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

The article was promoted by Raul654 19:14, 10 February 2009 [1].

John Calvin

[edit]
previous FAC withdrawn
Nominator(s): RelHistBuff (talk)

This article has been rewritten since reaching GA and has gone through peer review. Looking forward to all your comments. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This article is neither a road, nor a hurricane, nor a wrestler or wrestling move, and as such clearly fails Wikipedia's notability criterion. Suggest AfD. Another option would be to reframe content as a video game or grudge match wrestling article, e.g. Alien vs Calvin. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 11:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, it is not an article on a minor actor, a pop singer, a television show, a military operation, a sports figure, a US politician, or an university-related subject either. You see I am trying to contribute to systemic bias of Wikipedia toward major, but fairly boring historical figures. I know we have too many of those around here. The next article I will work on is Guitar Hero V - High School Musical version. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if you promise to take Guitar Hero to FAC, I'll strike my Oppose. Striking now. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 13:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Awadewit (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (And I can't wait to see RelHistBuff do a video game FAC.. this should be entertaining...) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I have been a contributor to this article in the past, and RelHistBuff has done a great job on rewriting it. Kudos! A few specific comments (more to follow as time allows):

  • There are small comma issues throughout, particularly when used in apposition (cf. Apposition#Restrictive versus non-restrictive). I have tried to correct them in the lede and the first section and will try to attend to the other sections as I have time, but feel free to take a whack at it if you are so inclined.
  • MOS:IMAGE says that it is preferable for portraits to look toward the article text, though it is not strictly necessary. This is not true of the first two images in the article. FWIW, There are a goodly number of other free images of Calvin available that would could fit the bill. --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote from the preface to Calvin's commentary on the Psalms could be quoted directly from a free source such as the CCEL ([2]) rather than from a secondary source, which are cited in the following sentence for their analysis anyway.
  • In that same following sentence ("Scholars have argued on the interpretation of this account, but it is agreed that his conversion corresponded with a rupture with the Roman church."), I'm not clear on what sort of "rupture" is in view here -- a local, regional, or global event -- or how it relates to Calvin's conversion. --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.
  • On the comma issue, I will try to filter through the article.
  • Concerning the images, I also would prefer that the images face in toward the text. For the lead image, I changed it to the left side like another FA, Joseph Priestley, but when I last tried a similiar action in John Knox, Raul changed it back to the right side. However, as MOS guidelines call for facing inward, maybe it is ok now (at least Priestley has been untouched). On the second image, if it is placed on the left, then the indent for the quote disappears making it look like another paragraph. So I would prefer to keep the second image on the right. As for using other images, there may be some free ones, but the problem is getting good source description information. Otherwise they will not pass FA muster. I have personally added in the description information for the two that are used, so I have confidence in defending them.
  • On the quote, I have at least two translations from secondary sources, Parker and Cottret. As they provided (or at least accepted from another source) the English translation, we can be confident that the quote has the backing of a modern scholar. The CCEL version is a translation made by Arthur Golding in 1571.
  • On "rupture", I meant "breach" or "break". I changed it with a possessive.
