Talk:Reformation/Archive 1

NPOV issues

I was just passing through and I noticed that the section on freewill being central to the Reformation (in Luther's eyes) seems to be written in a biased tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.86.226 (talk) 05:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I should add that the source is a Roman Catholic Scholar - I will assume that in his book Luther: Right or Wrong? He came to the conclusion that Luther was wrong.

I suggest that the section be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.86.226 (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that section is written in a very unencyclopedic style. Humanist Geek (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

A Great Circle!

This article lists a "See also" of "The German Reformation". That link, in fact, brings you to a history of Germany, which includes the Reformation under "Early Modern Germany". Clicking on that brings you to a page that has a "main article" link of "The German Reformation", which brings one... back here! GeneCallahan (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The title

I think "The reformation" is more accurate than "the Protestant Reformation" because many of the main actors (Henry VIII for example) were not protestants in any meaningful sense. Most supporters of the early reformation wanted administrative and moral change in the Church, not doctrinal change. 86.201.21.218 07:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The Reformation is/was (See discussion about The Reformation “is” “was”?) not the same thing to all people. If it ended with the Peace of Westphalia it was a political period marked by war and unrest along religious lines. Perhaps its beginning is attributed to Luther because of the efficacy of his statement but he was hoping to reform the Roman Catholic Church rather than be the father of many new denominations. In the Protestant context, many today see it as an ongoing process. Perhaps the article could start with some clarification regarding definition within the various contexts; political, Protestant, Catholic, etc. The clarification at the top could set the stage for further clarifications within the article and help resolve some disputes. Ole.road dog (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Some major changes made, some needed

I made a number of changes in the over all flow of the article. I hope you see them as improvements. I also added some cited material, but I think my cite tags are improper, help would gladly be accepted.

The article REALLY needs material concerning the Protestants in Scandinavia and also in areas where the Counter Reformation would be victorious, such as Poland and High Germany.

Lastly, the English Reformation should be integrated in the main article rather then seperate from it, really all of these sections need to be made clearer and freed of redundent material: 1.3 Humanism to Protestantism 1.4 Religious influences for the Reformation 1.5 Lutheranism adopted by the German territorial princes 2 English Reformation 2.1 Political Reformation 2.2 Early Puritan movement

This is a good article and it is getting better. SECisek 00:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Origin

Couldn't we say that the Reformation began well before Luther, but that Luther was the first successful reformer? While Luther's role is of course seminal, it was not necessarily original.75.208.24.214 01:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The Reformation began with Luther. All major works agree with this and the statement is cited in the articles. Others called for reform. The Reformation began with Luther. -- SECisek 07:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it began with Jan Hus (John Huss) in Bohemia. Go to Prague and they will show you Huss's Bethlehem Chapel founded 1402, the oldest Protestant Church in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.206.229.202 (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The Bible as the "main" reason for the Reformation?? Not NPOV

The following piece of the article is complete nonsense:

While there were some parallel ideas between certain movements within humanism and teachings later common among the Reformers, the main influence was the Bible itself. The Roman Catholic Church had itself been the main purveyor in Europe of humanism for centuries: the neo-Platonism of the scholastics and the neo-Aristotelianism of Thomas Aquinas and his followers had made humanism part of church dogma. Thus, when Luther and the other reformers adopted the standard of “sola scriptura”, making the Bible the sole measure of theology, that made the Reformation a reaction against the humanism of that time.

I'd agree that the Bible could be viewed as a cause, but claiming that it's the main cause is to adopt a pro-Protestant view that isn't shared by either Catholic or secular scholars. There is no evidence that early Christians adopted the same practices as Protestants and, being that we can assume that the first Christians would've interpreted the Bible most correctly, we therefore cannot say that the Protestants are necessarily anymore correct in their 'interpretation' than Catholics. Furthermore, a great deal of the early Protestant reformers were humanists with secular education. And they considered such things that had never been considered before by any theologians, such as Calvin's predestination. Finally, the idea that Catholics themselves adopted humanism needs to be clarified. Wikipedia's article on humanism states:

Humanism is an active ethical and philosophical approach to life, focusing on human solutions to human issues through rational ("reasonable") thought, without recourse to supernatural entities, such as a God or gods, or to sacred texts, traditions or religious creeds.

It would be insane to claim that Catholicism had been teaching such a thing for "centuries." While St. Aquinas taught that the conscience is at the will of the intellect and that faith cannot come before reason, that's not to immmediately say that he focused on it without recourse to God, sacred texts, traditions or religious creeds. Even when Aquinas wrote such things, he quoted the Bible quite frequently. Furthermore, being that the definition of Humanism includes tradition, you cannot write that Protestant reformers rejected Catholics for being both humanist 'and' having beliefs based upon tradition. That's contradictory, as the paradigms of beliefs based upon logic and beliefs based upon tradition oppose one another and cannot both co-exist in equal extremes.

I agree that they adopted Neo-Platonist philosophy which was certainly secular beliefs accepted without regard for scripture. However, virtually all Christians' beliefs today are affected by the adoption of Neo-Platonism, it wasn't something that Luther railed against.

So it needs to be clarified that Catholicism adopted "religious," humanism, which had regard for the artwork and writings of the Romans and Greek. But however, during the Middle Ages, few could read, so this "humanism," was privy only to monks, not the general populace. Only after the printing press was made and education became widely available, thereby magnifying the humanist aspects of Catholicism, did such a "reformation" occur. The article frankly downplays this trend as well as the bubonic plague by calling the Bible the main reason for the Protestant reformation, a position that my history professor also disagrees with -- and he's a Protestant. It also begs the question: If the Bible was the main cause of the reformation, why didn't it happen centuries earlier? Certainly, more widely-available Bibles, yes, giving people the possibility to know how their scholars were interpreting the Bible and challenge it. But why didn't any of the previous Catholic monks make such statements as the reformers did? The answer: Because the Bible wasn't the main reason for the reformation.

For now, I added an NPOV tag to the article and I'm going to edit it soon. 71.246.209.206 01:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Whoever wrote this paragraph doesn't seem to know what humanism means. We need a rewrite or even a deletion. 2nd Piston Honda 11:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The reformation was caused by a great many things. For example, the Avignon papacy (1309-1377); the corruption of the papacy under the Renaissance Popes; the cynical sale of indulgences that sacrificed a life of piety and made forgiveness of sins something to be bought and sold. By the time of the reformation, Catholicism had a detrimental impact on the economy of nations. Luther wrote of the proliferations of cardinals in Italy that had impoverished that nation, and warned that should the Catholic church be allowed to multiply cardinals in Germany, that it would impoverish the German state as well. The subtext of this discussion was the ever present threat of the Turks, who territorial ambitions with continental Europe. The German rules were especially keen to see that German monies stayed in Germany to fund their ongoing defense against Turkish invasion. So no, the reformation was not all about the bible, but was in fact was influenced by a great many things.Kris Carlson 23:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The PR was influenced by a great many things. Let's not forget that one of the things it was based on was the humanist tradition of looking at the text and the Protestant tradition of spreading accessible translations of the Bible. The Bible getting into lots of people's hands certainly had a lot to do with the PR. Don't let anyone tell you it was the only thing, or that it was irrelevant. Jonathan Tweet 01:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Catholic counter-reformation

I would suggest add the following: catholic counterreformation, and (drums) Warsaw confederation (agreement about religious tolerance, first and probably only one up to modern times not imposed by kings or government, by agreed by people alone).

and of course impact of reformation on national languages - standarisation of German came as one example, first books in national language in Poland, etc, etc szopen

I agree. The Polish influence allowed Unitarianism to survive and probably gave the moral framework for allowing Protestantism and Catholocism to call a peace years later. The article also doesn't discuss the Catholic answer to Luther. Heck, it barely mentions some of the more famous members on both sides. This is one of *the* defining moments in the Western world Nickjost 20:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Early sixteenth century key revolutionary period in European history needs expansion

The early sixteenth century was a revolutionary stage in which old elite groups were challenged or eliminated, namely the clergy. As Reformation pushed the clergy out of its dominant position while the French Revolution would later herald the twilight to the aristocracy’s traditional primacy. In both times new groups emerged, partly at least to fill the vacuum in a process fundamental to cultural regeneration and cultural renewal.

Although the cultural contexts of the two eras set these two great revolutions apart, ideologies can vary in their content, dependent on the local cultural values. Some might stress political values like justice as in the French Revolution, and some may stress immediate or long range economic values as in the Russian Revolution.

In short, this was a key revolutionary period in European history not adequately addressed by this short article. I hope that my recent contributions spur other contributors to fill in the gaps and make this an article worthy of the historical significance of the topic.

