Talk:Protestant Reformation - Revision history

Sarah Van Der Goes: Talk:Reformation moved to Talk:Protestant Reformation: More appropriate name for the movement and for this article.

2007-09-14T18:33:04Z

Talk:Reformation moved to Talk:Protestant Reformation: More appropriate name for the movement and for this article.

← Older revision	Revision as of 04:33, 15 September 2007
(No difference)

Sarah Van Der Goes: Restructure notes, Request to rename to Protestant Reformation

2007-08-23T17:09:25Z

Restructure notes, Request to rename to Protestant Reformation

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:09, 24 August 2007
Line 69:		Line 69:
	* He speaks]		* He speaks]
	I can't resist adding a Euro-centric bias to this (in a mild way), so propose to edit parts of the main entry, and then see what people think. If too biased, moderators please feel free to revert the article.		I can't resist adding a Euro-centric bias to this (in a mild way), so propose to edit parts of the main entry, and then see what people think. If too biased, moderators please feel free to revert the article.

			==Restructure, removal of 1st person, removal of "Anton notes" and addition of intro & conclusion==
			OK.

			Wow.

			This article is very informative but is ill-structured. This article only provides a historial background to the Protestant Reformation without discussing '''what''' is was and '''how''' it effected anyone. I've done my best to include a summary intro and conclusion to this point. As to the above discussion regarding ownership of the article, well, I'm working on a wiki, not a personal project of mine. I just made some significant additions to this article but did not remove any of Anton's information, since it was all good really. But this article is not mine, nor is it Anton's. His ownership of this article should no longer be in dispute, in my opinion. --[[User:Sarah Van Der Goes\|Sarah Van Der Goes]] 03:09, 24 August 2007 (EST)

			==Request to rename this article [[Protestant Reformation]]==
			I'd like the title of this article to be the '''Protestant Reformation''' instead of just [[Reformation]]. I do not have the ability to move or delete articles, but I can redirect. If there is no objection, both the full content of the article page and talk pages should be relocated. --[[User:Sarah Van Der Goes\|Sarah Van Der Goes]] 03:09, 24 August 2007 (EST)

Simoncursitor at 12:22, 19 October 2004

2004-10-19T12:22:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:22, 19 October 2004
Line 66:		Line 66:
	----		----

	Enter Cursitor]		* Enter Cursitor]
	He speaks]		* He speaks]
	I can't resist adding a Euro-centric bias to this (in a mild way), so propose to edit parts of the main entry, and then see what people think. If too biased, moderators please feel free to revert the article.		I can't resist adding a Euro-centric bias to this (in a mild way), so propose to edit parts of the main entry, and then see what people think. If too biased, moderators please feel free to revert the article.

Simoncursitor at 12:20, 19 October 2004

2004-10-19T12:20:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:20, 19 October 2004
Line 63:		Line 63:

	Anton, who is now caffeined up and revising his Reformation article		Anton, who is now caffeined up and revising his Reformation article

			----

			Enter Cursitor]
			He speaks]
			I can't resist adding a Euro-centric bias to this (in a mild way), so propose to edit parts of the main entry, and then see what people think. If too biased, moderators please feel free to revert the article.

Conrad Leviston: Reverted edit of 80.131.79.1, changed back to last version by 210.9.142.25

2004-03-28T23:45:40Z

Reverted edit of 80.131.79.1, changed back to last version by 210.9.142.25

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:45, 29 March 2004
Line 5:		Line 5:
	[[User:Morgant\|Morgant]]		[[User:Morgant\|Morgant]]

	I'm still new here and figuring out what goes where. There is some good history in this that seems like it would fit better on http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation and the Cunnan article could work to make the history relevant to SCA folks. How does this affect someone's persona? Which contries were predominantly on which side? What were the consequences of being on the "wrong" side? How would this affect your costume? (E.g., did it affect the wearing of the rosary? etc.) ~ [[User:JakeVortex\|JakeVortex]] ~~[http://www.kredit-magazin.com kredit]~~ 06:27, 5 Nov 2003 (EST)		I'm still new here and figuring out what goes where. There is some good history in this that seems like it would fit better on http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation and the Cunnan article could work to make the history relevant to SCA folks. How does this affect someone's persona? Which contries were predominantly on which side? What were the consequences of being on the "wrong" side? How would this affect your costume? (E.g., did it affect the wearing of the rosary? etc.) ~ [[User:JakeVortex\|JakeVortex]] 06:27, 5 Nov 2003 (EST)

	----		----
Line 21:		Line 21:
	Finally, I'd prefer to stay identified as a specific author, so that I can retain accountability for what I say, as some of my statements may justly be regarded as anti-Catholic, anti-Lutheran or anti-Calvinist.		Finally, I'd prefer to stay identified as a specific author, so that I can retain accountability for what I say, as some of my statements may justly be regarded as anti-Catholic, anti-Lutheran or anti-Calvinist.