--RelHistBuff (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The translation by Golding Anderson is from the mid to late 1800s when the Calvin Society was actively publishing Calvin's works in English. Do the translations you have differ significantly with each other? If not, I'd still prefer the primary source link since it gives greater context for the quote and since you immediately give sources where scholars present and evaluate the quote. --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my mistake. Golding's translation is from 1571, but that is only used in the dedicatory. I took a look at the ASCII text version on CCEL and their version is actually Anderson's from 1845, which is what Cottret uses. So the current citation is correct in that Anderson is properly credited and the source used is Cottret. I added a link to Anderson's text on CCEL in the footnote. By the way, the translation by Parker is quite different from Anderson's. I originally preferred Parker's translation as the English is not quite so stilted. But I went with Cottret because his book is more recent (although admittedly the translation he used is old). --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still a bit confused by the modified sentence: "Scholars have argued on the interpretation of this account, but it is agreed that his conversion corresponded with his break from the Roman church." Is it important to mention what specifically scholars disagree over? If not, why mention the disagreement at all? Also, I am still confused by the second part of the sentence. Is it just saying that there was no intervening period of his following another religion (or no religion), i.e., he left the Roman church for the reformed church, rather than that he left it and some time later converted the reformed church? --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Parker had a whole appendix devoted to the conversion. Cottret had two subsections starting off with "An enigma lies at the heart of Calvin's life. How did the young and brilliant humanist, author of a commentary on Seneca become Calvin the Reformer?". He follows with arguments from various scholars and then adds his own. The differences stem from the "when" and "how". It gets quite detailed and clearly the event is of interest to historians. So something about the scholars' debate should be mentioned, but in the end it is simply, in Cottret's words, "...Calvin's conversion took place and that it corresponded to a rupture with the old church". I think the sentence that is in the article is a sufficient summary. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can we then alter the sentence to something like: "Scholars have debated precisely what factors led to Calvin's change of heart, but they agree that his conversion was coincident with his break from the Roman church."? On another note, what is the meaning of "fugitive from justice" in describing Servetus? Was his only crime heresy? If so, I'd change the wording there since he's really fleeing the ecclesiastical powers that be rather than the civil courts (overlapping though they were at times), and "fugitive from justice" is misleading to the modern ear. --Flex (talk/contribs) 19:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The four sources give scholars' opinions on that passage. I think the minimal statement that is there avoids any potential interpolations. I changed the Servetus text to "ecclesiastical authorities". --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are fine, but I think a brief statement of what their debate is about is in order. It's odd to mention that there is controversy but not say anything at all about the content of the controversy. Do you think "Scholars have debated precisely what factors led to this change of heart" is accurate? --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That statement would not be a good summary of what is in the four sources. I think the minimal statement is best and I added some of the scholars' views in a footnote. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A good compromise. Thanks. I wonder if you could explain the footnote more or reword them: "Ganoczy ... argues that Calvin conversion took place over several years and that it was not a biographical or chronological event." Huh? Does he mean that it was not a single experience but rather a gradual process? In any case, it was still a biographical ("relating to the facts or events in a person's life" - it is clear that there was a change of his allegiance, which is a biographical fact) and a chronological ("arranged in the order of time" - it occurred after he left home and before he went to Geneva) event. The Olympics is held over an extended period of time, but it is still a chronological event. I just don't understand how the words are being used, I guess.
Continuing: "Cottier quotes Olivier Millet, ... noting a typological rather than a biographical perspective of the account of his conversion." Huh? Calvin was speaking typologically? I know what typology is (particularly in biblical interpretation), but what does it mean in this context? "The biographical argument is promoted by D. Fischer." Does that mean that he takes Calvin's words as an autobiographical and literal description? Parker "concluded that a certain period for his conversion could be determined." Is there a "not" missing here, or are you saying that, in distinction from other historians who feel they can't identify anything about the time of his conversion because he is not speaking literally, Parker thinks he can narrow it to a certain range of years? Thanks for clarifying. --Flex (talk/contribs) 19:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still wondering about this, RelHistBuff. --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the specific pages from the two books where I quote the info in the footnote. Ganoczy argues that it was not a sudden event. I really do not want to reword what is there because I have used Cottret’s wording in summarising the views of those scholars. More details can only be obtained by going directly to the scholars’ own articles (which I have not read). I would not like to use different wording because I am not quoting from the articles but from Cottret’s summary. Concerning Parker, his view is in sympathy with Ganoczy, but he does attempt to narrow the time of his conversion. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support The lead includes a lot of relatively minor info but leaves out a number of really critical things, including the relationship with Zwingli; the fact that Calvin and Zwingli's differences with Luther formed the first major schism in Protestantism; doctrinal differences between the Calvinists and Lutherans including predestination, abhorrence of images, lack of respect for various rituals, and belief in a personal relationship with God, which combined to make Calvinism much more austere and less authoritarian than Lutheranism or Anglicanism; also the fact that most modern Protestant sects can be classified as either Calvinist, Lutheran, or Anglican in derivation. Looie496 (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with the lead now. Looie496 (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can see about putting in something about his relationship with Zwingli and Luther, perhaps some kind of summary from the article. But as for your other points, these would be relevant in an article on Calvinism not on Calvin. In Calvin's time, "Calvinists", "Lutherans", and "Anglicans" did not exist yet. They were individual reformers who agreed and disagreed with each other and their interactions are in the biography. --RelHistBuff (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with RelHistBuff on Calvinist/Lutheran/Anglican. Moreover, Anglicans aren't Protestants in the proper sense but see themselves as a via media between Protestantism and Catholicism. The third branch should be Anabaptists (or Restorationists). --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, with respect to the intro, I do think the history could be trimmed a bit and a little more from the theology section included. It's surprising to me that the two concepts most often associated with his name -- predestination and total depravity -- don't appear there at all even in spirit. Both concepts do appear, e.g., in the one-sentence summary of Calvinism in a recent article in the NY Times magazine: "you are not captain of your soul or master of your fate but a depraved worm whose hard work and good deeds will get you nowhere, because God marked you for heaven or condemned you to hell before the beginning of time." Compare the American Heritage Dictionary's description: Calvin "emphasiz[ed] the omnipotence of God and the salvation of the elect by God's grace alone." --Flex (talk/contribs) 19:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A summarising statement in the intro on Calvin's thought is a good idea. I would hesitate though on using terms that came after his life. Also, I would like the statement to be easily supported from one of the references, so I will go back to the sources. --RelHistBuff (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on anachronistic terminology. Predestination and elect appear throughout the Bible and Calvin's writings, so no problem there. While there is some disagreement over whether Calvin taught a limited atonement, I know of no dispute over his holding the other four points of Calvinism, which were formulated after Calvin's time (even the Arminian Remonstrants, against whom the five points were issued, held to total depravity). One can easily find the concept -- if not the exact phrase -- of total depravity in his works, e.g., "You see that [St. Paul] places unlawful and depraved desires not in the sensual part merely, but in the mind itself, and therefore requires that it should be renewed. Indeed, he had a little before drawn a picture of human nature, which shows that there is no part in which it is not perverted and corrupted."[3] --Flex (talk/contribs) 22:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I thought the T of tulip might be anachronistic, at least in using both adj and noun together. A summary from a Calvinist theologian compared to a church historian might have quite different wordings. I will see what I can find in the sources. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a sentence on predestination to the lead. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Following up, I feel that the lead has improved, but along with Ealdgyth below, I still have a sense that it doesn't really convey his importance, both during his lifetime and afterwards, as strongly as it ought to. So I'm not quite ready to switch to a full support yet. Looie496 (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review File:GuillaumeFarel.jpg - We need to list at least a century for this image to demonstrate that it is in the PD. All other images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. (I hope to get around to reviewing the entire article!) Awadewit (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, while I hunt around looking for info of the original, I will temporarily change this image with a photo of a statue of Farel. --RelHistBuff (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found it. It is from Theodore Beza's Icones as I suspected. I updated the description and put the image back in the article. --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. All images check out now. Awadewit (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support: A few more minor tweaks are coming, I suspect, but it is already in excellent shape. Great work! --Flex (talk/contribs) 22:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now Leaning towards support The article needs a thorough copyedit, which I am doing now, and a few clarifications, which I will ask for on the article talk page. I look forward to striking this oppose in the next few days. Awadewit (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am answering as many of these questions as I can with the sources that I have on hand. Unfortunately, a couple of sources are checked out and will not be returned until February, so a few answers will be delayed. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have finished the first round of copyediting - the bulk of the work. Awadewit (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the huge amount of work! The questions are even more valuable because they force me to go back to the sources and double check on things. I am getting close to answering all the questions that I can answer for the moment. There are two books that are still at the library. If they are not returned, then there is another library further away that might have the books. --RelHistBuff (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you let me know which books you need access to, I can check my library, too. It is only a 15-minute walk away. :) Awadewit (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have finished copyediting the article. Most of my questions have been answered and I look forward to supporting this article soon. Awadewit (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate your extraordinary efforts for this article! I feel a bit embarrassed, really. I will leave a note on your talk page if I have to take up your offer. I should have some news about the books next week. In the meantime, I hope Raul and Sandy will keep this FAC in the queue. In any case, I assume more votes are needed before a decision can be made. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a wiki! We help each other out! :) Awadewit (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of my questions have been addressed - full support. Can I just reiterate how wonderful it is that someone is working on these important articles about Protestant reformers! Thanks again, RelHistBuff! I just directed my class to this article last week. :) Awadewit (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SupportOppose - for now. I have a few concerns, some quibbles, and a pile of questions. Switch to support, concerns addressed.