172

Reformation was religiously motivated

The Reformation was religiously motivated (not discounting economic and nationalistic justifications). To denigrate religion as the chief motive, is to insist that those who carried out the Reformation did not understand their own cause. The article should not characterize the stimulus of the Reformation in terms of materialism or class-struggle, except where the proponents of the Reformation expressed these as bases for their own actions. Otherwise, the article may satisfy Marxists and anarchists, but in my opinion it is simply not the truth about this movement, as understood by those who promoted or defended it, or by those since who have been most sympathetic with it. Mkmcconn

---

Mkmcconn: The article goes into the theological debate, particullary the complex relationship between humanism and Protestantism. In that sense, it makes reference to the revival of Augustinian theology, namely salvation by faith alone. However, this is a historical page, not one simply pertaining to theology or philosophy. Thus, it not only goes through the intellectual and religious developments of the era, but characterizes the context in which these ideas caught on. If the ideas of the Protestant reformers were derived from Augustus and carried out to a logical consistency one must ask why did these ideas all of a sudden catch on at this time.

Just because some readers aren’t familiar with the economic and political sides of the Reformation doesn’t mean that these factors shouldn’t be presented. Rather, it accentuates the necessity of presenting them.

I'm familiar with Marxist theory, even Marxist theory applied to this era, and I must say that just because this article doesn't refute Marxism doesn't mean that this article is backing it up. It simply doens't go into sufficient detail do either. And that's fine for an NPOV encyclopedia article.

If you intuitively sense “Marxism” because economic factors and social class are mentioned in a historical article (My God, what could they be doing in an article on perhaps the most complicated period in European history?), then I challenge you to suggest in why the Reformation caught on where it did and why did it fragment into radical branches without looking at the broader historical trends of the sixteenth century. Why and how did Lutheranism win the support of the territorial princes in Northern Germany?

I must also correct a very common misconception. Introducing economic and political factors does not imply that the Protestant reformers didn’t take their ideas seriously. They most certainly did and the article makes that clear. One, though, has to look at the environment in which these theologians came to their ideas and found their ideas easy to disseminate. 172

You added a lot of material. There are a few points that might need some corrections or clarifications (I lost your point here and there); but, I did not react to your insertions the way that I reacted to your explanation of what you are doing. It's your comments that I reacted to, not your additions - but, I'll admit that since you chose to be so open about what you are trying to illustrate by your edits, I'm going to look closer at what you have added in that light ;-) Mkmcconn 01:51 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC)

Huh?

First, I denied trying to insert a Marxist slant into the article in the above comments. Why is that making you more suspicious?

Second, the comment I had made earlier on this page was not a uniquely Marxist interpretation. In fact, it’s making a distinction between the political/economic French Revolution and the religious revolution of the Protestant Reformation. That comment said nothing more than the Protestant Reformation was a period of historical upheaval.

Mkmcconn,SPIFFY!!!

I was just trying to entice people into work on an article pertaining to a key era in history.

coolish...i dont care....blahblahblah...

informing and delghtful to read

qt, well i thought it was great!!!! very informing and delghtful to read. qt

Text is used twice in the article...

The great rise of the burgers, the desire to run their new businesses free of institutional barriers or outmoded cultural practices contributed to the appeal of individualism. To many, papal institutions were rigid, especially regarding their views on just price and usury. In the North burgers and monarchs were united in their frustration against for not paying any taxes to the nation, but collecting taxes from subjects and sending the revenues disproportionately to Italy

Booyabazooka 17:56, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Overlap/inconsistency with Protestantism article

It would be valuable if s/o could look to rationalise this with the [disputed] Protestantism article and make the links between the two articles clear. Paul foord 07:39, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Someone deleted early historical material from Protestantism, I have attempted to integrate it here. Generally usefulo but some more work required. Paul foord 4 July 2005 14:17 (UTC)

some observations

You might take note of the fact that in the 16thC there was no idea of "The Reformation" and "Protestants" did not begin with that name or greatly like it when they got it--nor did Lutherans and Calvinists like being called Lutherans and Calvinists. The idea was to claim true Catholicity and denounce innovation or "newfangledness." Much of the period has to do with multiple competing stories about national and ecclesial origins and destinies. This should not be obscured by collapsing it into a "period" or "event" or "movement" with a single teleological narrrative.

There also needs to be some attention to recent historiographical paradigm shifts such that the "Counter-Reformation" is discarded as a term in favor of "Catholic Reformation" and England is understood to have been reformed coercively by an elite minority embedded in and/or backed by the state that imposed a "reformation from above"--thus denying older views of the English reformation as a populist affair driven by rampant anticlericalism.

It would be wise to subdivide or better yet "outsource" this entry to significant nations, regions and cities.

Dan Knauss

Need Revision

I believe the huge amount of material added by User:172 in the early development of this article obscures its essence. He argues that the overall socio-political environment in Europe played a significant role. True, as did the Renaissance, but the title of the article is "Protestant Reformation", not "The Socio-Political developments in early 16th century Europe". Jim Ellis 19:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I would agree; this article, like Jesus, needs a massive rewrite...I think we should just have a "do over". There's just too much info that's (relatively) inconsequential. Yes, the socio-economic factors deserve mention, but it detracts from the main thrust of the article. KHM03 23:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

There is no mention of the French Revolution, nor should there be--that happened at the end of the 18th century. Dan Knauss

My mistake. Thanks Dan-- I deleted the phrase. My overall feeling that this article should be re-written and made more concise and focused still stands. Jim Ellis 11:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

This article does need replacement; it really ought to have a general outline of what was included in the Ref., and then it ought to be broken down by region (Germany, France, Italy, Switzerland, etc.). The socio-economic arguments can still be included, but they really ought to be subordinated to the theological roots of Luther's action. Perhaps if we rewrite it as a skeleton and then add to it to fix it. Rekleov

And yet, despite all that, there's still a lot of missing information relevant to both the ideas and the sociopolitical context of the Reformation: there's no reference in this article to the debates over the value of marriage vs. the cloister.

Radical Reformation

There is a new page for this topic which could use expansion by someone with expertise in that area. KHM03 11:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pro / Anti

A link is listed under external links entitled something like "Why Catholicism makes Protestantism Work". That's fine. An anonymous user placed that link under the label "Pro-Roman Catholic"; the assumption there is that the other links are anti-RC. This is not only an NPOV violation of wikipedia policy, it is also incorrect. Protestant does not necessarily mean anti-RC, not in 2005. I removed the label. KHM03 00:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, that link simply shouldn't be in this article. It may fit under Protestantism, but not under Protestant Reformation. This is an historical piece, not polemical --- while the linked article is. I won't blast it away from this page, but it simply shouldn't be here. --Rekleov 13:12, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable...why don't you move it? KHM03 13:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Found it and moved it. --Rekleov 13:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

removing the link is fine, but I think Protestant still implies anti-RC, even in 2005. Most protestants still strongly disagree a number of Catholic doctrines and practices, such as the role of the papacy, transubstantiation of the Eucharist/Communion, indulgences, role of saints, etc. If they didn't, wouldn't they rejoin the Catholic Church? Why else would they remain separate? Wesley 15:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Protestant does imply an opposition to various Roman Catholic teachings, of course. My point, however, is that such an article is simply out of place in an historical overview of the Protestant Reformation. It sits much better in the Protestantism article. I don't see this as a matter of pro/anti RC, but rather one of proper categorization.

Ok, I see your point. You're probably right about the categorization. Wesley 02:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Pro-Roman Catholic" - I put this heading on - would have better been cited as "Anti-protestant". I decided not to jump into the discussion straight away. The article itself was quite POV, but the inference that the assumption there is that the other links are anti-RC is not clear to me. It could be that, and I believed they were NPOV or providing information. Resolution of issue is good. Paul foord 14:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

kudos

Nice edit under the new section, Early Puritan Movement. Mkmcconn (Talk) 14:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, seemed something more was needed - it illustrates the overlap with the Protestantism article though Paul foord 14:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that we can distinguish this article as a general history focused on a definable era, sub-divisible into identifiable periods, and the other looks at Protestantism partly in terms of an intellectual history, the event-structure (if that's a word) of which is mostly contained in this article. Mkmcconn (Talk) 14:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Simplify

The Reformation, in most accurate and simple terms, was the result of reform needed in the Church. There were so many people saying so many different things, it's hard to bring out which caused what. Luther's theses didn't start the reformation, but it is a figurehead for those opposing key fundamental problems. Jan Hus in Czechoslovakia, John Calvin in Geneva etc. were all doing the same things. They were arguing that the Church had strayed too far from the true doings of Christ.

It's POV to say that the reform was needed, but you're right. I tried to move Hus and Wycliffe forward in the intro. Jonathan Tweet 02:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

More on the Impetus for Reform

Note that Luther never wanted a split from the church, and would have preferred the church reform from within. Church response toward him showed him (and others) that the church wasn't receptive to reform.

Also, the importance of the translation of the Biblical texts into the vernacular cannot be understated as a driver behind what ultimately became known as the 'Reformation'. De-mystifying the text was important and made the Bible accessible to those beyond the priesthood.

Act of Supremacy

This article asserts:

In 1534 The Act of Supremacy put Henry at the head of the church in England (that is, not the Church of England).

According to the text of the Act, however, it says [1]:

An act concerning the king's highness to be supreme head of the Church of England...

...the king's majesty justly and rightfully is and ought to be the supreme head of the Church of England...

