Wikipedia:Featured article review/John Calvin/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by YellowAssessmentMonkey 23:34, 16 March 2010 [1].

John Calvin[edit]

Featured article review/John Calvin/archive1

Notified: Example user, ... Example WikiProject, ...

I am nominating this featured article for review because...

The inclusion of the statement that John Calvin was at all influential in the development of capitalism, democracy or individualism violates the Neutrality of the article and exposes it to abuse for the following multiple reasons:

(1) He lived almost 200 years before Adam Smith, who is considered to be the "father" of modern capitlism, which is itself a bit of a misnomer, since he did not use that word at all. And in fact, the idea of "capitalism" is considered to be much more of a post-Industrial Revolution concept, coming to prominence more as a result of worldwide industrialization in the latter half of the 19th century. That is almost 300 years after the death of John Calvin.

(2) John Calvin had about as much influence on Democracy and Capitalism as Martin Luther, John Knox, John Wesley, and Henry VIII. My point is that he was no more influential than thousands of other religious reformers of the 16th century. Why would he be given such credit where others are not?

(3) There is not even a citation to footnote this assertion that "some historians" make this claim.

(4) There is no opportunity for others, such as myself, to dispute the validity of that claim, or to posit how he may have even been opposed to "Individualism" in a political context. Remember, he was a theologican, not a politician. Yet, this sentence describes an economic and political theory, not a religious one.

(5) There is a current impetus in the United States among some political groups to overly politicize the education process, to rewrite American history, to emphasize that the USA was founded as a "Christian" nation. Texas State Board of Education has already required the removal of Thomas Jefferson from World History standards and required the inclusion of John Calvin, specifically, in his place. They are attempting to claim that John Calvin had a greater impact on the American and French Revolutions than did Thomas Jefferson. Yet, Thomas Jefferson lived DURING the time of both revolutions, whereas John Calvin lived 250 years prior. It would be akin to saying that Brigham Young was more influential on the defeat of the Soviet Union than was Ronald Reagan. The absurdity of this revisionist history then becomes more tolerable when a respected site such as Wikipedia makes a similar assertion (sans the Thomas Jefferson deemphasis). It then lends credence to the agenda pursued by the Texas SBOE to diminish the role of separation of church and state, the impact of Deists, and the role of Enlightenment Thinkers and instead substitute them with religious figures of prior centuries.

(6) John Calvin supported the idea of Predestination. This is not consistent with a view of a meritocracy, where one can improve their station in life. According to Calvin, one was resigned to the preordained destiny of the Supreme Being. This is what Calvin was known for. To put an unsubstantiated claim about his alleged impact on democracy, capitalism and individualism into the INTRODUCTORY text of this entry is itself being dishonest about the man's own impact on history. If even one historian makes this assertion, another sentence should be included to state that "Although, the vast majority of political and religious historians do not share this view." That way, people can at least not be misled by Wikipedia into believing the matter is settled. Oghmatist (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request a speedy removal of this FAR for the following reasons:

The nominator is taking issue with only single clause in a rather long article. This minor issue should be discussed on the article talk page. In fact, it is already being discussed.
The nominator has not indicated which FA criteria are violated. Hence it is impossible to take any action involving the criteria.

--RelHistBuff (talk) 08:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with FAR removal; FAR is not dispute resolution, and a FAR should not be started over one sentence, particularly without having first raised it on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close The statement in the lead is "some political historians have argued that his ideas have contributed to the rise of capitalism and representative democracy in the West", which is amplified in the "Legacy" section, naming the historians concerned. If you dispute this description of their views, or believe that mentioning The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism etc. breaches WP:UNDUE, then explain why. Otherwise this is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Johnbod (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I additionally concur with a speedy close, based on the contribs of Oghmatist (talk · contribs), who might not understand that the lead is a summary of items cited in the text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close and G6 Clearly not a FAR issue. I had MFDed this but backed off when I realized that the FAR group has its own method of handling this. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.