543:
are significantly more than that. I do know what original research is, and I'll also admit that I made the vote in haste. Now that I've retracted from my comments above, they don't necessarily represent my thoughts on OR. The comments that I made in support of its deletion can be entirely dismissed, and I will want to remember not to make votes in haste in the future. At this point, I don't think there is a need for this to be deleted.
463:. It appears to be chock full of original research. Also, the article is more about why a few particular people think that a Christian reupblic can't exist instead of what a Christian republic actually is. While the topic itself may be notable (let me emphasize the word "may" and the possibility that this subject isn't notable), this article does not prove that it is, and for now it should be deleted.
270:" - all we need. This is OR. (Also, it provides literally no definition of the term that it's supposedly documenting - it contains both "A Christian Republic is most broadly defined as a republic with a state religion of Christianity" and "A Christian Republic generally does not mean a Republic that merely has a state religion which happens to be Christian.")
439:
542:
You make good points. I will state that I didn't note the notability of the "few particular people" enough, and that the sources that are supplied do not suggest original research. The article has been improved since the Afd was assigned to the topic, since there used to be zero sources but now there
568:
noting that the article had more progress in the 6 hours after its AfD than in the 5 years before it. Neither a neologism (discussion on the topic goes back centuries) nor a random juxtaposition of two words (whole books appear to have been written on the subject), but rather (apparently) a frequent
185:
Although "Christian" and "Republic" are both notable terms, and very important topics, the two of them together do not seem to create a notable topic for a WP article. It is possible to say "Christian republic" (and it is said fairly often) but there does not seem to be any consistent meaning, which
854:
The ideal of the
Christian republic is a particular sub-set of these. For example, in Europe a state church has often been associated with monarchical government, or at least constitutional monarchy, so is not exclusively republican. And many republican theorists would reject the idea of limiting
867:
a generation or so before he was writing. Whether the
Levellers were Christian republicans may be a topic for discussion, but the case can be made, and indeed some would have seen the Commonwealth itself in those terms. For these reasons I don't think that the topic can easily be subsumed into
523:
Did you pick up a single one of the sources cited and check it against the article? If you didn't, you have no basis for even knowing whether this is original research, let alone stating that conclusion in an AFD discussion as if you had checked the content against sources to see whether they
222:, no reliable sources in sight, and not a notable term to begin with. I expect we could find various reliable sources mentioning the term "Christian republic", but unless we have one actually discussing the concept (which I doubt can be found), that doesn't make it worthy of an article.
815:
The idea of the
Christian Republic touches on a number of important ideas in the history of European political thought, though the interest there is chiefly historical (I acknowledge that some have been accused of trying to create such a state in the USA more recently).
855:
their republic to a particular faith and might exclude religious 'interference'. The article needs better historical context and reference to theorists or a political movement advocating such a system and an explanation or exposition of their case.
796:-- This is an article on an idea devised by two important philosophers - Locke and Rousseau. It has a good list of citations, and is certainly a notable topic. I have not looked at the article originally nominated.
154:
872:
will do as a home either, both because it is concerned with the modern political movement and is not necessarily republican, though there should be a cross-reference because there is a continuity of ideas.
693:
Please don't count my nomination as a "delete" "vote." The article I nominated is gone and has been replaced by one on a totally different topic. The new topic might indeed be notable.
516:
is "original research", and a novel hypothesis of any form, is so blatantly wrong that it almost makes one wonder whether you formed the conclusion that this was original research as a
524:
advanced the same conclusions. Try the book by
Marcela Cristi, professor at the University of Waterloo, first. (There's a hint in the edit summaries that it's a good place to start.)
362:
115:
832:
Within a
Christian context, that God's purpose can be directly understood from a proper study of scripture and can be applied to all areas of our lives, and may often tend toward
388:
773:
article, so in concept an article on the historical idea of a
Christian republic could stand on its own. But it seems to me that the information here might fit better in the
148:
414:
527:
Did it not occur to you to wonder why
Roscelese's rationale (to pick just one) stated things that simply weren't true about the article that you saw in front of you?
877:
to emphasising that the idea is more to do with political theory than religion, but then the distinction is precisely one that its advocates were trying to reject.
868:
another article because of the overlaps, and it certainly qualifies for inclusion in
Knowledge (XXG) in terms of importance. I don't think that the article on modern
442:
337:, the question is almost begged: What's "original" and "novel" about 18th century political philosophy? And what's "non-notable" about something that has been not
512:
policy's concept. The idea that (mainly) 20th century scholarly analysis of 15th to 18th century thought by several of the most prominent thinkers of
88:
83:
92:
75:
17:
595:
509:
169:
302:
279:
136:
191:
921:
36:
594:
or something? To cover the Jewish
Republic, several Islamic Republics, and these. (is Sri Lanka a Buddhist Republic?)