...the king, our sovereign lord, his heirs, and successors, kings of this realm, shall be taken, accepted, and reputed the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England called Anglicana Ecclesia...

I've re-written the sentence.--Johnbull 20:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

seach redirecting

I searched for "German Reformation" and "Lutheran Reformation" and neither yielded any results - perhaps both should redirect to this page? 82.24.168.136 12:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Phrasing

The "his 95 Theses proceeded to promulgate" isn't idiomatic. The verb needs an animate subject and an object. People and organisations promulgate things such as theses. Theses can't just promulgate on their own (without an object).

lutheran?

The article states that some Lutheran churches allow blessings of same-sex marriages in the Netherlands. However most protestant churches in the Netherlands are not Lutheran; so I suspect it is better to change this to protestant churches (which include both Lutheran and Calvinist churches, among others).

No. Same sex marriages in protestant churches in Denmark is not allowed, i dont think it is in Netherland either.

WikiProject Anglicanism

A new WikiProject focussing on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion has just been initiated: WikiProject Anglicanism. Our goal is to improve and expand Anglican-reltaed articles. If anyone (Anglican or non-Anglican) is interested, read over the project page and consider signing up. Cheers! Fishhead64 06:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Luther Posting Theses

I believe that the notion that Luther nailed his Theses to the door of the church in Wittenburg is now commonly held to be false; he probably simply passed out copies, made possible by Mr. Gutenburg. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.211.46.54 (talk • contribs) .

Even with the printing press, it seems unlikely to me that printing would have been so inexpensive in the beginning that they would pass out free flyers. But then I'm certainly not up on the latest scholarship in this areas. Any references or suggested reading in this area? Wesley 01:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Have a read about this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/95_Theses Fabiodrn 13:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

See also the discussion in D MacCollough, Reformation, p. 123

"So on October 31, 1517, Luther offered to his university colleagues a list of ninety-five theses objecting to Catholic indulgence doctrine, an act conventionally seen as the beginning of the Protestant Reformation. Luther wrote his theses in Latin, not German, and meant them only for academic discussion within the University of Wittenberg. But when some unknown person translated and published Luther's theses, the hitherto obscure monk suddenly gained widespread notoriety." - Judith G. Coffin and Robert C. Stacey, Western Civilizations Second Brief Edition Volume 2 (New York: W.W. Norton, 2009), 348. Yamantanka (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Indulgences

The definition for indulgences (which should also probably have a link to "indulgence"--though that article isn't correct either) is not not accurate. Saying that indulgences are "substitutes for confession that had to be bought." An indulgence is not a substitute for confession, rather it is remission of all, or part, of the temporal punishment due to sin. It is not forgiveness of sin, thus is cannot be used as a substitute for confession. Indulgences presuppose a freedom from the guilt of sin, which is received through confession. Indulgences were typically applied to those already in a state of grace, such as those in purgatory.Pladow 16:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Self-link/authorship

What's up with the link back to this page in the Primary Sources section? Also, why is authorship of a Wikipedia page attributed in that link to one person (Ji-Hee Lee)?

Bible Belt?

I'm not familiar with this connection. Please explain. For now, I'm reverting it. Thanks! Keesiewonder ^talk 12:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Primary materials

The following was deleted from the article:

The Protestant Reformation by Ji-Hee Lee

due to the fact that the link was to this very article. I reverted the deletion but also removed the link as the reference is to a article by Ji-Hee Lee but the link was to a redirect to this article. It may need to be moved to a different section, but unless one is aware of the "fact" that the article was not used as primary material it should remain as a listed reference. Dbiel 23:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

After additional research, I have delete "The Protestant Reformation by Ji-Hee Lee" from the Primary materials list. It appears to be simply a summary of this very Wikipedia article by Ji-hee Lee" which can be found at [[2]] the link to which "The Protestant Reformation by Ji-Hee Lee" can be found at [[3]]Dbiel 00:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

And just for the record, the link was originally to a book stub "The Protestant Reformation by Ji-Hee Lee" which was later determined not to be notable and was deleted with the page name itself was changed to a redirect to this article, but those doing so, failed to remove the reference to the stub page in this article. For additional documentation see: [[4]] Dbiel 03:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Redundant cat?

I reverted the deletion of [[Category:Lutheran history|Reformation]]. It is not redundant. There were three separate categories:

Category:Lutheran history

Category:Protestantism

Category:Reformation

Just because two of them used the same subcategory name "Reformation" does not make them redundant Dbiel ^(Talk) 03:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The Reformation "is" "was"?

The opening line doesn't make sense to me. I know in terms of works of art the present tense is always used, but not for an historical movement. However, I'd like to get someone in the know to actually say what is correct. Here's an example of what seems to me to be right:

Renaissance

However, here's one the other way:

Early Middle Ages

The Fwanksta 01:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I definately see your point. It reads poorly. I tried an edit to improve it. It does change the thought a bit, so I would be interested in any feedback on the change.

"The Protestant Reformation is a movement that begain in the 16th century as an attempt to reform the Catholic Church in Western Europe."

Dbiel ^(Talk) 03:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

But why is it "is"? Isn't the movement over, isn't it in the past? The Fwanksta 15:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That is a good but difficult question. Some might argue that it still continues today as an on going transformation process. Others may argue that it covered an extended period of time in the past but at some point was considered to be over. I was unconfortable in changing the existing "is" to "was". The question is definately worth discussing. Thanks for fixing my typo.Dbiel ^(Talk) 15:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I will correct and cite this. SECisek 22:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

How about the Duchy of Prussia, the first protestant state ?

I think that the creation of the Duchy of Prussia needs to be mentioned here. The secession from the Catholic Teutonic Order was brokered by Luther himself. The Protestant Prussians had significant influence on German history, if not world history. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       18:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Case usage

Currently the article reads:

1)These frustrated reformist movements ranged from nominalism, devotio moderna (modern devotion), to humanism occurring in conjunction with economic, political and demographic forces....

Should this be changed to read:

2)These frustrated reformist movements ranged from Nominalism, Devotio Moderna (modern devotion), to Humanism occurring in conjunction with economic, political and demographic forces ....

or maybe simply to read:

3)These frustrated reformist movements ranged from Nominalism, Devotio Moderna, to Humanism occurring in conjunction with economic, political and demographic forces....

removing the alternate English name for the movement.

4)These frustrated reformist movements ranged from nominalism, devotio moderna, to humanism occurring in conjunction with economic, political and demographic forces....

Dbiel ^(Talk) 13:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've added the fourth choice because of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style:

Philosophies, theories and doctrines do not begin with a capital letter, unless the name derives from a proper noun: lowercase republican refers to a system of political thought; uppercase Republican refers to a specific Republican Party (because each party name is a proper noun).

I vote for 4! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 00:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Type

The article credits the introduction of "movable type" as the cause of Protestantism. The same movable type was introduced into China in 1050 A.D., without any great denominational implications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.223.218 (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC) The article on movable type mentions 1041 to 1048 A. D.,in China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.170.8 (talk) 12:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Block printing was introduced earlier, with no great denominational effects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.34.71 (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Cylindrical seals were used in Sumeria in about 3000 B.C. and could be veiwed as an early form of block printing.

The phrase "moveable type" has now vanished and been replaced by "printing press". This new phrase helps to explain why moveable type appeared in China with no new denomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 10:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The reformation in Ireland

There is an oversight in this article in that it neglects to examine the Reformation in Ireland. Given that Ireland may have been the region of Europe most negatively affected by the Reformation this oversight is in my view a considerable one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inchiquin (talk • contribs) 01:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree that there should be a section on Ireland. We have to be careful about how we word it, though, because Irish/English enmity predated the Reformation, and even post-Reformation violence often had an ethnic/political side to it as well. (For example, there were times in which Irish rebels seemed to specifically target English settlers and left Scottish settlers alone, even though the Scots were also Protestant.) Funnyhat (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibly one-sided

I think that this article needs to point out that there was a disconnect from Catholic theology/teachings and the actions of the Church. I put this passage in this article (without talking about it, my apologies) back in April:

Even though there were numerous abuses of indulgences with money by clergy, the outright sale of indulgences was never an official Catholic Church doctrine. In 1392, 280 years before Martin Luther published the 95 Theses, Pope Boniface IX wrote to to the Bishop of Ferrara condemning the practice of certain religious who falsely claimed that they were authorized by the pope to forgive all sorts of sins, and exacted money from the simple-minded among the faithful by promising them perpetual happiness in this world and eternal glory in the next. After the exposure of abuses of indulgences, Pope Pius V and the Council of Trent reformed the practices of grating indulgences in 1567 to prevent further abuses. Among the reforms, Pope Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions.

Also I think Pladow's point about correctly defining indulgences is important. This article does not reflect that indulgences, according to Catholic theology, help purifying guilt from the soul before entering Heaven. Indulgences do not forgive any sin, only Christ's ultimate sacrifice did that.

