Talk:Abraham Kuyper

Trivia

If someone sees fit to revert the delete of the "Trivia" entry, please cite a verifiable and reputable source for it. --David3565 6:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Clearly some had already restored it, but I have just changed the section heading to Honorific, instead of Trivia. I wouldn't count it as being trivial, but rather it is sufficiently notable for mention in this article. DFH 11:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Redlinks

Several Dutch politicians are redlinks in the article. It would be worthwhile searching the Dutch Wikipedia to see if any of these can be made into interwiki links. DFH 12:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There are two red links, Alexander de Savorin Lohman, founder of the CHU and Johannes Tak van Poortvliet, minister of justice, that are really relevant all the others are politicians who ran against Kuyper unsuccesfully. Lohman has got multiple links to it. I was already planning to write it -some day-. C mon 16:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Common grace

I have restored the see also link to common grace, because Kuyper's work on the subject was seminal to the development of the idea by later Calvinistic theologians in the 20th century. See (for example) McGoldrick chapter 12, Antithesis and common grace (p.126). DFH 18:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The link is now in the section on theological views. DFH 19:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

External link

An external link to "Kuyper resources" has been deleted thrice by User:Betacommand, who believes it to be spam (and who received considerable debate on similar automated deletions, cf. [1]), and by User:Nick, who said it is an "extraneous external link covering nothing not already in the article." Since this apparently controversial, I'll start a discussion here.

I have no connection whatsoever to the website in question, but I believe this link should stay because it provides a collection of links to primary and secondary sources and an extended bibliography that are not in the article (and probably shouldn't be). Thoughts? --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Other than on blogs and and the freeweb page the author Steve Bishop is not tied to the subject of the article, and is not referenced as a known as a expert on this person. thus is not verifiable and should not be linked to. prove that the freeweb site is a verifiable source and that Steve Bishop is a reliable source. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, there's very little original information on that page. It is, as I said, more of an extended bibliography of primary and secondary sources, not an "article" at all, so there seems to be little to be proven about this page in the first place -- it's reliable in that it cites its sources (and indeed, it does little else than cite sources!). Second, the author is a lecturer at City of Bristol College, and he has published a number of a papers, reviews, and a book on philosophy, religion, and science, in which he applies the ideas of Kuyper and reformed epistemology, particularly to math and science. His name appears repeatedly in reference to these topics in many places, as your google evidenced. In short, the content of this page is non-controversial and consists basically of a bibliography, and since it is helpful and augments the (ideal) article contents, it is not a violation of WP:SPAM or WP:EL. --Flex (talk|contribs) 17:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The deleted link connects to nothing more controversial than an incomplete bibliographical list of works by and about Kuyper, which furthermore provides further links to different recent essays and lectures available online that can't be easily found elsewhere. The status of Steve Bishop as an "expert" is irrelevant, since he is providing nothing more than references (otherwise absent) to the expertise of others. If it's a question of expertise, you can have my expert opinion (as the author of a History of the Low Countries) that the link should be reinstated.--Paularblaster 09:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

name

What about the spelling "Kuÿper", would that be OK? -- NIC1138 (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really - it isn't (for example) how his name appears on any of his books in English. He appears in catalogues and indexes as "Kuyper", plain and simple. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean Kuijper, which is a Dutch name, but this guys name was Kuyper. C mon (talk) 07:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Kuyper's Racism

Let's get over it people -- even a sympathetic reformed and African American scholar like Vince Bacote openly refers to Kuyper as a racist. It is not "original research" or spurious in any way to see his racism in the primary sources. It is not consistent; it is sometimes contradictory, ranging from a paternalistic view of even the most primitive africans (in Kuyper's view) benefiting and "developing" from mixture with whites to a straight-up racist view of "miscegenation" (any perceived interracial mixing) as a bad thing when it comes to the white Boers and black South Africans.

Here is the last edited state I find perfectly valid but User:StAnselm keeps reverting for the small changes at the end. Note this is after several uncontested paragraphs detailing Kuyper's central role in South African white nationalism and apartheid:

Conversely, Kuyper's son Professor H. H. Kuyper, a supporter of Afrikaner Nationalism and colour racism was a wartime Nazi collaborator, and his grandson joined the Waffen SS and died on the Russian front. There is no basis for associating Abraham Kuyper himself with Nazism or Nazi racial ideology, but his own position was that there are inferior (non-white) races. The question of whether it was good or bad for whites to mix with them was one he answered differently, at different times. As Saul Dubow notes, Kuyper praises "the commingling of blood" as "the physical basis for all higher development" in the Stone Lectures, a paternalistic view at best, albeit one that can be used to oppose racist ideas of miscegenation. Elsewhere Dubow notes Kuyper is decidedly racist, as in The South African Crisis where he describes "the Hottentots and the Bantus" as "an inferior race" and speaks in favor of the Boers avoiding "mixed liaisons."

This ending simply corrects the previous ending which disassociates Kuyper from Nazi racism, which is not relevant and nowhere suggested. I've made that clearer now, while also indicating the more pertinent question of Kuyper's own type of racism is one of contradiction, or that it covers a range from paternalistic "soft" racism -- where he could approve whites mixing with black Africans ("Hottentotts"/Bushmen and Bantus) that he considered deeply inferior (as this benefits the blacks and thus everyone, in Kuyper's view) -- to outright rejection of this same idea. On this particular issue of interracial sex (marriage really was *not* the issue) greater context could be added by noting that widespread international criticism of the Boers at that time had a lot to say about rape and abuse that had produced a substantial "mixed-race" population. Stephen Crane wrote a piece about it that can be found in Wheaton's Christian Classics library online. Just search for "Hottentot" in the CCEL and you will find a great deal of material from Kuyper and others reflecting 19th century Christian (but not especially Christlike) thoughts about this group of people maligned as the lowest on the planet. 67.22.194.101 (talk) 05:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)