Talk:R. J. Rushdoony/Archive 1

Archive 1

Amendment

Rushdoony was correct in stating that the First Amendment was intitally intended to apply only at the federal level. Madison wanted it to say, "Neither the United States nor any State shall make any law regarding the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," but other Founders prevailed upon him not to include this out of fear that the Bill of Rights would then not be ratified and that there would be a chance that the country could then fall into civil war. Establishment was already down to around six of the thirteen states at the point of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, I think; the idea that all of the states still had state churches then is incorrect. But in any event, the Fourteenth Amendment has generally been intrepreted as preventing any state from doing anything at the state level that the federal government cannot do at the national level.

While Rushdoony is correct that the Founders were greatly influenced by Christian ideas and even that some of them were practicing Christians, the thought that somehow that most or many of them were supporters of any kind of "Christian theocracy" being the form of government for the United States is just flat wrong. Their concept of religious diversity was undoubtedly limited for the most part to the Judeao-Christian tradition and they presupposed what would now perhaps be called "Protestant morality" as a norm, but the idea that they saw something like seventeenth-century Puritan Massachusetts as the American ideal is ahistorical, and basically wrong.

Rlquall 12:14, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Remember, Rushdooney was a John Bircher, and this extreme political belief is actually the underpinning of his pseudoreligion. His "reconstructionist" beliefs were little more than old-fashioned fascism dressed in pseudo-Calvinistic clothing. Reconstructionism isn't a religious movement at all but a political one. Granted, Rushdooney was a genius in creating a bogus theology by twisting the Bible to back his extreme right-wing political beliefs, but it still remains a political movement and potentially a dangerous one.--Susan Nunes

Democracy and political views

An anon recently removed the "he objected to democracy" section:

"Christianity and Democracy are inevitably enemies" Rousas Rushdoony [1]

A friend tells me that, "Rushdoony was opposed to any form of government which rejects God's law and which thereby elevates and expands the role and influence of the state beyond its God-given functions as revealed in the Bible, specifically defense and justice." This friend also suggests that a bald assertion that "he objected to democracy" would be taking statements out of context. I suggest we readd something on Rushdoony's views on democracy and government that provides some of this context. — Matt Crypto 19:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Education

I personally don't know what a "C. Sing." degree is. But it's listed under Rushdoony's heading in the Berkeley alumni database (http://cal.berkeley.edu), so I'm listing it here. Sakhalinrf

POV--Corrected the phrase "state-run" education. Thre is no such thing as "state-run" education in the United States. There is, however, public education, which is NOT state-run. The phrase "state-run" is John Birch Society-style rhetoric implying our system of education is somehow "communistic" and thus does not belong in an encyclopedia, even Wikipedia.--Susan Nunes

Public education in every US State is a function of county government, is completely funded by county, state and federal governments, and is therefore unequivocably "state-run".Cadwallader (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Marriage Dates???

If Rushdoony's first wife, Arda, died in 1977, how could he have married Dorothy in 1962? Kyriosity (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point, Kyriosity. It appears that he divorced Arda prior to his second marriage. [2][3] I think we need better references to cite, however. I'm trying to see what I can come up with. Jacob1207 (talk) 04:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted unsigned comment that violated purpose of this page.69.19.14.40 (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Christian Reconstruction - institutes.

The holocaust statement is incorrect and unreferenced. Rousas Rushdoony was only pointing out that the numbers of Jews killed cited by some at the time (1970's) had to be wrong because many non Jews were killed in the camps and writers who were in the camps note that 1.2 million were deported to the camps. P 586-587 This correction has been used by many today. See the numbers analysis on the wikipedia page it is actually below Rushdoony's number. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holoucast His point is that it is possible for well meaning people to bear false witness but it is also dangerous. He was not a holocaust denier but was warning of the problem flawed numbers play in creating an opportunity for such people.

The reference in institutes too segregation is not racial segregation but to quarantine from disease and disease propagating moral behaviours. There is no mention of race. page 294 of institutes.

Likewise the reference to slavery is non racial but goes to processes of probation of criminals, the management of bankrupts and the management of the intellectually disabled. Page 286 of institutes.

Yes racists have used these arguments because they believe blacks are intellectually inferior but they are not racial laws in the Torah they apply to all. Gathall (talk) 10:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

All valuable points, and probably violations of WP:BLP if he were living. Feel free to make the appropriate corrections/emendations. --Flex (talk/contribs) 01:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, right. It's pretty obvious what he was trying to say. Virtually all racists deny that they are racist; even David Duke denies being one. You'll have to do better than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.29.155.254 (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

For most of history slavery has not been a racial institution, as it was in America. Historically, slavery was the result of debt, or captives taken in war. Rushdoony discussed slavery because it is discussed in the Bible. If you wish to cite him as holding or teaching racist views, then you must cite a passage from his writings that demonstrates a belief in racial superiority/inferiority. You won't find such a quote because Rushdoony taught that differences between cultures are based on ethics and religion, not on race or blood.Cadwallader (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Interracial Marriage

The comments about Interracial Marriage should cite original sources, not an intermediate reference (SPLC). 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 19:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

SPLC Ad Hominem

Removed the SPLC ad hominem from the article because the cited source is unreliable itself. While it is reliable to the SPLC's own opinions, those opinions are unfounded, unsourced, and uncited. We have no idea what they're based on or if they're just plucking the basis for their opinions out of thin air or an irrational hatred for Rushdoony. Accordingly, due to the unreliability of the source and the lack of any evidence that supports the accusation, I have removed the language. If someone wants to re-insert the quote, they need to find a source, quote, or some credible evidence that supports the accusation. The mere fact that someone has an opinion of someone else is uncompelling, the opinion needs to be based in reality. Shazbot85^Talk —Preceding undated comment added 15:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC).

Cited source for SPLC fails the Wikipedia requirements for self-published sources. See WP:SELFPUB. Shazbot85^Talk —Preceding undated comment added 16:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC).

Removed accusation that Rushdoony thought interracial marriage should be outlawed because the online source fails WP:SELFPUB. Shazbot85^Talk 16:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Also removed the claim that Rushdoony denied the holocaust, suspected Jews died of epidemics during the holocaust, and that the Jews bore false witness against the Germans during WWII because it is an exceptional claim. The deleted portion purports to claim he did this in his own work, but does not cite his own work for his own words, but rather another work. If the portion is to be restored, then someone needs to come up with Rushdoony's own words to support this exceptional claim. Shazbot85^Talk —Preceding undated comment added 16:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC).