One more thing: I think that szopen's and Nickjost's suggestion that there should be a note about the Catholic Counter-reformation should be added in here. Maybe there should be just a mini section of counter-reformation in this article. Cfabbriumd (talk) 03:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Protestant Reformation = Reformation??

The disambiguation page Reformation has been proposed to be reworked into a general page about the Protestant Reformation, discuss here!. In that context, I propose making the article less (if possible) Luther-centric, he started the 1517 outbreak, but there had been similar system stresses in the "pan-catholic" community for at least 100 years before. Said: Rursus (☻) 14:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh???

A general declaration of HUH:

"All mainstream Protestants generally trace their separation from the Catholic Church to the 16th century."

Makes sense? This makes sense:

"All mainstream Protestants generally trace their separation from the Catholic Church to the 16th century."

But is erroneous. First of all Protestants don't exist, while protestants do - or as they're generally termed today: protesters, dissidents and the like. Secondly, there's no good criterion for defining "main stream". A major branch of christianity is Anglo-catholicism which was split from the Rome-catholics in the 16th century, but they're not regarded as protestants, but some other kind of schismatics... On the other hand the pretty small but very important Hussite protesters split of from the Rome-catholics in the 15th century. And later on joined some other protestant group...

Next: "mainstream Protestantism" - again! The mainstream protesters, what's that? Lutheranism is some kind of shrink-wrap pragmaticised West-catholicism, Anglicanism is a non-shrink-wrap pragmaticised West-catholicism, Calvinism is not catholicism because of the double predestination. The Lutherans and Anglicans are much nearer the Old catholicism and Roman Catholicism, than Calvinism. Said: Rursus (☻) 14:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

An extra note about "catholicism": catholic churches are churches for all humans irrespective of previous acts in life, only if they submit to the church, non-catholic churches are not for all humans, especially not condemned, darned specimens that every other human (of "import") dislike. (I'm catholic.) Said: Rursus (☻) 14:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the use of "mainstream" is ambiguous and should be dropped, but "Protestant" and "Catholic" are proper nouns used to described members of certain churches. That usage is correct. ("Christianity," like all other names of religions, is also a proper noun.) Funnyhat (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ehmm, I would rather prefer some kind of complete reformulation. I think the sentence is intended to express, that of the two major splits in christianity, where large percentages of people split of from the main branch, the "Protestant Reformation" is one. The in-church definitions of words seems very different from the out-church definition. According to the in-church definition the statements are complete nonsens or falsities, choose either. A formulation that is fairly true inside as well as outside would be to preferred. I'll think of something, and I'll have to endure the untrue and misleading statements for a little while more. Said: Rursus (☻) 19:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI: Lutherans (like me) reject the label protestant. Said: Rursus (☻) 19:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, because I'm Lutheran myself and never had any issue considering myself Protestant. With all due respect, I don't think you can speak for all of us. There are a number of different Lutheran churches out there. Funnyhat (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

C Class

The article is almost completely unsourced - only 14 in-line citations (at least 4 of which I recognize as my own work). Other sections, such as The Reformation outside Germany, remain incomplete. Some sections, such as Humanism to Protestantism, are probably too long. This article was B class under the old system. With the new C class, this grade better reflects the current state of the article. -- Secisek (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent major changes

I just undid some changes because the page looked messed up. But there were probably some good ideas behind the changes, so someone ought to look at it more carefully. Shreevatsa (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Page displays incorrectly

The page is displaying incorrectly for FF3, 1024x768: have a look. --Kanakukk (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC).

unacceptable

The introduction makes allot of claims (obviously). Hello people. There is only one single reference... in the whole thing! Peppermintschnapps (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

full of nonsense and opinion

This is an important article and it is full of poor edits (e.g. confusion of Hussite Reformation and Protestant Reformation) and opinions presented as fact. Ichnography (talk) 06:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

yes and more on brothels than on the Bible! I cleaned out a lot of pop stuff not based on the scholarship as represented by the reading list. Rjensen (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Could I reccomend a better reference for the claim about Pope Sixtus - a pop article named "History's 10 greatest entrepreneurs" from Msnbc.com and not citing anything beyond itself is not a historical reference! MichaelEditeur (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Cultural Legacy?

Why is there little mention of the cultural legacy of the Reformation? This is one of the most significant aspects of it. Compare to the Renaissance article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.175.146.173 (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, be WP:BOLD. If there are WP:CITEable and reliable sources. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 17:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Swedish reformation

I cannot specifically source it yet, but the foundation of the Swedish reformation began when Christian II of Denmark used the pope's excommunication of Sten Sture the Younger to execute a bunch of leading nobles in the Stockholm Bloodbath. When sourceable, it might be added as a sentence in the section Scandinavia. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 18:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Luther and free will

The section on free will is basically one giant blockquote from a Catholic historian (who obviously has a distinct POV). It needs to be reworked. Funnyhat (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• Well, for my part, I struggled to reduced the length of quotations as much as possible, while still trying to provide a reasonable overview / summary of this important and fundamental aspect of Luther's theology. It is very difficult to summarize even a portion of such a complex issue and still remain within strictly legalistic understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines. There's just so much more to the story!
  As for McSorley, I don't believe his statements ought to be characterized as POV. Having read McSorley's work, he appears to have striven hard throughout to be fair, balanced and ecumenical (if you want to see what rough treatment of Luther looks like, try reading Denifle!)
  Anyway, McSorley only states that which Luther himself acknowledges, viz, that there is no place whatsoever in Luther's theology for free will, at least as it relates to salvation. Absolutely none! Grant even the slightest concession to free will vis-à-vis salvation and the entire edifice of Luther's theology simply collapses. The denial of free will is the very heart and soul of Luther's theology. Luther biographer Martin Brecht, who has written extensively and definitively on Luther, concurs: The issue of free will was the key issue for Luther. Likewise Catholic scholar Hartmann Grisar.
  Needless to say, Luther's utterly inflexible opinion in this matter caused him to lose sight of the true Catholic teaching on the subject, and to even unfairly characterize certain scholastic's teaching, while simultaneously leading him to conceive of some rather unusual and startling conclusions, conclusions not shared by historic Christianity nor the Bible! Delta x (talk) 07:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The section is far too detailed for a general article on the Reformation. I am boldly cutting the entire section and relocating it to our article on Lutheranism. -- 74.0.139.105 (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous "boldly" moved the entire section on free will to Lutheranism, where it was promptly reverted. No discussion, no input of this most relevant issue from other editors first - just delete! Is this is how Wikipedia, a collaborative effort, is supposed to work? Delta x (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

See WP:BOLD. The matter is not at all relevant to the Reformation in any part of the world outside of Germanic lands. This article is about the Reformation as a whole. It seems the editors at Lutheranism did not find it very relevant to that article either. It is easy to see why after reading WP:UNDUE. -- 74.0.139.105 (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The article is primarily about the "Protestant Reformation," as clearly indicated in the article title and lead sentence:

The Protestant Reformation was a 16th-century split within Western Christianity initiated by Martin Luther, John Calvin and other early Protestants.

Now the primary and abiding theological reason for this Protestant Reformation was Luther’s (and Calvin’s) rejection of man’s free will, specifically as it pertains to any and all salvific acts performed by men, with or without God’s grace. Luther himself fully admitted this fact to Erasmus in his major work, On the Bondage of the Will. [5]

Without the denial of free will, there would have been no sufficiently compelling theological reason for the Reformers to break with the Church. Their movements would have been just another among many in a long series of similar historical movements, heresies, and schisms which, in the west at least, all opposed themselves to the historical Catholic Church, but which nevertheless failed to successfully split western Christendom (for more on such movements see e.g., Norman Cohn’s The Pursuit of the Millennium: Revolutionary Millenarians and Mystical Anarchists of the Middle Ages )

Note further: Contrary to what many without good historical knowledge have been led to believe, lax morals (bad as they may have been in certain quarters) were not the actual cause of the Reformation (see e.g., H. Grisar’s Luther, vol. 1, p. 30ff. [6] History tells us that Luther himself hardly improved matters. Indeed, Calvin even accused Luther of idolatry! FWIW, see also: [7][8]and Henry Denifle's work mentioned above (but keeping in mind such things as this, this and this), Erasmus' assessment of matters and the chapter on Luther here.

But an even more essential thing the reader should take away from the article is this: WITHOUT THE DENIAL OF FREE WILL, THERE SIMPLY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A PROTESTANT REFORMATION!

And the "Protestant Reformation" is, after all, what the article is about, is it not?

So why no mention of this critically important cause of the Protestant Reformation in the article? Exactly why is this well documented historical information not relevant to it? Delta x (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Current status

Article still needs more and better citations. -- 1editonec (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Sentence tries to do too much

"The Roman Catholic Church responded with a Counter-Reformation put in to motion by the Council of Trent—the most important ecumenical council since Nicaea II 800 years earlier (at the time, there had not been an ecumenical council since Lateran IV over 300 years prior, a length only to be matched by the interval between Trent and Vatican I)—and spearheaded by the Society of Jesus."

Although not the topic of this Article, this sentence tries to sum up 37 or more other Articles. Someone help with this!