I added that he was a polemicist and apologist. He was also a preacher, a theologian, and a church organiser, all of which are more-or-less contained in the lead. Is there something else that is missing? What makes him appear to be larger-than-life are the developments that occurred after him. It was his ideas, i.e., Calvinism, that eventually had a great impact, but this is already mentioned in the lead. I think Cottret had a good description of why he does not come across as someone spectacular: "Unlike some modern televangelists, he eludes the camera; he was discreet, secret, and shy. In short, he was the absolute opposite of a movie star,..." --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken a stab at setting him in a broader context in the intro. --Flex (talk/contribs) 03:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RelHistBuff removed some of my changes in this regard out of concern that they might disrupt the FA process and suggested on my talk page that we instead ask what sort of "Big Name" context you (and others) are looking for. Perhaps the removed material would do it, or perhaps not. Let us know! --Flex (talk/contribs) 20:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Flex's proposed text, assuming it's sourced to a reliable source, reads pretty well to me. It's just about right, just enough to give a quick broad overview without being too detailed. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will put his text back in. The source (Hall) is from Flex so he can tell you more about it. I have another major source on the subject of Calvin's socio-economic impact so I will likely work on it some more. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dropped "reformed faith". See my response to Awadewit's question on the talk page for more details. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26 May 1531. Yes, there is a gap in time before Antoine was in Paris dealing with his father's estate (sold for 144 livres Tournois). This is not explained. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I don't think the source meant that Farel received a "call" from God which would be a call in the theological sense. Farel received a call from the authorities in Neuchâtel which is simply a call from another church. I changed it to "invitation". --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Romans, along with the rest of the New Testament, was originally written in Greek. Calvin returning ad fontes for his exegesis is worthy of note because the Latin Vulgate translation had been the main text scholars used for some time. (The Septuagint is an ancient translation of the Old Testament into Greek.) --Flex (talk/contribs) 19:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is what makes me so glad I'm a medievalist. We don't have to deal with Greek texts on top of the Latin. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There were four possible Greek texts that he could have used and the one he most likely used is the edition printed in Paris 1534 by Simon de Colines. I didn't put that in because it seems that that would be more relevant on an article on the Commentary. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Calvin wrote the dedication when he was in Basel and Grynaeus was another reformer based in Basel, but the sources do not indicate why he dedicated it to him. I removed the reference to Grynaeus. It is not important; the main point was his comments on the three reformers. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sources do not say, but see my response to Awadewit's question on the talk page for more details. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the added quotes help a bunch. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Antoine appears at various moments in Calvin's life and the sources provide no details on what happened in between or the motivation of certain actions. I could just drop the mention of Antoine, if it is a problem. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, it was more idle curiosity. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rewritten. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1552. Included. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The information is contradictory concerning the Catholic Church. He clearly said that he left "them" to be under Christ which appears to imply that he did not consider Rome as part of the true church, but he also said that the Catholic Church belong to the "covenant of God" and that their baptisms are accepted. He definitely considered the Anabaptists as heretics and wrote strong polemical treatises against them, but his views would be no different from the prevailing opinions at the time among reformers (such as Luther, Zwingli, and Bucer) and the Catholic Church alike. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All the elements that influenced him are there in the article, I believe (humanism, Augustine, other reformers). Cottret has a chapter titled after Bernard of Chartres's famous metaphor, "Dwarfs perched on the shoulder of giants".
Some of these are pretty easy to deal with, some may be more difficult. I look forward to supporting when most of them are resolved. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm packing, I'm still connected to the internet and am keeping an eye on this. Never fear. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What nasty stuff do you have in mind? It deals with the major incidents like Servetus, Gruett, and Perrin. Please be more specific.