I've raised this at WP:RSN - SPLC is a reliable source, we've had this discussion before. Opinions are relevant or we'd never include book reviews, etc. And it's easy enough to find the quotes, why haven't you tried? Eg "The burden of the law is thus against inter-religious, inter-racial, and inter-cultural marriages, in that they normally go against the very community which marriage is designed to establish. Unequal yoking means more than marriage. In society at large it means the enforced integration of various elements which are not congenial. Unequal yoking is in no realm productive of harmony; rather, it aggravates the differences and delays the growth of the different elements toward a Christian harmony and association." R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973), p. 257.

"The (Biblical) Law here is humane and also unsentimental. It recognizes that some people are by nature slaves and will always be so. It both requires that they be dealt with in a godly manner and also that the slave recognizes his position and accepts it with grace." R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973), p. 251"

"The false witness born during World War II with respect to Germany is especially notable and revealing. The charge is repeatedly made that six million innocent Jews were slain by the Nazis, and the figure--and even larger figures--is now entrenched in the history books. Poncins, in summarizing the studies of the French Socialist, Paul Rassinier, himself a prisoner in Buchenwald, states: Rassinier reached the conclusion that the number of Jews who died after deportation is approximately 1,200,000 and this figure, he tells us, has finally been accepted as valid by the Centre Mondial de Documentation Juive Contemporaine. Likewise he notes that Paul Hilberg, in his study of the same problem, reached a total of 896,292 victims. Very many of these people died of epidemics; many were executed..." R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973), pp. 586, 588. Quotation: Vicomte Leon de Poncins, Judaism and the Vatican (London: Britons Publishing Company, 1967), p. 178.

Hopefully you will now use the above to make the article more NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You can't conclude the statements made in the main article from those quotes without reading racism into the quotes. I think, as a reader, you have to make a concerted effort to understand what Rushdoony is talking about because I think he can be so easily misunderstood. I don't think he made a habit of pandering to modern notions of political correctness, and as a result, seems to fall prey to people (not accusing you of this, but rather speaking generally) who are able to twist his rather blunt quotes to fit their own agenda.

1. Rushdoony is speaking of slavery, the institution, which existed for thousands of years before the Anglo-American brand fueled by racist ideologies. Someone explained it above already, but it bears repeating, that slavery was not based on ethnic background until relatively recent times. Rushdoony nowhere mentions that he is speaking about African American slaves, but rather slaves in general. In order to conclude racism on his part from those quotes, you have to read racism into them.

2. Rushdoony doesn't seem to deny the holocaust in the provided quote, but rather points to studies that question the figures. He also doesn't accuse the Jews of bearing false witness anywhere in the quote. I don't see a case for holocaust denial, only questioning some of the figures.

3. In the quote regarding unequal yoking, one must again read racism into the quote in order to conclude it. If racism is the undercurrent for his conclusion, how and why does he conclude that ethnic and religious marriages that ignore their respective roots also violate the law. He groups all of the categories together in his singular conclusion deduced from his interpretation of the Law. He also singles out no group, no ethnicity, no religion, but rather regards all on equal ground, and concludes that they should remain distinct. He argues that infringing on the distinctions will agitate the differences among them and impede progress. Hardly racist.

Racism involves viewing one "race" (really we're talking about ethnicity though) as inferior to another superior race. Rushdoony isn't advocating for that anywhere. Not a single quote includes that premise. Rather, a reader has to assume it when reading Rushdoony in order to conclude it. That's circular logic, and I don't think it has any place anywhere.

Shazbot85^Talk 20:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"some people are by nature slaves"- How does the SPLC conclude he's talking about a particular ethnicity or race from this quote in order to levy the charge of racism? "People" does not refer to anyone in particular, but "people" in general. The relatively innocuous statement is that some people, out of the entire category of people, not just "African American" people, are by nature slaves. The SPLC is being extremely disingenuous. Shazbot85^Talk 20:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't say 'the holocaust didn't happen', but he clearly is denying it - he first suggests the real figure may be less than a million, then says many of those may have died in epidemics. Others have called him a Holocaust denier, eg [4]. He talks specifically of recent slavery, eg " Granted that some Negroes were mistreated as slaves, the fact still remains that nowhere in all history or in the world today has the Negro been better off. The life expectancy of the Negro increased when he was transported to America. He was not taken from freedom into slavery, but from a vicious slavery to degenerate chiefs to a generally benevolent slavery in the United States...The private ownership of slave labor in the American South has been the subject of extensive distortion. The Negroes were slaves to their tribal heads in Africa, or prisoner-slaves of other tribes. The monetary unit in black Africa was man, the slave. The Negro moved from an especially harsh slavery, which included cannibalism, to a milder form. Much is said about the horrors of the slave ships, many of which were very bad, but it is important to remember that slaves were valuable cargo and hence property normally handled with consideration."  ::::His attitude towards blacks is, for instance, shown by "The background of the Negro culture is voodoo and magic; and the purposes the magic are control and power over God, man, nature and society. Voodoo and magic was the religion and life of America's Negro" and refers to them as "inferior stock". He is clearly a segregationist and racist.

And shouldn't there be something about his calling for the execution of adulterers, women who have had an abortion, etc?

Dougweller (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Disputing the figures espoused isn't denying the holocaust. I'm not really sure how you draw this conclusion, as its extremely attenuated from his stated position. Also, taking the position that Southern slave owners were benevolent doesn't imply that African-Americans are an inferior "race". Again, you're anachronistically reading your own biases into Rushdoony's words. I don't mean that as an accusation, but merely as a statement of fact to try and help you understand what's at play here.

Also, do you dispute that large amounts of Africans were slaves of their tribal heads? Weren't tribal chiefs selling off their own people? Drawing a comparison between the two types of slavery is hardly racist.

Can you provide a source where he refers to African Americans as inferior stock?

