Talk:The Institutes of Biblical Law

Holocaust denial

I strongly object to this edit by StAnselm, which censored all material relating to the Holocaust denial views expressed by Rushdoony in The Institutes of Biblical Law. The reason given for this content massacre was, "That's certainly not a "Summary" - to spend so much space on one line in a 890-page work is undue weight, and the issue is already covered at Rousas Rushdoony." The first part of that comment apparently suggests that the word "summary" is somehow a crucial issue. I do not propose to respond to that point, except to say that sections titled "summary" can and do often go into considerable detail about the contents of a book, and that there is nothing wrong with this. I reject the suggestion that the addition was undue. The fact that Rushdoony's Holocaust denial in the book has been discussed in reliable sources, by authors such as Carl R. Trueman, is enough to show that the addition was perfectly reasonable. Finally, the last point raised by StAnselm, "the issue is already covered at Rousas Rushdoony", is preposterous and bears no relation whatever to Wikipedia's content policies. Nowhere in Wikipedia's policies or guidelines does it state that because something is discussed somewhere in some article, that it cannot be mentioned in another article. A given issue or topic can of course be relevant to more than one article. The content, since it is specifically about The Institutes of Biblical Law, is in fact more relevant to an article specifically about that book than it is to the article about Rushdoony himself. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a bit strange to call it "censorship" when I created the content myself in the Rousas Rushdoony article - content that you copied here without attribution. The controversy was about Rushdoony and his beliefs, not really about this book. AFAIK, the Holocaust has not mentioned in any published book reviews. And yes - it is just plain silly to mention it in a "summary" section. StAnselm (talk) 04:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Copying content without attribution (a mistake I will not repeat) is not the issue, StAnselm. The issue is the appropriateness, or lack of it, of the content in question. The content is directly and specifically about the book. It concerns something that Rushdoony wrote in a book, The Institutes of Biblical Law, that the article is about, and it also concerns things that other people wrote about what Rushdoony wrote in that book. To claim that the material is somehow not appropriate to the article is, to borrow your phrase, "just plain silly". Do not invent worthless, baseless grounds for removing content from articles. I note that you do not even attempt to defend your view that the issue should not be mentioned here because it is also mentioned in the article on Rushdoony. Could that be because you realize your position is totally indefensible?

Whether the Holocaust denial issue was mentioned in reviews of the book is not a decisive issue. The relevant question is whether Rushdoony's Holocaust denial in The Institutes of Biblical Law is discussed somewhere in reliable sources, and evidently it is: the book by Carl R. Trueman. That a secondary source such as that book discusses and criticizes Rushdoony's Holocaust denial views makes a mention of them perfectly appropriate to the summary section. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Once again, Trueman's critique is focuses upon Rushdoony himself rather than this book: "he held this position... appalling incompetence as a historian", etc. StAnselm (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

StAnselm, I find your position tendentious. Trueman could only discus Rushdoony's "appalling incompetence as a historian" on the basis of what Rushdoony wrote in his books, and the key example he gives is The Institutes of Biblical Law. Evidently, you simply do not want this material in the article, and are inventing reasons to keep it out. So that other users can see what this discussion is really about, here is the relevant passage from page 30 of Trueman's book Histories and Fallacies: Problems Faced in the Writing of History, which can be seen (for example) from the book's page on Amazon.com.

"While Rushdoony's followers do not like to acknowledge his Holocaust Denial, it is incontestable that he held such a position, according to the technical definition (i.e., a massive lowering of the number of estimated dead from the usual six million and rejection of the idea of systematic mass slaughter). His sources are atrocious, secondhand, and unverified; that he held this position speaks volumes about his appalling incompetence as a historian, and one can only speculate as to why he held the position from a moral perspective: see his The Institutes of Biblical Law (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1973), 586-88. He deals with the matter under the issue of the ninth commandment and, ironically, breaches it himself in his presentation of the matter."

