Talk:Rousas Rushdoony

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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 (talkcontribs) 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?[edit]

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."[1]"." The UK Department of Education seems to think BCSE worth responding to[1] 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)

Racism etc.[edit]

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? -- (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


Light bulb iconBAn 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)


Rushdoony could not have taken a Presbyterian Church (USA) pastorate in 1953, or resigned from the PCUSA in 1957, because the PCUSA did not exist until 1983—the year it was formed by the merger of the Presbyterian Church in the United States with the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. Most PCUS congregations were in the south, while the UPCUSA had congregations throughout the country. Since Rushdoony's 1953–57 pastorate was in California, it was likely UPCUSA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The link is correc, I believe - it's the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. StAnselm (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Fixed the second link (changed from PCUSA to PCitUSoA). Looks like it was merger that made him leave for OPC, but the sources don't say that was the reason. -Sigeng (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Rushdoony on the republic[edit]

This edit was proposed:

Rushdoony made explicit that a republic is a better form of civil government than a democracy. A republic avoids mob rule and the rule of the "51%" of society; in other words might does not make right in a republic. Rather Rushdoony said that our current separation of powers between the 3 branches of government is a far more neutral and better method of civil government.

This edit is very far from WP:NPOV.

The first sentence sounds as if Rushdoony is affirming a widely held belief. In reality, this is a controversial statement and the article should present it only as a belief he held. WP also prefers to avoid terms such as "made explicit"; "said" is more neutral. Since the USA is a democratic republic it is unclear what aspect of government is being critiqued.

Second sentence is written as a fact claim about republics. The article can describe Rushdoony's beliefs, not make fact claims.

The third sentence is USA centric. Wikipedia content should be intelligible to global readers for whom "our" current separation of powers does not apply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigeng (talkcontribs) 21:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The edit speaks of Rushdoony's own words on his own position backed up by sources. The edit espouses Rushdoony's POV and is not intended to make a fact claim about Republics that is independent of Rushdoony's POV. Cyberpunkas (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I have cleaned up the edit to include "according to Rushdoony" to make it more clear that it is Rushdoony that is saying this claim about Republics. Cyberpunkas (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate that you've made a change to respond to one of my concerns about this edit. As a gesture of good faith and to avoid edit warring I will let it stand for now but I still want to see more changes. As written it is still USA-centric and still doesn't follow Wikipedia style.
I don't find it explains his views very well either. The USA is not a direct democracy partly to mitigate mob rule, and the Constitution protects minority opinions in various ways; it's unclear to me what he actually wants to change or if he is offering an explanation for why the status quo should be supported.
As I explained "Rushdoony made explicit" makes it sound like the article espouses his POV, and again, WP:SAID. Also given that he wrote *This Independent Republic* on republics it would seem appropriate to review this book and cite it. It would be even better to have a secondary source that summarizes his views on the topic instead of quoting him directly. Sigeng (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Come to think of it the simple reason that you're quoting only from a primary source and summarizing it is probably reason enough to remove the remark. I think it would be good to have more content on his views on government but something this content should come from a secondary source. Michael McVicar has a few Rushdoony articles that might be worth a look. Sigeng (talk) 08:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@ Sigeng Please revise it but do not delete the quote simply because you feel there are flaws. See WP:PRIMARY— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


As I posted on Talk:Rshtuni, Im pretty sure this surname is an Americanized spelling of Rshtuni, but I can't find much information in Armenian on him. I don't speak Armenian so I could be missing something obvious, and I'm hoping someone can help. I think it's interesting that he is descended from an ancient family whose name is old enough to predate the usual Armenian practice of having surnames end in -ian. Soap 20:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rousas Rushdoony. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference bcse was invoked but never defined (see the help page).