Also, how is stating that African-American spirituality has been historically steeped in mysticism the attitude of a segregationist??? That's crazy. Shazbot85^Talk 14:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I won't address your last point, as it would take too much ink and time. You clearly don't understand Theonomy and Christian Reconstructionism. That's not a crime, but I wouldn't speak in the judgmental manner you seem to be implying.

Cheers sir. Shazbot85^Talk —Preceding undated comment added 22:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC).

Holocaust denial is not the claim that no Jews were killed, but rather:

• "Before discussing how Holocaust denial constitutes a conspiracy theory, and how the theory is distinctly American, it is important to understand what is meant by the term "Holocaust denial." Holocaust deniers, or "revisionists," as they call themselves, question all three major points of definition of the Nazi Holocaust. First, they contend that, while mass murders of Jews did occur (although they dispute both the intentionality of such murders as well as the supposed deservedness of these killings), there was no official Nazi policy to murder Jews. Second, and perhaps most prominently, they contend that there were no homicidal gas chambers, particularly at Auschwitz-Birkenau, where mainstream historians believe over 1 million Jews were murdered, primarily in gas chambers. And third, Holocaust deniers contend that the death toll of European Jews during World War II was well below 6 million. Deniers float numbers anywhere between 300,000 and 1.5 million, as a general rule." (Mathis, Andrew E. Holocaust Denial, a Definition, The Holocaust History Project, July 2, 2004.
• "In part III we directly address the three major foundations upon which Holocaust denial rests, including... the claim that gas chambers and crematoria were used not for mass extermination but rather for delousing clothing and disposing of people who died of disease and overwork; ... the claim that the six million figure is an exaggeration by an order of magnitude - that about six hundred thousand, not six million, died at the hands of the Nazis; ... the claim that there was no intention on the part of the Nazis to exterminate European Jewry and that the Holocaust was nothing more than the unfortunate by-produce of the vicissitudes of war." Michael Shermer & Alex Grobman. Denying History: : who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and why Do They Say It?, University of California Press, 2000, ISBN 0520234693, p. 3.

In other words, saying only a few hundred thousand Jews were killed is Holocaust denial. Also, the SPLC is not a WP:SPS, and is considered reliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg,thanks for the information, I was wondering why Dougweller was so emphatic about the claim. However, your definition espouses a three part test. A quote has only been produced which questions the number of Jews killed, purportedly fulfilling the third requirement. I have not seen a sourced quote, or any quote for that matter, from Rushdoony which would support the view that he didn't think there was an official Nazi policy to exterminate Jews, nor homicidal gas chambers. I'm not saying with knowledge that he isn't a holocaust denier; I haven't exhaustively read Rushdoony. From what I have read though, this seems to be an extreme claim about him. As a result, I'm very suspicious as to whether he actually is. Perhaps you're more knowledgeable than I am, in which case, you might be able to provide some sourced, contextual quotes that fulfill all of the prongs of the holocaust denier test you set forth. In any case, thanks for the helpful information. Shazbot85^Talk 03:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The sources indicate that those three are the most popular Holocaust denial claims. They don't indicate that one must make all of them in order to be defined as a Holocaust denier. More importantly, reliable sources (I've added several more) describe him as such, and that's all we need. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that although Shazbot says ", how is stating that African-American spirituality has been historically steeped in mysticism the attitude of a segregationist???", Rushdoony actually wrote " "The background of the Negro culture is voodoo and magic; and the purposes the magic are control and power over God, man, nature and society. Voodoo and magic was the religion and life of America's Negro" - which is one of a number of statements he has made which show that he not only misrepresented African-Americans but held them to be inferior. Voodoo was and is basically regional and to generalise like this and to ignore the importance of Christianity in the history of African Americans is to misrepresent them. Dougweller (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

He's speaking of African-American's background, which would have been in Africa. There, they held to tribal religions, which is exactly what Rushdoony says. I tend to reject your argument that he's generalizing, particularly when he says "the background..." He's not ignoring the history of Christianity with regard to African-Americans, he's addressing an entirely different issue, their background. Where in the world you get the idea he's generalizing the race, when he specifically says he's addressing their background, I have no idea. Since he's not generalizing, this quote, again, fails to prove racism on his part.Shazbot85^Talk 18:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Your arguments aren't really relevant, all that matters is what reliable sources say on the matter. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and edit. Dougweller (talk) 06:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate material - section 1

User:Shazbot85 has inserted the following material into the artice:

, which has been disputed by the Chalcedon Foundation<ref>>{{cite web|url=http://www.chalcedon.edu/blog/2005/11/did-rushdoony-deny-holocaust.php|title=Did Rushdoony Deny the Holocaust? |last=Ortiz|first=Chris|date=November 2005|publisher=The Chalcedon Foundation|accessdate=2009-06-10}}</ref>,

As is quite obviously, the material is taken from a blog. The fact that the url is http://www.chalcedon.edu/blog/ (note the word blog in it) should have been a dead giveaway. Given Shazbot85's previous and vociferous insistence on removing material from a source he claimed was unreliable, can he explain how this material from a blog is appropriate? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Jayig, Rushdoony began the Chalcedon Foundation and, as a result, it can be considered an expert on Rushdoony's views, which is the field in question. If you'll note the reliability discussion regarding the SPLC you were a part of, other editors agreed its inclusion was helpful to understand Rushdoony's stance on the holocaust. Shazbot85^Talk 07:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It's still an anonymous blog post. Moreover, it doesn't "dispute" he was a Holocaust denier, but rather supports the charge. It notes that Rushdoony claimed that "holocaust numbers were inflated to create greater outrage" and also accuses Holocaust survivors and researchers of "bearing false witness of genocide". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The blog is a sound source regarding its own opinion of Rushdoony, just like the SPLC is a sound source regarding it's own opinion of Rushdoony. Why the double standard? Shazbot85^Talk 21:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The blog is not a reliable source, and the author is anonymous, so it could only be used (and even then with caution) in an article about the blog/Chalcedon foundation. Please review WP:SPS. SPLC, on the other hand, is a reliable source, as are the other sources saying the same thing. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate material - section 2

User:Shazbot85 has inserted the following material into the article:

In his ''Institutes'', Rushdoony said, "The (Biblical) Law here is humane and also unsentimental. It recognizes that some people are by nature slaves and will always be so. It both requires that they be dealt with in a godly manner and also that the slave recognizes his position and accepts it with grace." <ref>R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973), p. 251