Is there anything wrong with just saying: "The Roman Catholic Church responded with a Counter-Reformation put in to motion by the Council of Trent" and ending there? If forced, I have no problem with adding: "and spearheaded by the Society of Jesus." Komowkwa (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Map of Europe 1648.PNG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Map of Europe 1648.PNG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Map of Europe 1648.PNG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Reformation

--Moved from personal page to talk page where it belongs-- The Reformation was also caused by the Renaissance. Because of the invention of the printing press, more people began to read the bible. The spirit of the Renaissance made people feel more curious and ready to ask questions. Many were no longer willing to accept all the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Martin Luther criticized certain practices and teachings of the Church. He gained many followers who were, of course, the Protestants. The Protestant movement spread to other countries of northern and western Europe. Several different Protestant religions developed. And in the article, it says that the ""15th-century invention of the printing press, and the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire, contributed to the creation of Protestantism"", as you see, the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire was caused by the takeover of Constantinople by the Ottomans (as the article states), who conquered the city, thus, caused that the migration of Greek scholars and texts to Italy following the Fall of Constantinople. Thus when the article that you reverted mentions ""15th-century invention of the printing press, and the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire, contributed to the creation of Protestantism"", of course this had something to do with and had to go through the Renaissance since all of this was caused in the Renaissance era. And the spread of ideas was the cause for the Reformation. I see you are new to Wikipedia and please state your reason first why this change needs to be reverted. Thank you. (Slurpy121 (talk) 07:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC))

you need documentation to back it up every statement made in the article. Your statement above is not documentation. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It is documented, and in fact it doesn't need to be, since the previous statement was in fact saying the same thing, indirectly. (Slurpy121 (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC))

it is not documents nor is it found anywhere in the article. it is OR based on indirect speculation. Get some documentation and put it in the article. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It is in fact. Read about the Renaissance and how the printing press helped to spread Renaissance ideas throughout Europe and influence people such as Martin Luther to question the bible. It's pure reason and logic if you will. I don't know why you deny reason against such logic. (Slurpy121 (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC))

Please stop removing my edit. If you are trying to pass yourself as a contributor just by deleting a content and saying it needs source if the source is as Chrystal clear in front of you, then you are not contributing in anything at all, but trying to make things worse for knowledge seekers! If it's hard for you to acknowledge the fact that the printing press and the fall of the eastern roman empire was the cause of the protestant reformation, then you my friend need to learn your history, that's why we have talk pages so we can discuss the history and the cause of the reformation. The 15th century invention of the printing press and the fall of the eastern roman empire contributed to the reformation, that's what it states in the article, right? And do you think these events led to the reformation directly? No? First it had to go through the renaissance and by the invention of the printing press, humanist ideas spread and the ability for many of the people to be able to read the bible, one individual being Martin Luther, a leader of the protestant movement, Is that so hard for you to understand?? You might also want to read this Wikipedia:Edit warring. (Slurpy121 (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoyBurtonson (talk • contribs)

WP is not about truth or logic, but about what is supported by reliable sources. you are inserting unsupported OR. That is not allowed. get some reliable sources and you can put whatever you want. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 07:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Read a book sometime, or learn from online courses. I'ts even written in my old "History for Kids book". Everyone with a knowledge of history knows that and It's not always necessary to provide a source if the answer is RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU. How do you think the Reformation began? You must Stop deleting without consensus. (Slurpy121 (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC))

Actually, sir or ma'am, it was not caused by the Renaissance, but rather aided by it. It used many tools that the Renaissance used (scholarship, printing, the "return to the sources" approach, etc.). However, it was not caused by it. Its primary cause was the decadence of the Renaissance clergy, their ineptitude or neglect of their flocks, the doctrine of the Catholic Church that laid the foundations for the abuses, and first and foremost the relationship between man and God. Furthermore, proof for this could be found in the fact that it didn't end until ca. 1750, when the Age of Enlightenment took the upper hand.

Thank you,

Dgljr5121973 (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Someone please fix first section under "history"

The section as it is right now ignores the fact that mainline protestants are a minority. Most protestants today are not mainline. The article previously had the word "mainstream" which is even worse, because that actually suggests that they are the majority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.239.79 (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Sir or Ma'am:

Actually, the mainline "protestants" are the majority of the "Protestant" sects. It's just that attendence and membership is lower across the board.

Thank you,

Dgljr5121973 (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC) (Episcopalian-turned-die-hard Evangelical (Lutheran))

Unitas Fratrum/Moravian Church

There is a problem both in the article on the Unitas Fratrum and the Moravian Church (as well as their mentions in the page on the Protestant Reformation). They both state that the movement started with Jan Hus. This is in error. The Moravian Church and the Unitas Fratrum both originated with Nikolaus Ludwig, Graf von Zinzendorf und Pottendorf in the 1700s. The church that followed Jan Hus (the Hussites) later split in many directions: the Ultraquists (or Calixtines), the Bohemian Brethren, the Unity of the Brethren, the Czechoslovak Hussite Church, and the Taborites. These need to be changed ASAP.Thank you, Dgljr5121973 (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Response: You seem not to understand the Moravian Church's History. The Unitas Fratrum, Unity of brethren, was founded in 1457 by moderate followers of Jan Hus. They received episcopal ordination in 1467. This Unitas was forced underground or into exile in 1620 by the Habsburg takeover of Bohemia and Moravia. John Amos Comenius was their last bishop. Descendants of the Unitas kept their evangelical faith alive in secret as "the Hidden Seed". In 1722 under the leadership of Carpenter Christian David, many of this "Hidden Seed" began to emigrate to the estate in Saxony of the young nobleman Nicolas Ludwig Count von Zinzendorf. There under his guidance and leadership the descendants of the Unitas were forged again into a congregation of Brothers and Sisters in Herrnhut, consciously adopting Comenius's Ratio Disciplinae as a model for their "Brotherly Agreement" in 1727. They were of course very heavily influenced and transformed by the Pietism of the 18th Century in Germany and the strong personality of Zinzendorf, but most of the first 2 generations of Herrnhut "Moravians" were in fact descendants of the Ancient Unitas Fratrum.. Under Zinzendorf's leadership they began the worldwide protestant missionary movement in 1732 and in 1735 received the episcopal ordination of the Ancient Unitas in 1735 from the 2 remaining bishops of the Unitas, Comenius's grandson Jablonski in Berlin and Sitkovius in Lissa. The Moravian Church still preserves this episcopal order from Comenius. Scattered across the world in 17 Unity Provinces, the so-called "Moravian" church, is just a nickname, it is in reality the Renewed Unitas Fratrum, and legitimately lays claim to the inheritance of the Ancient Unitas Fratrum. — Preceding unsigned108.73.44.193 (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Pastor R. comment added by 99.160.254.185 (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The important thing is to have reliable sources to use in the article. If you have sources, make changes and list the sources. Don't wait for someone else to do it for you. If you don't have sources then you should not make any changes. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Abbreviations

Please correct the antiquated abbreviation AD to CE to reflect modern dating standards. 2.124.118.183 (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Rewriting the lead section

When I first read the lead section, it came across as both muddled and in some ways misleading. For example, 1517 as the usual starting-date appeared twice (paras. 1 & 4); Wycliffe and Hus were listed among the initiators although they had died long before 1517 (they are usually classed as precursors of the Ref.); the Black Death's influence must have been remote and the impact of the Fall of Constantinople was probably more indirect in that it contributed to the later Renaissance than direct. I have tried to give what I consider to be a reasonable shape to the lead section and hope it stimulates work on the rest of the article which needs to balance the theological, the socio-religious and the political aspects of a very complex process and in several sections needs more adequate sources. (I will try and deal with the section on the Church of England.) Jpacobb (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

looks like a good rewrite to me.  :) --RoyBurtonson (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Core Contest

I'm going to tackle this article for the newest running of the Core Contest, I hope. This will involve cleanup, adding citations to existing text, replacing out of date or unreliable citations (I'm looking at the citations to other wikipedia articles, specifically) and a general expansion. If all goes well, it should be close to GA status when I finish up. (In the past I've worked over Middle Ages and Crusades for earlier versions of this contest). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Church of England?

I have two questions about the recent insertion into the lead section: "It [the CofE] considered itself Protestant until the rise of the Oxford Movement in the 1830s." First, as it stands it is seriously misleading in that it implies that the Church's understanding of it changed in the 1830's. The opinions of Newman, Keble and others were first expressed in that decade but remained a minority view until much later in the century and even today the CofE's official web-site includes being protestant as one of its defining characteristics. Secondly, I doubt whether this information (even in a corrected form) is of sufficient relevance to the topic of this particular article on the Protestant Reformation which ended in 1648 to merit inclusion in the lead—or even in the corresponding section. — Jpacobb (talk) 00:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Better source than Simon?