	:Wiki articles do not have a specific author. If you wan to be listed as the sole author ~~[http://www.kredit-magazin.com kredit]~~ (or the main author) of an article then a wiki isn't an appropriate place to write. I agree with Del that if you wish to have a personal bias in what you write then start articles that are clearly your own opinion (eg. [[Why Anton Thinks The Reformation Was A Bad Idea]], as Del suggested) - [[User:Tobin\|Tobin]]		:Wiki articles do not have a specific author. If you wan to be listed as the sole author (or the main author) of an article then a wiki isn't an appropriate place to write. I agree with Del that if you wish to have a personal bias in what you write then start articles that are clearly your own opinion (eg. [[Why Anton Thinks The Reformation Was A Bad Idea]], as Del suggested) - [[User:Tobin\|Tobin]]

	----		----

80.131.79.1 at 22:28, 28 March 2004

2004-03-28T22:28:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:28, 29 March 2004
Line 5:		Line 5:
	[[User:Morgant\|Morgant]]		[[User:Morgant\|Morgant]]

	I'm still new here and figuring out what goes where. There is some good history in this that seems like it would fit better on http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation and the Cunnan article could work to make the history relevant to SCA folks. How does this affect someone's persona? Which contries were predominantly on which side? What were the consequences of being on the "wrong" side? How would this affect your costume? (E.g., did it affect the wearing of the rosary? etc.) ~ [[User:JakeVortex\|JakeVortex]] 06:27, 5 Nov 2003 (EST)		I'm still new here and figuring out what goes where. There is some good history in this that seems like it would fit better on http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation and the Cunnan article could work to make the history relevant to SCA folks. How does this affect someone's persona? Which contries were predominantly on which side? What were the consequences of being on the "wrong" side? How would this affect your costume? (E.g., did it affect the wearing of the rosary? etc.) ~ [[User:JakeVortex\|JakeVortex]] [http://www.kredit-magazin.com kredit] 06:27, 5 Nov 2003 (EST)

	----		----

80.131.79.1 at 22:28, 28 March 2004

2004-03-28T22:28:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:28, 29 March 2004
Line 21:		Line 21:
	Finally, I'd prefer to stay identified as a specific author, so that I can retain accountability for what I say, as some of my statements may justly be regarded as anti-Catholic, anti-Lutheran or anti-Calvinist.		Finally, I'd prefer to stay identified as a specific author, so that I can retain accountability for what I say, as some of my statements may justly be regarded as anti-Catholic, anti-Lutheran or anti-Calvinist.

	:Wiki articles do not have a specific author. If you wan to be listed as the sole author (or the main author) of an article then a wiki isn't an appropriate place to write. I agree with Del that if you wish to have a personal bias in what you write then start articles that are clearly your own opinion (eg. [[Why Anton Thinks The Reformation Was A Bad Idea]], as Del suggested) - [[User:Tobin\|Tobin]]		:Wiki articles do not have a specific author. If you wan to be listed as the sole author [http://www.kredit-magazin.com kredit] (or the main author) of an article then a wiki isn't an appropriate place to write. I agree with Del that if you wish to have a personal bias in what you write then start articles that are clearly your own opinion (eg. [[Why Anton Thinks The Reformation Was A Bad Idea]], as Del suggested) - [[User:Tobin\|Tobin]]

	----		----

210.9.142.25 at 12:38, 11 November 2003

2003-11-11T12:38:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:38, 11 November 2003
Line 48:		Line 48:

	[[User:Del\|Del]] 19:56, 11 Nov 2003 (EST)		[[User:Del\|Del]] 19:56, 11 Nov 2003 (EST)


			Del,

			Funnily enough, my current favorite theorist on Papal power - John of Paris - points out the bible text in question says you should shun, rather than actually burn heretics. Not that that stopped anyone in the 16th Century, of course. The fact that he was a player in a high-stakes game of 'Go ahead. Excommunicate France. See if we care' could have been a factor.

