Talk:Christian anarchism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeChristian anarchism was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
May 23, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed

Fyodor Doseteovsky[edit]

His novel The Brothers Karamazov postulates that all men should be monks; that everyone is responsible for everyone else; and that belief in God can only be found through the practice of active love.

This is a joke. There's nothing anarchist about men being monks (where you're ruled by an abbot), nothing anti-statist about responsibility for all peoples (which is what a super-state aims for) nor belief in God thorough acts of love.

On the contrary, if anyone bothers to actually read Brothers K they'd know what a mess everyone is without a strong & virtuous Father figure; the only good character, Alexy, had a Father-ruler character in the form of Father Zossima. (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can also find no references for him advocating CA. I have removed him. Nirvana2013 (talk) 09:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Christian anarchism/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Initial Review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    I am spotting run-on sentences all over the place
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    Lead fails to comply with WP:LEAD, Lots of violations of WP:W2W, Multiple WP:EMBED lists that could be better incorporated with prose
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Lots of places need third party sources, I have tagged them
    C. No original research:
    Lots of what appears to be original research third party sourcing could clear up alot of this
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Overall coverage is erratic and jumps back and forth
    B. Focused:
    History section fails to cover the history of the ideology. Simply listing supporting elements of CA in history is insufficient
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    article hinges on Alexandre Christoyannopoulos, could be expanded to include other writers on the issue
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    You seem to be the only working on it and no serious
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Looks good
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    At this initial review of material I say it needs alot of work. IF you have questions post below and we can see about fixing the issues before a final review.


In reply to User: question on my talk page, I have reverted your edits because in adding File:Lev tolstoi carstvo bozhie vnutri vas.jpg you removed File:Jesus wanted poster.jpg. I agree Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God Is Within You is a key Tolstoyan/Christian anarchist text but I do not see how a book cover in Russian on an English Wikipedia page adds much to this article or Anarchism and religion compared to Art Young's 1917 political cartoon. Art Young's cartoon was used by Christian anarchist Ammon Hennacy in his autobiography The Book of Ammon (1970) p.332.

In respect to Tolstoy I have added File:Leo Tolstoy, portrait.jpg to the article. Personally I find an image of him more useful than File:Lev tolstoi carstvo bozhie vnutri vas.jpg, but if you prefer the book cover then that should be discussed below. I have added Tolstoy's book cover image to commons:Category:Tolstoyan movement. Perhaps other editors could also comment. Nirvana2013 (talk) 07:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tolstoy not "Georgist"[edit]

Tolstoy wrote in The slavery of out Time (chap XI): "Those who, like Henry George and his partisans, would abolish the laws making private property of land, propose new laws imposing an obligatory rent on the land. And this obligatory land- rent will necessarily create a new form of slavery, because a man compelled to pay rent, or the single tax, may at any failure of the crops or other misfortune have to borrow money from a man who has some to lend, and he will again lapse into slavery." He praised George ideas in three letters, - for his system may do away with the first of the three causes driving people into slavery - but he was not a "Georgist". Moreover, "anarchist version of Georgism" means absolutely nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Justifying the Holocaust[edit]

"Ernst Käsemann, in his Commentary on Romans, challenged the mainstream Christian interpretation of the passage in light of German Lutheran Churches using this passage to justify the Holocaust." That preposterous statement is simply a lie. No German Lutheran Church did justify any Holocaust ever. -- (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Christian anarchism. 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.

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) 10:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revised Middle Ages section[edit]

I removed references to Francis of Assisi and Petr Chelčický because, although they were pacifists, they did not reject the authority of the Church and therefore were not anarchists as defined in the article lead. The Franciscans were appointed, along with the Dominicans, as Inquisitors by Pope Gregory IX and so were actively upholding Church authority rather than rejecting it (with the exception of the Fraticelli). I added information on groups and individuals who did reject Church authority and had anarchist leanings. Epinoia (talk) 01:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links[edit]

I removed the last link added to the section but there are still 13 links that has resulted in a link farm. I would appreciate it if someone would either integrate some of the links into the article, if possible, or trim the links to three or four. Otr500 (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]