In February someone questioned Simon as a source. Simon's book doesn't match the description of unreliable sources, see WP:NOTRS. Also, Simon is cited on a Stanford web site, so that speaks in its favor. Can someone please remove the "better source needed" tag? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 03:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Actual beginning of "Protestant"

I am amazed that this and other articles about Protestant/Protestantism totally neglect the actual origin of the term Protestant and thus its actual meaning. Please, someone work in the information that the term comes from the Protestation at Speyers in 1529, after which those princes and cities who had protested the Diet's decision, and thus those they represented in religious terms, were called "Protestants". This definition -- the proper historical one -- excludes Zwinglians and Anabaptists.

This information is actually present in some small articles, but belongs in the larger ones so it's plain where the term "Protestant" came from and thus its historical meaning. Dismalscholar (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Four years no answer. Wow. I endorse your point of view. OnSpeech (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Hus and justification by faith

I added a citation needed markup because as far as I know Hus never developed any ideas about justification by faith alone. Of course, I don't know everything, but here is one online reference that says exactly the opposite: https://www.christianhistoryinstitute.org/study/module/wycliffe/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeatnip (talk • contribs) 19:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest the removal of this sentence: "Hus rejected indulgences and adopted a doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone." The first part is repetition of the previous sentence, and the second part is not historically accurate. I will give time for other editors to comment. Mikeatnip (talk) 12:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Vital article

This article is currently at class C, which is rather low for a vital article. I have made a few improvements (I hope) to the sections on Scotland and England, but can people suggest any other issues which need attention? PatGallacher (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The "Roman" Catholic Church

I had made a few edits removing the improper colloquialism "Roman Catholic" and replacing it with the proper term "Catholic". My edit was reverted and the colloquialism restored. Can we please agree to make the change to the Catholic Church's proper name? The "Roman" is gratuitous at best, blatantly incorrect at worst. It's not even of Catholic origin—it was originally used as a pejorative by the Anglicans, alongside such epithets as "papist", "popery", and the like. It is also almost exclusively an Englishism; in Spanish, for example, it is almost always referred to as "la Iglesia católica"; the term "la Iglesia católica romana" is a rarity. If "Roman Catholic Church" seems more commonly used, that is because most Anglophone authors are Protestant, as a simple matter of demographics. Catholics generally don't use the term in speech, nor in writing.

If one were to walk up to the typical "Roman" Catholic, ask them what denomination they're part of, they'd respond simply, "I'm Catholic." The only other specification you'd typically get is "I'm [name a particular Eastern rite, e.g. Maronite] Catholic" if they're not part of the Latin Church, and they're feeling particularly talkative that day.

Thanks. Crusadestudent (talk) 05:28, 03 May 2016 (EDT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crusadestudent (talk • contribs)

I am strongly opposed to changing "Roman Catholic Church" to "Catholic Church" in this article. There is nothing at all "improper" or "blatantly incorrect" about the use of "Roman Catholic", it has a long and established history and is merely an English translation of equivalent Latin names which predate the Reformation. For an accurate and NPOV history of the use of "Roman Catholic", "Roman Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholicism" see the Roman Catholic (term) article. Afterwriting (talk) 09:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

i don't see any RS in the complaint. So I looked at the reliable sources and find "Roman Catholic" is used without any problems as a standard term. I browsed the titles in some self-identified Catholic scholarly journals to demonstrate this: 1) "Faith and Leadership: The Papacy and the Roman Catholic Church" in Catholic Historical Review. (Autumn 2015); 2) "The Feast Of Corpus Christi In Mikulov, Moravia: Strategies Of Roman Catholic Counter-Reform (1579-86)" in Catholic Historical Review (Oct 2010); 3) "Divided Friends: Portraits of the Roman Catholic Modernist Crisis in the United States." in U.S. Catholic Historian (Fall 2013); 4) "The church and the seer: Veronica Lueken, the Bayside movement, and the Roman Catholic hierarchy" in American Catholic Studies (Fall 2012); 5) "Incompatible with God's Design: A History of the Women's Ordination Movement in the U.S. Roman Catholic Church." Catholic Historical Review (Oct 2013); 6) "The Rise and Fall of Triumph: The History of a Radical Roman Catholic Magazine, 1966-1976." Catholic Historical Review (Spring 2015); 7) "Mary, star of hope: Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary in the United States from 1854 to 2010, as seen through the lens of Roman Catholic Marian congregational song." American Catholic Studies (Spring 2013); 8) "Roman Catholic Ecclesiastics In English North America, 1610-58: A Comparative Assessment" CCHA Study Sessions (Canadian Catholic Historical Association). 1999; 9) "Gender, Catholicism, and Spirituality: Women and the Roman Catholic Church in Britain and Europe, 1200-1900." American Catholic Studies (Fall 2012); 10) "Master'S Theses And Doctoral Dissertations On Roman Catholic History In The United States: A Selected Bibliography" U.S. Catholic Historian (Jan 1987). Rjensen (talk) 09:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

IIRC, the adjective 'Roman' was used in order to distinguish the Church based in Rome from the other based in Constantinople. For a time in history there was more than one Pope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.173 (talk) 09:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that the use of "Roman" Catholic Church is an editorial decision. The criticism is that the use of "Roman Catholic Church" is an editorial term to bring the Church in Rome to parity with the regional Protestant Churches, such as the Church of England or the Church of Sweden. However, the term is excessively verbose and even inaccurate since the article refers to the Catholic Church as a whole and not specifically the patriarchal Catholic Church in Rome, in contrast other members of the Catholic Church such as the Chaldean Catholic Church or Armenian Catholic Church. 71.233.68.178 (talk) 03:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

- this essay may be helpful: Wikipedia:Catholic or Roman Catholic?, as well as Roman Catholic (term) - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

First line

The recent editorial changes raise two questions:

1. How much information should be put into a lead section?
2. Are the alternative names "Rebellion" / "Revolt" used sufficiently frequently to justify the space taken up by their inclusion?

It is a general principle of Wikipedia that the opening section should be short and very much to the point, i.e. what are we talking about? why is it worth doing so? and how is the full article structured?. (For a fuller explanation see WP:LEAD). Therefore any information about the origins of the word "reformation" and literal meaning of the Latin are out of place.

So far as the information that "the (Protestant) Reformation" is sometimes referred to as "the Protestant Revolt/Rebellion" is concerned, editors are bound to follow standard, responsible academic sources and while I have a large number of books on the Reformation and have read a great deal about it, I know of none which uses either of these nouns as an alternative name for it. The mere fact that some people have used these names is not enough, one would need a significant minority of reliables sources.

I therefore propose that the opening sentence should read as follows:

The Protestant Reformation, often referred to simply as the Reformation was a schism from the Roman Catholic Church initiated by Martin Luther and continued by other early Protestant Reformers in 16th century Europe.

— Jpacobb (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Here are a few sources to get us started on "Protestant Revolt":

• here
• here
• here
• here; this one deals with the fact that the term may "grate on Protestant ears"; published by U. of Missouri Press

Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, the line including rebellion/revolt was edited out and then reverted. It should not have been un-reverted until this discussion took place and was settled, per the convention of every edit war I've ever been involved in / witnessed. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jpacobb: Do you find the RS's given above (particularly the last one) satisfactory for inclusion of "Protestant Revolt"? Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 06:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jujutsuan:. In answer to your question, I do not consider the references adequate or sufficient. Number 1 (an anthology of texts) was published in 1906; number 2 in 1960 but it may be an update of N° 1; number 3 is a 24 page pamphlet from 1929 and I cannot identify the author; number 4 is more modern but a quick search reveals nothing about the author. This last is the only reference which might be claimed as "RS" since we are required to provide up-to-date sources. There are probably thousands of potential RS books on the Reformation so a mere handful of examples of the use of other labels is insufficient. Until authors such as MacCulloch or O'Day who are acknowledged authorities in the field give some sign of considering the phrases worth considering, I can see no real case for their inclusion. — Jpacobb (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we would need more references than the last one - we should only include it as an alternate designation if Langan's label catches on. Obviously, it doesn't have to be neutral (this is very different to discussing an article title), and if it's included it should be something like "called the Protestant revolt by some Roman Catholic writers". But I haven't seen enough evidence that it is seriously used as an alternate name. StAnselm (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jpacobb and StAnselm: In light of this NGram, how about this?: "The Protestant Reformation, often referred to simply as the Reformation (Latin: reformatio) or historically as the Protestant Revolt, was a schism from the Roman Catholic Church initiated by Martin Luther and continued by other early Protestant Reformers in 16th-century Europe." Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 00:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I looked at the scholarly literature and it is very rarely used by the RS. Historical abstracts covers the journals & has 3300 citations to articles since 1955 with an abstract mentioning "Protestant Reformation" and only 4 with "Protestant revolt" --and none of the 4 deal with the 16th century . I am very negative on inclusion. Rjensen (talk) 02:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Crusadestudent, @Jpacobb, @Jujutsuan, @Rjensen, @StAnselm Hello, I am pretty new in editing wikipedia, so give me some grace if I am doing things wrong. I have found many sources that refer to the subject as the "protestant revolt," and I'll include links here. The only thing is that most of them are behind database paywalls, so I am not sure if they count as valid sources on Wikipedia.