This looks exactly like an attempt to construct a counter-argument using a primary source. Can Shazbot85 explain how he knows the material is relevant to the material it follows? Were the secondary sources referring to this material, and if so, how does Shazbot85 know that? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Those are Rushdoony's views on slavery. The subject of the entire section subsumes that very topic, along with others. The most reliable source on Rushdoony is Rushdoony. The quotes can only serve to make the section as clear and informative as possible. I object to you removing primary sources from the article, as it makes the section less neutral. Shazbot85^Talk 07:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."-This hasn't occurred here. Rushdoony's words regarding the issues were included in order to substantiate the claims made by the secondary sources. I fail to see how that's constructing a counter-argument. Moreover, only one source is involved here, Rushdoony's Institutes, which, as mentioned by some of the secondary sources, was their source for their research. Hope that helps. Shazbot85^Talk 07:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

How do you know the secondary sources were referring to those specific words? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little confused as to how the inclusion of secondary sources precludes the inclusion of primary course. It would help if you could point me to a policy that requires what your asking, or that supports the exclusion of primary sources where secondary sources have been used. As it stands, the topic of the secondary sources are Rushdoony's views in that particular area. I feel that including the primary sources helps to shed light onto the subject as a whole, and support the secondary sources used. Shazbot85^Talk 01:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

How do you know those primary sources are relevant to the secondary sources used? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg, perhaps my response was unclear, but I had already explained why the primary sources are relevant above. If you could please answer my question, I'm a little rusty on why the primary sources aren't relevant when they cover the same topic as the secondary sources. If the secondary sources state that Rushdoony believed X, and in the primary source Rushdoony states he believes X, then that's entirely relevant. Hope that's clearer. Thanks. Shazbot85^Talk 02:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Please state explicitly why this quote is relevant to those secondary sources. How do you know the secondary sources are basing their opinion on that quote? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well Jayjg, could you explain to me why you think that's relevant or why you think they aren't basing their opinion on those quotes? Again, the topic is X, Rushdoony is stating his views on X. That's the same topic, ergo I think it's very relevant and helpful. Shazbot85^Talk 02:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You have it backwards. You want to add it, you think it's relevant, you think they are basing their opinion on those quotes, therefore you have to explain why it is specifically relevant and justify including the material. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have explained that the topic of the secondary sources is X. The topic of the quotes is X. The secondary sources are on Rushdoony's views on X. The primary sources give Rushdoony's views on X. As a result, they serve to bolster the secondary sources. I think this is the third time I've repeated this already, and you keep repeating your question, which I don't think is helpful at all. I'd really like for you to explain why you think the secondary sources are relevant, but the primary sources are not, given they are of the same subject matter, speaking of the views of the same person on said subject matter. The primary sources are, obviously, logically relevant. I suspect you believe there is some reason why they're not, and so I ask you again to explain. In light of this, I'd like to remind you that we're in the Discussion phase. As it stands, you have really yet to discuss with me your views, and I'd like for you to, in order to further the process. Thanks! Shazbot85^Talk 05:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

When you bring these primary sources, you assert that they are directly related to the points the secondary sources have made. By bringing these specific quotes you imply that these are the specific statements the secondary sources have highlighted; however, Rushdoony may have written many different things on the topic, and the secondary sources may be referring to entirely different passages written by him. In addition, you have made it clear that you bring them in order to rebut the secondary sources; that is, in your view, the secondary sources have somehow misread or misunderstood Rushdoony, and by bringing the "original quotes", you can show how these secondary sources have misread or misunderstood him. In other words, they are WP:NOR; their relevance to the secondary sources in unclear, and they are being used to construct a kind of counter-argument. Again, and I won't repeat this, the onus is on you to justify their insertion. Do not again attempt to reverse the burden of proof, insisting that I prove that they are not related. You want to include them? You show that they're related. If you cannot do that, then they cannot be included, and this discussion is concluded. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it appears we're at an impasse because you're assuming bad faith on my part. You also seem to be attacking a straw man, in that you've mischaracterized my position and claimed I have asserted and/or implied things that I haven't. Shazbot85^Talk 05:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't assumed bad faith at all; it's difficult to understand why you would say I did. Since you now say you aren't asserting or implying that the primary sources are directly related to the points the secondary sources have made, then we're clearly in agreement that they cannot be included. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No we're clearly not. I do not believe that I have to prove the primary sources were being relied on by the secondary sources and you've yet to show me I do. I have proven that they are logically related as they are of the same topic. Moreover, I think the primary sources are more probative than the secondary sources as to Riushdoony's views. Do you think that they aren't? Can you point me to some policy on Wikipedia to back up your demand that to include primary sources with secondary sources, there must be material proof that the secondary rely on the primary? I believe this is the second or thrid time I've asked for this, and you've not really answered me. Again, this is a discussion, and I feel like it has been more of a monologue on my part, which a few demands from you thrown in randomly. Shazbot85^Talk 14:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for editing in a link. Shazbot85^Talk 17:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

{outdent}}WP:PRIMARY " All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source." Dougweller (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Dougweller, thanks. I think that policy wouldn't be violated here because there won't be and never was any interpretive claims made by me or any other editor with regard to the primary sources in the article. If there were, then secondary sources would need to be used to support that interpretation. As it stands, Jayjg seems to be saying that any primary source, even those absent interpretive claims like we have here, must have support in a secondary source. I don't see how that's justified by policy. I think this situation would be very analogous to the one described in the policy statement where a primary source is used to describe a plot, absent any interpretive claim about the plot. All interpretive claims are already in the article, and Jayjg has correctly left them there, as they are supported by secondary sources. Shazbot85^Talk 17:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't shown that the primary material is relevant to what the secondary sources are saying. Without that link, it is merely a "synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Which is why we have to use primary sources with such care. Even by choosing what to use, you are interpreting. Dougweller (talk) 10:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you object to including the quotes in a separate section regarding Rushdoony's own views, rather than in the second with the secondary sources? Although you haven't done anything to prove there is a synthesis of of published material, and the material says the exact same thing albeit the primary source has Rushdoony's words, I'm willing to compromise to accommodate your concerns. Shazbot85^Talk 01:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