576:
748:
There's some interesting material here, but perhaps not enough for a stand-alone article. Could it be moved into the
130:
608:
774:
749:
906:
886:
805:
786:
761:
734:
720:
702:
683:
669:
648:
624:
603:
582:
556:
536:
476:
454:
429:
403:
377:
350:
326:
306:
283:
252:
231:
203:
57:
920:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
782:
757:
126:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
591:
801:
513:
79:
730:
698:
644:
632:
was not intended as a religion-based republic, but as a homeland for the Jewish people, religious or not.
483:
199:
176:
187:
599:
487:
53:
517:
882:
864:
620:
450:
869:
778:
770:
753:
550:
470:
298:
275:
162:
797:
665:
71:
63:
520:
to follow what was above, and tried to interpret the article to fit the preconceived conclusion.
142:
726:
716:
694:
679:
640:
532:
425:
399:
373:
346:
322:
195:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
711:
have addressed the topic, which is radically different to how non-experts do, it seems. ☺
612:
494:
the subject directly, but upon (since it has been expanded since even
Carrite looked at it)
490:, and the "may be notable" article is not even based upon Machiavelli and de Tocqueville not
49:
878:
616:
446:
438:
I don't think I created it, but I thought it had some historical interest so worked on it.
215:
839:
833:
544:
464:
294:
271:
248:
227:
219:
902:
846:
661:
712:
675:
528:
421:
395:
369:
342:
318:
109:
820:
634:
Modern Israel that is. If you want to make the claim that the Israelites before
856:
572:
860:
827:
635:
244:
223:
897:
508:
Your idea of "original research" is ludicrous, and not in line with our
629:
863:
and similar movements around the time of the English Civil War and
725:
So different that it seems to be a new topic, to a non-expert. :-)
707:
It looks like the same topic to me. It's just content based upon
859:'s comments cannot really be understood without knowledge of the
826:
Government by a priest class or acknowledged people of faith - a
914:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
638:
were a religious republic, I guess you could do that reasonably.
615:
is an article due to it being a term in modern-day nations.--
611:
was an article, but has been a redirect for about 20 months.
895:
Clearly enough coverage, and a specific notable concept.
709:
how prominent thinkers and the scholars who've studied them
333:
331:
Given that at the time that you wrote that the article
105:
101:
97:
161:
175:
482:Where "a few particular people" are the likes of
363:list of Christianity-related deletion discussions
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
924:). No further edits should be made to this page.
389:list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions
819:That man is or should be governed by a set of
502:that Machiavelli, de Tocqueville , et al. not
415:list of Politics-related deletion discussions
194:could also be invoked against this article.
8:
409:
383:
357:
186:is reflected by the state of the article.
317:- Original essay on a non-notable topic.
413:: This debate has been included in the
387:: This debate has been included in the
361:: This debate has been included in the
341:by four professors and a psychologist?
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
510:Knowledge (XXG):no original research
268:might be deemed Christian Republics
569:philosophers' thought experiment.
24:
498:professors and a psychologist not
243:a very well rewritten article.
674:Hrafn does make a good point.
1:
590:is there a superset of this?
907:23:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
887:14:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
806:16:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
787:15:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
762:14:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
735:16:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
721:13:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
703:13:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
684:13:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
670:06:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
649:13:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
625:06:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
604:05:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
583:03:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
557:03:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
537:13:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
477:03:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
455:01:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
430:01:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
404:01:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
378:01:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
351:13:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
327:00:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
307:04:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
293:. Rewrite is a great start.
