing term that covers the same territory. Fernando Rizo T/C 21:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This seems to be the same thing as civil religion, except not as good. Merge if necessary. Agentsoo 22:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I've found this article problemmatic for a long time, as it seems to have originally been written as a pro-christian/anti-communist polemic, and since then it has evolved into original research. On that basis I have to vote to delete.--Gene_poole 02:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not an argument for deletion, it's an argument for cleanup. Rd232 09:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually it is a very good reason for deletion, for the simple reason that original research has no place in Wikipedia, and the related subjects which are not original research are already represented by well-written articles. --Gene_poole 00:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I repeat, that's not a reason for deletion, it's a reason for cleanup. If it's a valid concept - and it is (please see article, I've changed it a bit) then if necessary make it a stub, but don't delete, which causes potential aggravation if somebody comes along wanting to improve it and then is told it was vfd'd and needs to go through an undeletion process to be allowed to do that. NB The modern sociological concept goes back to 1938, when Eric Voegelin published a book with that title. Not what you'd call a neologism. Rd232 05:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • And I repeat, original research does not belong in Wikipedia. Given that everything from the name of the article down is original research, the only possible way to "clean up" this article is to delete it. --Gene_poole 06:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there is an old VfD from a year ago here that might not have been properly conducted, looking at the page history... Sirmob 03:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - it is origional research, and I worry that the way it is presented here is inherently PoV in some sense. The topic is more means of governmental oppression than "Political Religion..." Sirmob 03:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, neologism, original research. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV original research. JamesBurns 09:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Original research. The non-POV content can be added to Civil religion and/or Cult of personality. Mapple 09:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but clean up and finish writing the article so that it looks less like original research. The subject matter certainly exists. (Though I'd also like it to discuss how a lot of churches have gotten overly involved with politics.) --Idont Havaname 18:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it needs a lot of work but it clearly exists as an academic concept (see FYI at top), and a useful one at that. The current article is useless, but that's a different issue. Idont Havaname - your bracketed request would fall under a completely different article (eg religion and politics). Rd232 17:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - given that self-confessed neologism Proactionary Principle recently survived VfD, it would be a bit laughable if this real concept didn't. Rd232 17:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even so, the article is original research and quite worthless in its current state. Besides, if you're going to make the argument that "if one neologism survived VfD, all of them should", then you'd better start lobbying for a change in WP policy... -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh come on Mihnea, I've made it perfectly clear that I don't think Political religion is a neologism. I just meant that if the thresholds for vfd are so high that the other article can survive, this is easily old enough and established enough to do so. It is a real and useful concept. Rd232 23:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The political religion article is distinct enough from cult of personality that it stands on its own; the two concepts seem to me to be fairly synonymous. Not sure whether a better title and place is needed; it should be clear to linkers that this article has to do with totalitarian systems. Smerdis of Tlön 17:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and I would ask Mihnea to withdraw the request, as the article has now substantially improved. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 23:41, 5 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.