How would moving the quotes elsewhere on the page solve anything? Rushdoony wrote thousands of things, why quote these specific sentences? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, why have an article at all then? What problem would the quotes elsewhere on the page present? They would be relevant and reliable. What grounds would you rely on for excluding them? Plainly, the quotes would be relevant in a section regarding Rushdoony's views. Please N.B. that such an occurrence is not uncommon. For instance, see the "Universal Morality" section on C.S. Lewis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shazbot85 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not interested in games. You say the quotes are "relevant"; what you mean is that you think they help refute the claims made by the secondary sources, which you feel have misconstrued Rushdoony's words. The problem is, you don't really know if the secondary sources refer to these specific quotes. In fact, the secondary sources may be referring to entirely different statements made by Rushdoony. Thus, when you insert this "material that serves to advance a position", you may well be misleading the reader. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg, I have been arguing that they support the secondary sources and I feel that they are helpful when read with them. Why are you maligning and attacking me? I felt that this discussion was a civil disagreement. I suppose you're more emotionally invested than I am. With regard to the substance of what you said, you didn't address what I suggested. Shazbot85^Talk 02:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Please desist from making erroneous speculations about my emotional state. Again, you have failed to show that the primary quotes are relevant to the statements of the secondary sources. Don't assert that they are, prove that they are. So far the only person responding to your RFC has agreed entirely with me on this. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC Inclusion of Primary Sources

Issue: Whether primary sources quoting the article's subject should be included along with secondary sources on the same subject matter. Contention seems to revolve around whether the primary sources are relevant. Shazbot85^Talk 01:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

This isn't complete - "Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template. Be sure to sign the statement with Dougweller (talk) 10:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)". Dougweller (talk) 10:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If we are writing about this particular diff [5], then I agree that inserting the primary source would be original research and a synthesis. The reason is that there is not yet a secondary source that makes said Rushdoony statement notable. I will also note that IMHO it's OK to include quotes from Rushdoony on views of his that have been covered by secondary sources, in order to drive home the point. BTW, I'd appreciate comment on Talk: Second Sino-Japanese War over a differnt issue present there. Ngchen (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's the diff and material, and that was my analysis as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that primary sources of notable statements or positions that are also referenced by reliable 3rd party sources can be used, but that is about all. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It would seem consensus at present would support Jayjg's position. If I am able, I will attempt to find the sources the SPLC uses, and I would hope that they would then meet the requirements that Jayjg and others have indicated. Accordingly, I'll concede to Jayjg's position at this point. Shazbot85^Talk 18:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks,Dougweller (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Shazbot85.

Foul Language

According to [6], Rushdoony wrote some pretty disgusting stuff, even by the standards of what is already in the article. For example, in his book Foundations of Social Order, he attacked those who identify “‘God’ with the city, with the ‘spick, black nigger, bastard, Buddhahead, and kike,’ with ‘all men,’ and calls for communion with all men as they are… This concept runs deeply through the so-called Civil Rights Revolution.”

He also believed that Jews aren't really Jews: “The Jews of Europe are not really Jewish in blood… There are no Jews with more than a trace of Jewish genes from antiquity.”

And brace yourself for this one:

“The background of Negro culture is African and magic, and the purposes of magic are control and power… Voodoo or magic was the religion and life of American Negroes. Voodoo songs underlie jazz, and old voodoo, with its power goal, has been merely replaced with revolutionary voodoo ['civil rights'], a modernized power drive.”

While [7] is a blog and is thus not a reliable source, we don't have to cite it. All of the quotes here are taken directly from Rushdoony's own books, so we can cite them directly. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

In the paragraph about which you said "brace yourself", it is not the language that is foul. In the first excerpt, the words "nigger", "spick", "kike", "Buddhahead", seem to be calculated to offend, so that's the part that fits the heading of this section. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Why Chalcedon?

Rushdoony seems to make a big deal of his connection with Armenia. Armenia was the first country to adopt Christianity as its official religion, in the year 301 if I recall correctly (although I think some historians think it was several years later). The Church of Armenia famously rejected the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451. So why did he choose Chalcedon? There must be a story here. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Primary vs. Secondary citation

User:Kyriosity has removed the citation to the reliable secondary source Ramsey, William L. (2005). "Southern Slavery As It Wasn't: Coming to Grips with Neo-Confederate Historical Misinformation". Oklahoma City University Law Review. 30 (1): 14. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help), insisting that the article must cite only Rushdoony. The WP:PRIMARY policy, however, says the exact opposite:

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy.

In addition, Kyriosity uses Wikipedia's narrative voice to state that Rushdoony

cites historians who have calculated Jewish deaths during the Holocaust to be between 896,292 and 1.2 million.

This is, of course, not true. Rassinier was not a historian, and Hilberg never calculated Jewish deaths during the Holocaust to be 896,292 million; in fact, Hilberg estimated the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust at 5.1 million. Were Hilberg still alive, including this claim would be a rather egregious WP:BLP violation; as it stands, it's just a serious WP:NPOV and WP:V violation. Can Kyriosity explain his edits? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Kyriosity, if I don't hear an objection in the next day or so, I'll assume that you agree with my points here. Also, since the lengthy quotation is already well-summarized in the article, I'm going to remove it as no longer required. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

O.K., it's been two weeks since my initial comment, with no objection, so I'll make the changes now. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

IP edits

Funny guy, using Paul Rassinier, the father of holocaust denialism, to somehow suggest Rushdoony wasn't a holocaust denier. Dougweller (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Biography

"widely credited as the father of both Christian Reconstructionism and the modern homeschool movement.[1][2]" I question the validity of this statement. I see several places where this is stated on the web, but each of these quote the same biographical source. This statement ignores other influences on the homeschool movement, specifically John Holt. A more accurate statement might be that he was integral to the fundamentalist Christian homeschool movement, but certainly not the "modern homeschool movement", and certainly wasn't the "father of". Multidimensional (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)multidimensional

Revised. --Flex (talk/contribs) 20:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

In this section, the claim that the subject read at least a book a day for 50 years is extraordinary, yet supported only by a broken link on christrules.com. The claim should be removed without a legitimate reference. — Brett —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.176.236.245 (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up, at least to an extent. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Rushdoony and Poncins