Church History and Religious Culture Vol. 96, No. 4: Erasmus and the 1516 Novum Instrumentum (2016) pg. 500 and 511

Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity: The Age of Reformations The Critical History Before, During & After Martin Luther (2017)

Reformation: Luther and the Protestant Revolt

Luther: An Experiment in Biography (1980) pg. 2

The Politics of Religion in Early Modern France by Joseph Bergin pg. 2 (2017)

British and Irish Religious Orders in Europe, 1560–1800: Conventuals, Mendicants and Monastics in Motion (2022) pg. 224

I have found more as well. I really do not see why including the term "protestant revolt" is so problematic. Yes, the other terms are far more common, but "revolt" is also commonly used (as evidenced by this discussion). The only reason I see for removing it is brevity, but it is only two words. In my view, the frequency of its use outweighs the negative effects to brevity that adding these two words to the article will have. The Bee Eater (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jujutsuan:I don't know what percentage of the Google Ngram books should be considered RS (see Rjensen's comment for a thought-provoking statistic) but, even if they all were RS, the highest occurrence of "revolt" is only about 2% of "reformation" and that was some 60+ years ago and the percentage falls noticeably before the year 2000. I am therefore at least as negative as Rjensen. (Btw I have my doubts about saying that the Reformation was a schism initiated by Luther since he was excommunicated after trying to reform the church, but that's another issue!) — Jpacobb (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I concede. On the subject of Luther, I don't think anyone would say he didn't initiate the Reformation (beginning with the 95 Theses incident), and I also don't think anyone would say it wasn't a schism in the end. Ergo it was a schism initiated by Luther, regardless of his excommunicate status or his (early) intent to simply reform without splitting. (For perspective, the Orthodox were placed under a Catholic anathema as well (which the Orthodox reciprocated), and no one denies that the East-West Schism of 1054 was a schism.) Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 02:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Renaming: "Protestant Reformation" => "Reformation"

Reformation redirects here anyway. Articles in other languages also simply use Reformation (German: Reformation, Polish: Reformacja, etc.). Why not rename it?Ernio48 (talk) 06:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 18 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Consensus to move per WP:CONCISE, and the fact that the target already redirects here, so PTOPIC is established.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Protestant Reformation → Reformation – "Reformation" already redirects here, this is clearly the primary meaning, it is normally just referred to as "the Reformation". Looking at Reformation (disambiguation), the alternative meanings just refer to the Reformation in a specific country, or are rather obscure, and in one case referring to the Counter-Reformation as the "Catholic Reformation" seems rather odd. PatGallacher (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support, per nom. I usually pipe, that would then be unnecessary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support per nom. StAnselm (talk) 10:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Merriam-Webster gives the name as simply "Reformation." Great scott (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose The term "Reformation" is used by scholars to refer to the multiple reformations of the 16th century. MacCulloch explains his use of the 'shorthand term "Reformation" as often intended to embrace the Catholic Revival/Counter-Reformation together with the varied protestant reformations. (Reformation p. xix). Hillerbrand's The Reformation in its Own Words has a long section on "Catholic Response and Renewal". (I could extend this list to include many other authors) Logically there ought to be an overview article "The Reformation" with links to two main articles, this one and Counter-reformation. — Jpacobb (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Counter Reformation" is an unfortunate term because it implies that Catholics locked the barn door in response to the bolting of the Protestant horse. But that issue remains regardless of what this article might be titled. Great scott (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It is possible that some histories of the Reformation include a fairly lengthy section to the Counter-Reformation, but that is not the same as saying that "Catholic Reformation" is a widely used term for the Counter-Reformation. PatGallacher (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support, whether or not the counter Reformation is a Reformation, this topic is what one means by "Reformation" on its own, so we should be WP:CONCISE. --JFH (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support. So long as it redirects here, there is no point in the disambiguation in the title. One can usually just say/write "Reformation" and be understood. Srnec (talk) 03:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Let's see, you have the English Reformation (which is arguably Protestant, but unique), Catholic Reformation is actually a alternative title used for the Counter-Reformation, and has been on the rise in recent year (though Counter-Reformation still being prefered [9]), and all the lovely reformations in different countries and religious movements as described at Reformation (disambiguation). Keeping it here is WP:PRECISION which is useful for the readers who are redirected here and are looking for something else. The hat note sends them to the DAB page, but they also immediately know what article they are reading because the title is different than the one they may have expected. Protestant Reformation is still a term that is used in major publications, and is not incorrect. The advantages to being precise outweigh the disadvantages here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • WP:PRECISION actually states "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that." PatGallacher (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Right, and per all of the examples above and the dab page, I do not think Reformation does that. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment, surveying reliable sources: there are 16 OUP reference works, including the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church and the World Encyclopedia, with entries on the "Reformation", but only one with an entry on the "Protestant Reformation" (the Canadian Oxford Dictionary). Some of the most important books on the subject are The Reformation (MacCulloch), The European Reformation (Cameron), The European Reformations (Lindberg), The Reformation (Chadwick) and The Reformation World (Pettegree). Hillerbrand is an outlier with his The Protestant Reformation, and it is over forty years old. Using Google books I can see a large number of reliable sources with "Reformation" in the title, but not nearly as many promising looking sources with "Protestant Reformation" in the title. --JFH (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Reformation. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090412201801/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Hussites to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Hussites

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) 16:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

"Protestants more likely to vote for Nazis" in 'Negative Effects' Section

"Protestants were far more likely to vote for Nazis than their Catholic German counterparts.[77] Christopher J. Probst, in his book Demonizing the Jews: Luther and the Protestant Church in Nazi Germany (2012), shows that a large number of German Lutheran clergy and theologians during the Nazi Third Reich used Luther's hostile publications towards the Jews and Judaism to justify at least in part the anti-Semitic policies of the National Socialists.[78]" While I neither dispute the factual status of this statement nor seek the complete removal , I think it is quite poorly worded and really just out of context with regards to the section it is in. The Protestant Reformation ended in 1648, and Fascism did not become even so much as a political theory until over 200 years afterwards. There should be a distinction between short term effects and long term effects; and that's really all that I seek with regards to this statement. 50.39.242.251 (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is talking about a small number of Protestants in a particular time and place, not Protestantism per se. There were so many other factors involved that I don't think it can be said to be an outcome of Protestantism. StAnselm (talk) 22:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I can't deny there is some amount of guilt for the Nazi takeover on part of German Protestants. One can conclude that seeing how many areas of Germany voted, especially the eastern parts of the country. But there were many other factors that caused the Sonderweg. But to say it was a direct result of the Reformation is simply wrong. German history is too complicated and too complex, and this should be noted one way or the other.Ernio48 (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hitler was never a protestant, he was an ex-catholic. --BrianJ34 (talk) 06:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Political

We are told about Henry the eighth's political necessities. There seems to be no clear reference to Ann Boleyn.

Higher literacy

Higher literacy rates are mentioned. Literacy came in in Sumeria in about 3,500 B.C. This was long before Protestantism was founded.

I think the clue word is higher. No, the foundation of Protestantism did not bring literacy around.Ernio48 (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

"Resolved conflict"

@Ealdgyth: Regarding this. Please check sourced Catholic as well as Anglican articles. The heading of the Anglican sources explicitaely states "resolution". Feel free to improve and tweak wording , but please refrain from obstructively deleting it altogether. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

See below. There are MULTIPLE problems with your text additions, please stop restoring undue weight and OR to the lead. (And if you mean the Anglican sources to source the first sentences - you've got them in the wrong place. Please learn how to properly place sources on the information they are sourcing - but even if they WERE supposed to support something else - it is still problematical for all the other reasons I've stated below). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

continued additions..

This text: "From the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), the Roman Catholic Church initiated Catholic–Lutheran dialogue, culminating in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (1999), and the Joint Declaration of Pope Francis and Bishop Munib Younan (2017), wich essentially resolved the core theological conflict of Martin Luther and subsequent adverseries. This conflict was furthered eased by the Anglican Communion doing the same." keeps getting put into the lead of the article. There are several issues with the text. One, it's not in the body of the text, so it shouldn't be just in the lead. Two, it's way undue weight even if it WAS in the body of the text, because it's entirely too much information on essentially feel good declarations without actual reunions between the churches. Third, as has been repeatedly pointed out, you cannot source analytical information (the "essentially resolved the core theological conflict of Martin Luther and subsequent adverseries" part and the "This conflict was furthered eased by the Anglican Communion doing the same." part) to the actual declarations themselves. This is WP:OR. Fourth - there is information in the text which is not covered by the sources given (for example: "From the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), the Roman Catholic Church initiated Catholic–Lutheran dialogue, culminating in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (1999)" is not actually covered by the sources, nor is the other bits. Fifth - if this is important, it will be covered by third party sources - the two non-primary documents being used as sources are both from Anglican news - ideally we'd see academic scholars discussing this - but failing that, we need at least non-religious news sources for this information. Please stop restoring the information when it's been objected to several times and the reasons have been pointed out repeatedly. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

