Talk:R. J. Rushdoony

Ministry

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 75.137.171.19 (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

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 (talk • contribs) 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 104.172.33.82 (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The current version sounds about right (maybe a different word or two would be in order, but otherwise okay). It would certainly be egregious if, for example, his proclamation that those "who are content with a humanistic law system [are idolators]" were cited as fact.

GVO8891 (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Surname

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

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140404033004/http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/the-passing-of-r-j-rushdoony to http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/the-passing-of-r-j-rushdoony

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

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