The following sentence was recently inserted:

Rushdoony, however, goes on to criticise Poncins, arguing that he is "ready to report the errors in the accounts of Nazi murders of Jews; he is not ready to be distressed that any were brutally murdered."<ref>R.J. Rushdoony, ''The Institutes of Biblical Law'', p. 589.</ref>

It appears to me to be classic OR; that is, someone is using a primary source to construct a defense of Rushdoony. The criticisms of Rushdoony all come from secondary sources, per policy. The use of the term "however" makes it clear this is intended as a counter-argument - but to what? If it's to the fact that Rushdoony is viewed as a Holocaust denier, it's clearly not that; Holocaust deniers often make statements such as "only 300,000 Jews died in the Holocaust, not 6,000,000. Of course, every death is still a tragedy" - as if by shedding crocodile tears over 300,000 victims, it excuses their negating the suffering and killing experienced by 5 million others. In any event, it's inappropriate to try to counter criticisms from secondary sources using arguments invented by editors using primary sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It was I who did it. And yes, the "however" doesn't really belong. The point is, Trueman is completely misreading Rushdoony. Rushdoony quotes a source (Poncins, who is quoting Rassinier who is quoting Hilberg) saying only 800,000 Jews died. Rushdoony then takes Poncins to task for being anti-Jewish. This is in a section on lying, and Rushdoony accuses Poncins of lying. So Trueman is way off base in saying "His sources are atrocious, secondhand, and unverified" - that's kind of the point. So the question is - what do we do about it? As it stands, the article quote Rushdoony out of context. The section ought to stay - there certainly is holocaust denial here - but it is unbalanced. Not unbalanced in the sense of not allowing Holocaust denial a fair voice, but unbalanced in its reading of Rushdoony. StAnselm (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

To begin with, on the specific issues, Hilberg set the number of Jews killed at 5.1 million, so some source here is wrong, and Rushdoony accepts that source as accurate. Second, Rushdoony doesn't take Poncins to task for denying the Holocaust; on the contrary, Rushdoony completely agrees with Poncins' claim that the actual numbers of Jews killed was a fraction of the accepted historical figure - this is, of course, the every essence of Holocaust denial. Rather, Rushdoony takes Poncins to task for not being sympathetic enough to the plight of the small number of Jews he believes were actually killed by the Nazis. Finally, Trueman is completely accurate in his criticism; Rushdoony accepts Poncins' central thesis, but merely criticizes him for having a bad attitude. Nothing whatsoever is taken out of context, and Trueman's reading of Rushdoony is much the same as many other reliable secondary sources; that Rushdoony was a Holocaust denier, which is an entirely "balanced" reading of Rushdoony's writings.

Now, on to policy. You can't label something as "unbalanced" because you personally disagree with what reliable secondary sources say on a topic. Instead, you must provide other reliable secondary sources that contradict or disagree with the first set of reliable secondary sources. Please do so, or the tag will have to go. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, Rushdoony doesn't accept the Hilberg number as accurate - either as being the number of Jews that were killed, or as a number that Hilberg asserted. Secondly, Rushdoony is discussing Poncins in the context of the ninth commandment - he is suggesting Poncins is being untruthful - just as he suggested that some people were being untruthful regarding the inflation of the figures. That is to say, the accusation is not merely one of lack of sympathy. Thirdly, it is not fair to say (as the article does) that he uses Judaism and the Vatican as a source for Rassinier's and Hilberg's figures. Fourthly, he does not say "most died of epidemics" as the article claims, he says "very many of these people died of epidemics." Fifthly, a balanced account of what Rushdoony thought of the holocaust would take into account his later explanation: "It was not my purpose to enter a debate over numbers, whether millions were killed, or tens of millions, an area which must be left to others with expertise in such matters. My point then and now is that in all such matters what the Ninth Commandment requires is the truth, not exaggeration, irrespective of the cause one seeks to serve." ("Exaggeration and Denial," Chalcedon Report, September 2000.) We don't need a secondary source for that. StAnselm (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

See, this is why these discussions are pointless; you think Rushdoony was saying one thing, I think he was saying another. You think he's been misrepresented, I don't. It is precisely for this reason that we need secondary, not primary sources, because all that matters is what reliable secondary sources say, not the interpretations of Wikipedia editors. Do you have any reliable secondary sources that support your use of those quotes, or your arguments on Rushdoony's behalf? If you can't provide any, then the tag will have to go. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I have added the Chalcedon Report quote and removed the tag. StAnselm (talk) 02:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

So I see. It's rather standard fare for Holocaust deniers; claim the numbers are an order of magnitude lower, then when confronted with the facts of the numbers, they say "I wasn't making a point about the actual numbers, just that the Jews should stop lying about them". It makes him look worse, rather than better, which was the opposite of your intent; you should probably tag your own insertion with an "unbalanced" tag. Anyway, for now I've put it in chronological order. However, as stated before, the only thing we can use here are reliable secondary sources, so unless you can provide some with this quote, it will be exiting the article soon. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the effect of this 2000 quote, at least it provides a clearer representation of what Rushdoony says on the matter. I don't understand why you think it needs a secondary source. To do what, exactly? Prove that he really wrote it? Comment on it? If this section is explaining what Rushdoony said about the Holocaust, surely this statement belongs. I don't see how adding the quote constitutes synthesis. StAnselm (talk) 03:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a section that explains what reliable secondary sources say about Rushdoony's writings on the Holocaust. It is a not a place where Wikipedia editors can use primary sources to contruct defenses for Rushdoony. Secondary sources are required in order to avoid WP:NOR, which is exactly what you have done here; argued against a reliable secondary source using your own analysis. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hang on - there is nothing in the article to suggest that this is what the section is for. The heading "Racism and Holocaust denial" suggests that it is about what Rushdoony's views. I acknowledge I cannot find a reliable source to critique Trueman - but the inclusion of the 2000 quote is not part of a constructed defence of Rushdoony. WP:NOR says "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation", but the article is not interpreting the 2000 quote. StAnselm (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear; all analysis of Rushdoony, including his writings, must come from reliable secondary sources. We don't rely on Wikipedia editors to decide which parts of his writings are important, relevant, worth noting, etc; instead, we rely on reliable secondary sources to do so. That way we avoid WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE. Also, please don't be disingenuous; of course you inserted that quote from Rushdoony to counter Trueman. The fact that it makes Rushdoony look even worse is merely one of the inevitable outcomes when Wikipedia editors attempt to construct arguments or defenses using primary sources. I'll wait till Sunday for you to find reliable secondary sources on Rushdoony, but that's the day all the primary material comes out. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think you should wait until we reach a consensus. I have posted this at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Rousas John Rushdoony. StAnselm (talk) 23:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Rushdoony divorce / marriages