And further ... if this source is meant to support the "essentially resolved the core theological conflict of Martin Luther and subsequent adverseries" ... it doesn't. The closest it comes is that Welby said (and this is a quote from Welby) "When the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church signed the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification in 1999, you resolved the underlying theological question of 1517, in a decisive moment for all churches in the search for unity and reconciliation,". At best, this is Welby's opinion. It would need much much much stronger sourcing and indpendent sourcing to be able to baldly state that the signing of the Joint declaration resolved the core theological conflict. Another issue is that Welby's quote doesn't discuss anything about other adversaries - this is again WP:OR territory - there isn't anything in the source that supports anything beyond the conflict with LUTHER. No other adversaries are mentioned. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Faith “in Jesus”

This article is biased by suggesting that it was only durimg the Reformation that faith in Jesus was truly realised. “In Jesus” should be removed. Don’t forget that I was the one who contributed the sentences about sola fide and sola scriptura to begin with.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 04:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I think it could be made more clear that the issue was/is "faith alone" vs. "faith plus works". None the less, I think keeping "faith in Jesus" is (and not faith in good works, the church, etc.) is better left in. tahc ^chat 15:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The article only says that "faith in Jesus and not good works" is a important doctrine in Protestant belief. How is that biased? Mediatech492 (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

tach, I am proposing to keep only "faith". Also, Mediatech, I am saying that it makes it out that "Catholics do not have faith in Jesus" look like a fact.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense, it does not say or imply anything about Catholics. It merely sates that it is doctrinal for Protestants. Mediatech492 (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Mediatech492-- since the "sola" of "sola fide" means "only" or "alone" I do not see why you removed "only". Personaly I would prefer "faith in Jesus alone" to "only faith in Jesus" but it should be one or the other.

Since I now see that it (also) mentions "faith in the Papacy" a few lines later, I think keeping "faith in Jesus" here is even more important than I did before. tahc ^chat 17:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Tach, see? It is implicitly implying that Protestants transferred the faith in the Papacy to faith in Jesus. You sound like you actually SUPPORT this bias. If you do not provide an actual argument, I will be forced to carry out the edit.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

It is merely stating the beliefs of Protestants, and the Catholic position is also given. Therefore there is no bias. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

If either of you can agree with any of my proposals above please say so-- so that we can move on from them to where we still disagree.

I can support some reword of "faith in the Papacy" to lessen such a (seemingly unintended) implication. How about "trust in the Papacy" or "in the Vatican" or "in Rome" or "in the Roman Curia". tahc ^chat 17:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I suppose I could tolerate that.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Reformation. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160513034745/http://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/witch_trials.pdf to http://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/witch_trials.pdf

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) 02:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

chronology

The chronology of Hus, Waldo and Wycliffe is more than a little unbalanced: Waldo (however influential he may have been), Wyclife, who most certainly exercised a considerable influence on Hus. Luther may or may not have been aware of Wycliffe. Luther's call for a discussion of the state of the Church in 1517 prompted certain princes in Germany (a political patchwork until 1871) to opt out of control by Rome and at the same time protect him. 17 years later,on the other hand, England opted out as a centrally-controlled nation from control by Rome. In the pamphlet known as Fulmen Brutum, aimed at Elizabeth I, the Pope called for civil disobedience from English Catholics, and there is no evidence in that document that Elizabeth I was in any way influenced by anybody other than her father. Of the European countries England was the first to break comprehensively with the power of Rome. To what extent this can be regarded as 'religious' disengagement is largely a matter of opinion.Pamour (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Initiated vs. triggered

Luther did not “plan” the schism. So “initiated” is a bit too intentional. “Triggered” fits better IMHO. What do you think? OnSpeech (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I hear no "intention" in "initiated", also he certainly intended reformation. I also think "triggered" is too modern a word ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Froom

Between the Wars, Froom visited nearly every library and archive throughout Europe photocopying (with a camera) every document, tract, book and manuscript that had ever been written in any language by anyone who had anything to say on the topic of Bible prophecy covering the time period from the 1st to the 19th centuries. (During WWII most of those libraries were destroyed, but Froom's copies still exist). He spent 19 years studying and analyzing over 1000 documents and producing the 4 volume (aprox. 3200 pages) work Prophetic Faith of our Fathers. The work has received critical acclaim with some reservations. It is recognized as the standard reference on the topic. No one has attempted anything like this since. His religious beliefs drove him to produce an exhaustive collection and exhaustive study on the topic. His work is as scholarly as they come. He is a recognized expert on the topic.

I notice that this article about a religious movement lead by Priests and scholars from church pulpits attributes the reasons for the Reformation to nearly anything but religious reasons. While no doubt there were many factors that influenced the Reformation, it was at it's heart a deeply religious movement. Froom points out from his study of every document produced by the Protestant reformation leaders, that interpretation of Bible prophecy played a major role in attraction to the movement and a major driving force behind it. The very short comment, based on Froom's exhaustive, scholarly work, that I added to the article helps fill in knowledge about the movement that had been glossed over so far in the article.  It recognizes that religion and prophetic interpretation played a major role in one of the most influential movements that has ever impacted western society. --DebbieEdwards (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

there are many many much more recent works from academic that should be used in place of a work from 1952. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Newer does not automatically equate to better nor more exhaustive nor more accurate. 1952 is hardly ancient. And there is little that can have changed in only 75 years, given the exhaustive nature of Froom's work. History does not change. Scholarship is scholarship regardless of the age. his work is reliable regardless of when he did the work. --DebbieEdwards (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Froom's work does not appear at all in the bibliography of Carlos M. N. Erie's Reformations: The Early Modern World, 1450-1650 (Yale University Press, 2016) - the bibliography is pages 783-856. Nor does it appear in the bibliography for Carter Lindberg's The European Reformations (second edition, WIley-Blackwell, 2010). Nor does it appear in the further reading section of Euan Cameron's The European Reformation (second edition, Oxford University Press, 2012). If these works don't use Froom, we shouldn't either, since we should be basing the article on works such as the three I pointed out here. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I support Ealdgyth's action. For serious doubts about Froom's value on wider academic issues outside prophecy see the article Le Roy Froom — Jpacobb (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Koenigsberg versus Kaliningrad

Surely the edit summary "Not the correct name during the period in question" on revision 849224113[10] needs a supporting source that covers the history of the various placenames that have applied to this city. Is this consistent with the other usages in the article: e.g. Gdańsk, Toruń and Elbląg? As far as I can see, these are all the modern names. Without any source to support usage of Koenigsberg (and surely it is Königsberg, anyway), and an explanation of why we are not using Danzig, Thorn, etc., I don't see how Koenigsberg can stand unchallenged.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

This has been discussed a million times. The consensus is: use the names that were applied during that era, hence the German names should be used here. Look up: Talk:Gdańsk, there's a long discussion about it in the archives or so.Ernio48 (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks, that means we have resolved the inconsistency in the article between Gdansk and Koenigsberg - but I don't know where Thorn/Torun and Elbląg/Elbing fit in with this argument. We could do with some guide to historically changing placenames in Wikipedia!!
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm certain that you're just pushing pro-german agenda against Poland. Other citites in this article are mentioned by their current name. Using some old, long unused names will only confuse readers. For all we know Berlin could've been called Реnіѕtown in 1500s but now it's Berlin and that's the name we use. Same deal with Gdańsk or Kaliningrad. 85.193.200.13 (talk) 11:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Speaking just for the intent behind changes made by this editor, the purpose is to have consistency with the style agreed under

If the name of the city is not clear to the reader, as long as there is a blue link to the right page, the reader can work it out. This is exactly the same as the problem with westernised historical Chinese placenames - where it is perhaps more obvious that if the encyclopedia user is looking up content in Wikipedia to make sense of other work (perhaps contemporary accounts), then the reader is best served by using the names in use at the time. This is the same practice as is found in most history books.

I can assure the complainant about pro-German editing that I have no sympathy with the historic actions of German political and military leaders, being very aware of the mess they made of the first half of the 20th century (something which adversely affected ordinary Germans as well as the people of other countries). But that should not affect the usability of this encyclopedia.

If there are other current names in this article, as you have pointed out, they need moving to the historic names for consistency with the Gdańsk (Danzig) Vote.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The title of this article should be Protestant Reformation

Attempts to whitewash/rewrite history of the existence of Protestantism is rampant on Wikipedia and the renaming of this page is just one such event. The title is the Protestant Reformation, not some generic Reformation. Ergzay (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

We have had that discussion, see earlier in this talk page. PatGallacher (talk) 02:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Same. Wikipedia goes by common name, not correct name. When people just say Reformation, this is the one they mean. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Portal farm

This article has 10 portals in the See also section. Do we need that many? Recently an editor removed 5 portals from the Puritans article with the edit summary, "no article has ever stood to gain anything with silly portal links, especially this many." The guideline WP:LINKFARM doesn't specifically mention portals, but the guideline to limit the number of links should apply here as well. Can we remove some of these portals? - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 01:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

"North–South Schism" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect North–South Schism. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)