Now, I would agree that this comparatively brief mention of Rushdoony's book does not provide a basis for a lengthy mention of the Holocaust denial issue in the article. A brief mention, however, would be appropriate; the issue obviously does concern the book. I would suggest a single sentence, say, "Rushdoony has been criticized for engaging in Holocaust denial in The Institutes of Biblical Law", cited to Trueman. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I didn't get a chance to reply to this before the #O was asked for and given, but I was reasonably happy with this sentence. It certainly avoids the UNDUE problems. StAnselm (talk) 09:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request :

My opinion is that this material doesn’t belong in this article at this stage. The primary reason for this is that it appears to violate WP:UNDUE. In a nutshell, an article should represent a subject proportionally to the way it is represented in reliable sources. At the moment the holocaust denial section comprises ~40% of the total article text and ~80% of the summary. That means that, to meet WP:DUE either 40% of reliable sources would need to be discussing primarily the holocaust denial aspects of the book, or all of the sources would need to be devoting 75% of their page space to discussing the holocaust denial aspect. I know nothing about this subject, but a quick Google News and Google Scholar search do not indicate that any reliable sources are currently discussing the holocaust denial aspect of this book. My impression is that reliable sources are primarily discussing this book as an example of modern Christian reconstructionism and with respect to the sociological issue of the rise of literal theological/fundamentalist states, such as ISIS. If that impression is accurate, that is what this article needs to reflect. Even WRT to the holocaust denial issue specifically, the current text does not seem to meet WP:DUE. I can find reliable sources discussing this book’s views on the holocaust with specific searches, so the material should be included, once sufficient other material has been added to meet WP:DUE for the article as a whole. But these sources don’t seem to be discussing primarily this book, rather they are discussing the author, or Christian reconstructionism generally. This seems to be the case with the one reference provided so far in this article. As such we need to include the views of all reliable sources that mention this book’s views on the Holocaust in passing, and it appears they are not nearly as one-sided as this article suggests. For example, “Building God's Kingdom: Inside the World of Christian Reconstruction” or “Christian Reconstruction: R. J. Rushdoony and American Religious Conservatism” both seem RS and both provide much more nuanced and balanced views of the material in this book. These are the second and third clearly RS materials that I found with a Google search. So, in summary, I don’t think this material should be included in the article in its current stub form at all. To do so would clearly violate WP:UNDUE. The majority of reliable sources are not discussing this book WRT its stance on the holocaust, and as such the majority of this article can not be about this issue. The material should be added proportional to its weight in reliable sources, which appears to be no more 5% of the discourse. It should also be added in a manner that reflects the discourse in reliable soucres, which I don’t believe it does at the moment. Mark Marathon (talk) 01:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your third opinion, Mark Marathon. In the interests of strict accuracy, I should note that it is incorrect to state that "At the moment the holocaust denial section comprises ~40% of the total article text and ~80% of the summary", as there is currently nothing on the subject in the article at all. StAnselm removed it, and because I wanted to avoid edit warring, I did not restore the content. I think it is a misinterpretation of WP:DUE to claim that "40% of reliable sources would need to be discussing primarily the holocaust denial aspects of the book" in order for 40% of the article's text to be about Holocaust denial. The policy was surely never intended to be understood in such a mechanical fashion. It was certainly helpful to mention other books discussing The Institutes of Historical Law, however. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

You're quite right, the current edit doesn't contain this material, and kudos for avoiding an edit war. And you are quite right, WP:DUE shouldn't be taken as literally as I implied. My point was really that so long as the sources don't discuss the book in those propotions, editors are going to have a plausible case that the article fails WP:DUE, whIch seems to be StAnselm's concern? Ihope we all agree that when <5% of reliable sources discuss an aspect of a book but 50% of the article focuses on that aspect, we are giving undue weight to that aspect. Given that the aspect in question is inherently critical, I think we should be very mindful of WP:DUE. Mark Marathon (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, would you agree that it might be appropriate to eventually add a brief mention of the Holocaust denial issue? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. Once the article gets beyond its current stub size it would be incomplete without a mention of it. I just believe that a lot of other material needs to be included first to give an accurate representation of how reliable sources are evaluating this book. It seems from my amateurish research that a majority of sources are interested in the work as either a founding document of Christian Reconstructionism or a representative opinion on the interplay between secular and religious law. Few have any clear interest in it for its views on the holocaust. If that's an accurate summary of how news media and scholars are treating the work, this article ought to reflect that. Some scholrs are interested in the work for the views it expresses on the holocaust, so that ought to be included, but proportional to its occurence in reliable sources. I suspect it will never warrant more than two sentences. Also note that I'm not advocating being uncritical of this work. My impression is that many reliable sources are very critical, it just seems that the criticism is mostly based on the book's calls for a theocracy in the US or its endorsement of slavery and capital punishment. Criticism is good, but it needs to be proportional to the criticism of reliable sources. Mark Marathon (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Mark Marathon. It is my hope that StAnselm or other editors will expand the article beyond its current size. The Institutes of Biblical Law seems to have been an influential book, so it is regrettable that the article does not say more about it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)