			I'm also not sure about this newfangled idea of Papal Infallibility - it seems awfully Nineteenth Century. After all, only Church Councils can properly and finally resolve issues of theology, and it was the arrogance and vanity of certain Popes is that got us into this mess in the first place.

			Digging Wyclif out of the ground is one of those 'who cares ?' things for me ; I'm much more concerned with what gets done to the living (eg suppresion of the Peasants Revolt by the Lutherans). BTW, Wyclif needs a page ... back at ANU library I've got some footnotes abnout him (eg he personally probably didnt translate the Bible, although he did head the project).

			As to what got done to the Hussites ... yeah, well they were kind and gentle dealing with the Jacquerie in France, right ?

			And as for the grammar, rhetoric and logic crack ... misused, rhetoric can be a tool to mislead, but grammar and logic are what Scholarly work is based on.

			Anton, who is now caffeined up and revising his Reformation article

Del at 08:57, 11 November 2003

2003-11-11T08:57:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:57, 11 November 2003
Line 41:		Line 41:
	You see, ever since [[User:Anton\|Anton]] made the ridiculous assertion on his page about the [[Italian Renaissance]] that "the Humanists concentrated on winning the argument rather than having their facts and logic straight" (a complete falsehood that I specifically refuse to bite on, as everyone knows the Humanists were all about facts and logic and less of that papal infallibility nonsense), we've been caning each other over the the entire Reformation debate.		You see, ever since [[User:Anton\|Anton]] made the ridiculous assertion on his page about the [[Italian Renaissance]] that "the Humanists concentrated on winning the argument rather than having their facts and logic straight" (a complete falsehood that I specifically refuse to bite on, as everyone knows the Humanists were all about facts and logic and less of that papal infallibility nonsense), we've been caning each other over the the entire Reformation debate.

	Now I've just had time to re-read this and I've seen the bit where he says "the Council of Constance ... got things back to an even footing" and I blew chunks out my nostrils. OK, this specifically deserves a footnote. Anton, if you think that burning [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Huss Huss] at the stake and digging up [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wyclif Wyclif]'s long dead body and casting it out of hallowed ground after he'd produced the first [[English]] translation of the bible then you need to [[Nutbar with extra almonds\|read this]].		Now I've just had time to re-read this and I've seen the bit where he says "the Council of Constance ... got things back to an even footing" and I blew chunks out my nostrils. OK, this specifically deserves a footnote. Anton, if you think that burning [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Huss Huss] at the stake and digging up [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wyclif Wyclif]'s long dead body and casting it out of hallowed ground after he'd produced the first [[English]] translation of the bible is "an even footing" then you need to [[Nutbar with extra almonds\|read this]].

	You see the problem with you [[Scholastics]] is that you aren't prepared to stretch your reading wide enough to know what facts are, let alone [[grammar]], [[rhetoric]], and [[logic]].		You see the problem with you [[Scholastics]] is that you aren't prepared to stretch your reading wide enough to know what facts are, let alone [[grammar]], [[rhetoric]], and [[logic]].

Del at 08:56, 11 November 2003

2003-11-11T08:56:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:56, 11 November 2003
Line 32:		Line 32:

	[[User:Del\|Del]]		[[User:Del\|Del]]

			----

			Hey you wiki / cunnan guys,

			Can we footnote these things?

			You see, ever since [[User:Anton\|Anton]] made the ridiculous assertion on his page about the [[Italian Renaissance]] that "the Humanists concentrated on winning the argument rather than having their facts and logic straight" (a complete falsehood that I specifically refuse to bite on, as everyone knows the Humanists were all about facts and logic and less of that papal infallibility nonsense), we've been caning each other over the the entire Reformation debate.

			Now I've just had time to re-read this and I've seen the bit where he says "the Council of Constance ... got things back to an even footing" and I blew chunks out my nostrils. OK, this specifically deserves a footnote. Anton, if you think that burning [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Huss Huss] at the stake and digging up [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wyclif Wyclif]'s long dead body and casting it out of hallowed ground after he'd produced the first [[English]] translation of the bible then you need to [[Nutbar with extra almonds\|read this]].

			You see the problem with you [[Scholastics]] is that you aren't prepared to stretch your reading wide enough to know what facts are, let alone [[grammar]], [[rhetoric]], and [[logic]].

			(OK, enough Anton-baiting for now, I think I need to go consult a cooking laurel to find out what temperature is best to [[burn more catholics]]).

			[[User:Del\|Del]] 19:56, 11 Nov 2003 (EST)