284:22:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
253:17:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
232:19:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
204:18:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
58:01:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
941:
609:Republicanism and religion
266:. "historical places that
775:Christianity and politics
769:I see we do have a solid
750:Christianity and politics
917:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
592:religion-based republic
514:classical republicanism
488:Alexis de Tocqueville
192:WP:Original research
870:Christian Democracy
771:Christian democracy
484:Niccolò Machiavelli
218:, currently fails
72:Christian republic
64:Christian republic
44:The result was
823:or God-given laws
432:
418:
406:
392:
380:
366:
932:
919:
613:Islamic republic
581:
553:
547:
473:
467:
419:
393:
367:
336:
334:looked like this
180:
179:
165:
113:
95:
34:
940:
939:
935:
934:
933:
931:
930:
929:
928:
922:deletion review
915:
579:
570:
555:
551:
545:
475:
471:
465:
332:
122:
86:
70:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
938:
936:
927:
926:
910:
909:
852:
851:
850:
849:
843:
840:state religion
838:The idea of a
836:
834:fundamentalism
830:
824:
809:
808:
791:
790:
789:
779:Aristophanes68
754:Aristophanes68
742:
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
688:
687:
686:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
585:
575:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
549:
469:
457:
443:Google Scholar
433:
407:
381:
355:
354:
353:
311:
310:
309:
287:
286:
258:
257:
256:
255:
235:
234:
183:
182:
119:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
937:
925:
923:
918:
912:
911:
908:
904:
900:
899:
894:
891:
890:
889:
888:
884:
880:
876:
871:
866:
862:
858:
848:
847:republicanism
845:The ideal of
844:
841:
837:
835:
831:
829:
825:
822:
818:
817:
814:
811:
810:
807:
803:
799:
798:Peterkingiron
795:
792:
788:
784:
780:
776:
772:
768:
765:
764:
763:
759:
755:
751:
747:
744:
743:
736:
732:
728:
724:
723:
722:
718:
714:
710:
706:
705:
704:
700:
696:
692:
689:
685:
681:
677:
673:
672:
671:
667:
663:
659:
656:
650:
646:
642:
639:
637:
631:
628:
627:
626:
622:
618:
614:
610:
607:
606:
605:
601:
597:
593:
589:
586:
584:
580:
578:
574:
567:
564:
558:
554:
548:
541:
540:
539:
538:
534:
530:
525:
521:
519:
515:
511:
505:
501:
497:
493:
489:
485:
481:
480:
479:
478:
474:
468:
462:
458:
456:
452:
448:
444:
441:
437:
434:
431:
427:
423:
416:
412:
408:
405:
401:
397:
390:
386:
382:
379:
375:
371:
364:
360:
356:
352:
348:
344:
340:
335:
330:
329:
328:
324:
320:
316:
313:
312:
308:
304:
300:
296:
292:
289:
288:
285:
281:
277:
273:
269:
265:
264:
260:
259:
254:
250:
246:
242:
239:
238:
237:
236:
233:
229:
225:
221:
217:
214:- seems pure
213:
212:
208:
207:
206:
205:
201:
197:
193:
189:
178:
174:
171:
168:
164:
160:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
135:
132:
128:
125:
124:Find sources:
120:
117:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
916:
913:
896:
892:
874:
865:Commonwealth
853:
812:
793:
766:
745:
727:Steve Dufour
708:
695:Steve Dufour
690:
657:
641:Steve Dufour
633:
587:
571:
565:
526:
522:
507:
503:
499:
495:
491:
460:
459:
440:Google Books
435:
410:
384:
358:
338:
314:
290:
267:
262:
261:
240:
210:
209:
196:Steve Dufour
188:WP:Neologism
184:
172:
166:
158:
151:
145:
139:
133:
123:
45:
43:
31:
28:
794:Strong keep
660:per Hrafn.
596:65.93.14.29
552:Speak to me
472:Speak to me
149:free images
50:Ron Ritzman
879:AJHingston
857:John Locke
617:T. Anthony
546:Backtable
518:sheep vote
466:Backtable
447:T. Anthony
861:Levellers
842:or church
828:theocracy
777:article.
752:article?
636:King Saul
422:• Gene93k
396:• Gene93k
370:• Gene93k
295:Roscelese
272:Roscelese
662:Jclemens
303:contribs
280:contribs
116:View log
821:natural
713:Uncle G
691:Neutral
676:Uncle G
588:Comment
529:Uncle G
436:Comment
343:Uncle G
319:Carrite
155:WP refs
143:scholar
89:protect
84:history
746:Merge?
630:Israel
461:Delete
315:Delete
263:Delete
211:Delete
127:Google
93:delete
903:talk
767:Note:
577:Stalk
573:Hrafn
566:Keep:
170:JSTOR
131:books
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
893:Keep
883:talk
813:Keep
802:talk
783:talk
758:talk
731:talk
717:talk
699:talk
680:talk
666:talk
658:Keep
645:talk
621:talk
600:talk
533:talk
486:and
451:talk
426:talk
411:Note
400:talk
385:Note
374:talk
359:Note
347:talk
323:talk
299:talk
291:Keep
276:talk
249:talk
245:Huon
241:Keep
228:talk
224:Huon
220:WP:V
200:talk
190:and
163:FENS
137:news
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
54:talk
46:keep
898:DGG
875:Yes
506:it.
500:ing
496:six
492:ing
420:--
394:--
368:--
177:TWL
114:– (
905:)
885:)
804:)
785:)
760:)
733:)
719:)
701:)
682:)
668:)
647:)
623:)
602:)
535:)
504:ed
453:)
445:--
428:)
417:.
402:)
391:.
376:)
365:.
349:)
339:ed
325:)
305:)
301:⋅
282:)
278:⋅
251:)
230:)
216:OR
202:)
157:)
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
56:)
48:.
901:(
881:(
800:(
781:(
756:(
729:(
715:(
697:(
678:(
664:(
643:(
619:(
598:(
531:(
449:(
424:(
398:(
372:(
345:(
321:(
297:(
274:(
247:(
226:(
198:(
181:)
173:·
167:·
159:·
152:·
146:·
140:·
134:·
129:(
121:(
118:)
112:)
74:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.