In the "Biography" section of this article we read: "Rushdoony had five children with his first wife, Arda June Gent Rushdoony, who died in 1977. He married his second wife, Dorothy Barbara Ross Rushdoony, who became the step mother of his children, in 1962." I cannot find any other source for the existence of Arda Rushdoony. Should this statement be rewritten? 174.71.67.215 (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section

The criticism section appears to be mostly quotations from people speaking negatively about the Christian Reconstructionism movement, and not Rushdoony himself. Though Rushdoony did write on reconstructionism, he can hardly be attributed as its main proponent.

Such quotes would be more aptly referenced on the Christian Reconstructionism page, I imagine. I will clean up this section at some point if there are no objections. ~ Josh "Duff Man" (talk) 03:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Holocaust denier category

An editor has removed Category:Holocaust deniers on the grounds that Rushdoony was a "Holocaust minimizer", not a "Holocaust denier". Given the fact that many reliable sources describe Rushdoony as a Holocaust denier, and given the fact that "minimizing" the Holocaust is Holocaust denial, can the editor please try to justify that edit? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the phrase "Holocaust minimizer" was mostly just me being glib. The Racism and Holocaust denial section (well-cited though it may be) doesn't seem to paint him as what I imagined to be a Holocaust denier, just that he was one of those who thought that the number of deaths was lower than most historians agree on.

I know almost nothing about Holocaust denial, so I just now read the first few lines from that article: "The key claims of Holocaust denial are: the German Nazi government had no official policy or intention of exterminating Jews, Nazi authorities did not use extermination camps and gas chambers to mass murder Jews, and the actual number of Jews killed was significantly (typically an order of magnitude) lower than the historically accepted figure of 5 to 6 million."

Rushdooney subscribed to the latter view, though none of the former that I know of (at least, not that this article currently seems to indicate).

I don't feel terribly strongly on this issue, so I won't push to edit that category any more, it just didn't seem accurate to me when I first saw it. Carry on! ~ Josh "Duff Man" (talk) 21:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the category again. The category guidelines clearly state, "This category is reserved for articles on people who have actively promoted Holocaust denial. It is not to be used for individuals who may have at some point indicated support for such views, but have not actively promoted them." Rushdoony certainly was a holocaust denier according to the legal definition, but he doesn't fit the Wikipedia category. StAnselm (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

And I've restored the Holocaust denial category instead, since the article certainly discusses Holocaust denial. Rather than continuing to remove it, please discuss it here - just the way you above insisted that I not remove material you inserted until we reached consensus. Now, publishing such views in ones' magnum opus, and defending them in later articles, would be considered "actively promoting", would it not? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the "holocaust deniers" category was only added yesterday with this edit. Look, I'm OK with "Holocaust denial" as a compromise, though the people in that category are most people who have written against HD. But Rushdoony clearly doesn't meet the criterion of the "Holocaust deniers" category that I've posted above. He wasn't "actively promoting" HD at all. That would mean, say, writing a book on the subject - not having it on a couple of pages of a magnum opus. StAnselm (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

According to the text currently in the article (I don't have access to the actual book in question) RJR published these views in a book which, while not entirely focused on promoting Holocaust revisionism, nonetheless was certainly intended as a book promoting the views expressed in it which include Holocaust revisionism. I think this actually hews more to category guidelines than other category members like Richard Williamson (bishop) (famous for Holocaust denial, but AFAIK didn't promote it as part of a religious belief the way Rushdoony did) or Bobby Fischer (did you know he was a massive anti-Semite? I had no idea, ew). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. He published his Holocaust denial in his main work, and then defended this view in subsequent articles (rather than retracting). This is more than an off-the-cuff remark, and meets the standard of "active promotion". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It's exactly an off-the-cuff remark. The book is about the ten commandments, essentially. StAnselm (talk) 02:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

An "off-the-cuff remark" is something one says to a reporter while standing in line waiting for coffee. On the other hand, when one writes one's life's major work, one carefully chooses and goes over many times each word in it - and so does one's editor. And, of course, you keep ignoring the fact that Rushdoony later defended those words; in fact, you insisted this article include his defense of them. I don't understand how you can be so adamant about including this defense in this article, yet simultaneously seem to be neither aware of it, nor able to acknowledge it. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

He defends his words in the 2000 piece, but again - it's not actively promoting HD. Volume I of the institutes is indeed a major work, but he wrote sixty other books, none of which refer to the holocaust, AFAIK. Even in the Institutes, it's a couple of pages out of 800, as a point of application. In other words, not even the chapter is "about" the Holocaust. Even Peter Leithart admits that when he wrote an obituary on Rushdoony, he was "not even aware that Rushdoony had written on the Holocaust." StAnselm (talk) 03:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

He certainly didn't focus on Holocaust denial, but I think deliberately publishing it and then defending what he published constitutes "actively promoting". Jayjg ^(talk) 04:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg seems to be the one who's spoken up in favor of leaving the Holocaust Denier category on this article. Does anyone else object to removing it? ~ Josh "Duff Man" (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I suck at reading. There is a rfc right below this section that returned mixed results. ~ Josh "Duff Man" (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

And the current category is "holocaust denial" rather than "holocaust deniers", which seems to be an OK compromise. StAnselm (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Holocaust deniers category

Does Rushdoony's holocaust denial constitute "active promotion" to qualify him as belonging to Category:Holocaust deniers? StAnselm (talk) 02:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. He deliberately included it in his major life's work, and when later criticized about it, defended it in writing rather than retracting it. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• Note that the category guidlines say "This category is reserved for articles on people who have actively promoted Holocaust denial. It is not to be used for individuals who may have at some point indicated support for such views, but have not actively promoted them." Peter Leithart says here that "The Holocaust is barely mentioned at all in Rushdoony’s voluminous writings. He never wrote a book on the subject, and no major articles." StAnselm (talk) 05:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• Yes. While his book was not focused exclusively on promoting Holocaust revisionism, his book was intended to promote the views expressed within it which included Holocaust revisionism. By the narrow standard other users are attempting to apply, we would have to exclude Richard Williamson (bishop), whose Holocaust denial is famous. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• No. The book Institutes of Biblical Law is not focused on the holocaust at all. While Rushdoony may have held this belief, he never wrote on the subject in an effort to convince others, that I know of (and he did quite a bit of writing to convince other people of various things). He does not meet the requirement stated at the top of Category:Holocaust_deniers.~ Josh "Duff Man" (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• Not informed enough to have a view but wondering what footnote 60 is in Frederick Clarkson - Eternal hostility: the struggle between theocracy and democracy 1997 p91 "The Anti-Defamation League, for one, has documented Rushdoony's flirtation with Holocaust Revisionism.60"In ictu oculi (talk) 09:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
• Weak yes per Jayjg. Khazar (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Normally I would not object to the categorization, but I am not sure users appreciate what the implication of a consensus here would mean, given the nature of the Wikipedia consensus about how Deniers should be dealt with. I've had demonstrably reliable sources reverted by Jayjg because, in his view, all Denial sources should be reverted on sight. Never mind that the work I was referring to had nothing to do with the Holocaust, or even that the author had no history of any Denying statements, Jayjg detected a drop of Denialism that poisoned the whole ocean. All this to say that I would say 'yes' if the implications were going to be reasonably measured. But if you have experience of how Wikipedia's most powerful or influential editors have dealt with this in the past, I don't believe the implications will, in fact, be at all proportionate.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If your past actions and views are irrelevant to this "content" question then will you reassure readers that they will continue to be irrelevant by recusing yourself from future decisions and/or actions regarding whether a work by Rushdoony may be considered a reliable source or not? To take an example, Rushdoony is cited as a source in Postmillennialism. Will you, and others who are inclined take actions based solely on Rushdoony's classification as a denier, leave citations like that alone or not? If yes, I don't object to categorizing Rushdoony as a denier. If not, then I object because of the potential consequences of categorizing Rushdoony as a Holocaust denier and argue that it is perfectly legitimate to point out to readers these consequences. The most authoritative polls of opinion are polls of informed opinion.--Brian Dell (talk) 12:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying here. Do you have any changes you wish to make to the content of this article? Please review WP:NOTAFORUM, and Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Quotations

I propose that the last quote of the last section of this article (on men not being created equal) be removed, as its unusual source lends much credence to the belief that the quote is at best a misnomer but most likely a contrivance.

1. It is the only quote to not cite a firsthand source (other than the quotes which cite no source).
2. The source cited itself makes no citation for the quote.
3. The source cited makes erroneous claims such as "the Council of Chalcedon...proclaimed the state's subservience to God" (in the section on the 'Chalcedon Foundation").
4. The source cited has no appearance of being the least bit given to portraying Rushdoony and other Christian organizations honestly and fairly.
5. I have read Rushdoony myself and can recall no such statement (though this argument is perhaps my weakest). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sac51495 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It probably should be deleted, because quotations normally go in Wikiquote, an awful wiki well-suited to cherry-picked, poorly sourced material. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The entire Quotations section is just an arbitrary selection of lines from his books. I propose we remove the whole thing. ~ Josh "Duff Man" (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

What isn't encyclopedic about this paragraph which was just deleted?

This was just deleted: "Pointing to Rushdoony's dislike of democracy and tolerance and the wide use he would make of the death penalty, the British Centre for Science Education called him "a man every bit as potentially murderous as Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot or anyone else you may want to name amongst the annals of evil" and "a thoroughly evil man.""." The UK Department of Education seems to think BCSE worth responding to[8] so I don't think that the organisation can be the reason to delete it. Dougweller (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

"every bit as potentially murderous as Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot" is inflammatory and irresponsible to say the least. They are saying he has the potential to murder as many people as Hitler. Hitler killed 11 to 14 million people. I'd like a better source to substantiate this level of genocidal tendency per WP:REDFLAG: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." – Lionel ^(talk) 14:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, let's note WP:BRD and leave it in while we discuss it. We aren't saying that this is correct, we are saying that this is what a reliable source says. This isn't a BLP of course. Dougweller (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The article doesn't say it's a fact, it merely attributes the opinion to a notable sources, per WP:NPOV and WP:V. I can't see any issue with it. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

REDFLAG is an important policy and as such applies to all articles. Is the British Centre for Science Education, "a volunteer-run organization that has the goal of countering creationism", a reliable source for analyzing Rushdoony's positions to the point where they can predict that he was capable of murdering 14 million people? Or are they just a biased source with an axe to grind and the best criticism they could come up with is the tried and true "Hitler analogy." – Lionel ^(talk) 08:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more explicit. REDFLAG applies to all articles, but there is no emergency about this as there would be with a BLP. And it's a reliable source, whether or not you like it. Dougweller (talk) 10:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

We have no way of knowing if the opinion of the British Centre for Science Education regarding Rushdoony is accurate; all we can do is make clear what the source of that opinion is, per WP:V and WP:NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

How long would "his abortion policies have killed more babies than Hitler killed Jews" sourced to Operation Rescue stay in Ted Kennedy's article? Yeah, I know know OTHERSTUFF, but really, how long would it stay?????????? – Lionel ^(talk) 04:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Gist retained. Rhetorical overkill which reflects quite badly on those using it reduced. See Gpdwin's Law. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Racism etc.

I think that section would be better off simply annexed into the criticism section, it appears to be a relatively minor part of his thought, largely signifigant insofar as it has attracted criticism and also the specific criticism section otherwise seems rather superflous. But I noticed that there appears to be considerable debate on the issue so I do not want to change it without some feedback. So does anyone stronly disagree with my idea? Threadnecromancer (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Threadnecromancer

• No one having commented I will see about a modest reformating. Threadnecromancer (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)Threadnecromancer

The Carl Trueman quote is what's atrocious. Do we really want to do that to him? --41.151.2.235 (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)