As for the sources, there are several articles from the Cambridge Companion, but the majority of notes do not come from these sources. Cottret and Parker (in several books) are cited repeatedly, for instance. --Flex (talk/contribs) 03:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was a lot of anti-Calvinistic sentiment while he was alive and after. Hell, even Jonathan Swift viciously tore into Calvin in Tale of a Tub. The faithful Anglicans didn't like him. The Catholics didn't like him. You can look to either side there to find out a lot of anti-Calvin sentiment. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the article cite the two modern biographies of Calvin, Cottret and Parker. It includes the most shameful incidents of Calvin's life, Servetus and Gruet. Concerning the polemics, those made after his death would be relevant in the article on Calvinism. In the case of disagreements with Anglicans, the article on Puritanism would be the place for the arguments. At the time of Calvin, he exchanged letters with Cranmer, but that was the extent of Calvin's interactions with the Church of England. The disagreements with the Catholics and the Lutherans during his lifetime are in the article. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are under the impression that I am referring to negative moments in his life. No, I am referring to negative responses to him as a person and the sheer massive volume of hatred that has been poured out against him since he was 30. There is nothing on the negative pictures, the anti-Calvin pamphlets, the mocking of him through various books, trashing his religious beliefs, etc. The RCC FAC made it clear that the page did not have enough criticism of the Church. This man is one of the main Protestant theorists and he had a lot of criticism. This should be added in. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What anti-Calvin pamphlets do you have in mind? I know Westphal, Caroli, and Pighius disagreed with him, but they were theological disputes, not volumes of "hatred". I could add an additional paragraph describing these disagreements with his theology. Would that be sufficient? --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anything, RelHistBuff. There is nothing on the very large amount of anti-Calvin. just look at the sheer volume of works about Calvin out there. I don't think you have nearly enough to reflect academic opinions, let alone harsh criticism of the individual. If you want, I can go down to the Theological College next week and ask for every book that tears apart John Calvin as a theologian, then I can go to the Dominican House of Studies and ask for the same. I know the Catholic Church would be able to provide shelves and shelves devoted to the topic, especially seeing as how they are diametrically opposed to John Calvin. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sebastian Castellio comes to mind. Calvin also debated with various Catholic authorities, but we want secondary source coverage here. As a tertiary source, the Catholic Encyclopedia contains a rather negative view of him[4] and his theology.[5] BTW, a goodly number of the works in your Amazon link are to the books already cited in the article, and many of the others are Calvin's own writings in English translation. On a quick look over the first five pages of results (after which relevance takes a dive), the only one that jumped out as far as criticism was John Calvin and Roman Catholicism: Critique and Engagement, Then and Now. --Flex (talk/contribs) 22:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a paragraph on the controversies in the Theology section. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could see a little more needing to be added. I'm trying to hunt down some Anglican responses. By the way, could you mention in the legacy (one or two lines) that Jonathan Swift mocked Calvin in Tale of a Tub based on theological views? This was a very influential work and represented part of the 18th century Anglican response to Calvin and Calvinism. He was a very hated individual by a lot of people. The legacy needs some of the backlash listed. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that plenty of notable people have viewed Calvin negatively or positively for one reason or another. How do we choose whom to include, how do we make a representative selection? IOW, why include Voltaire, Swift, Rousseau, Max Weber, R. H. Tawney, Will Durant, or George Bush? Why do their views matter in the context of this article? Presumably our selection should be based on secondary sources discussing the expressed opinions and their importance and notability in the grand scheme of things. Obviously we can't include everyone (though a spin-off Criticism of John Calvin or Views of John Calvin article could provide more), so we need such neutral selection criteria. --Flex (talk/contribs) 17:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, views of Calvin are very difficult to discriminate from views of Calvinism. The person's view would be "coloured" by the events of his/her era (as in the case of Swift and Voltaire). I have put in the Voltaire text only because it is included in Cottret's major biography on Calvin. My preference, however, is to leave the Calvin article specifically in its own era. I would like to go back to the original ending just keeping the first two paragraphs of the Legacy section. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do their views matter? Because Calvin is not as popular as the article suggests! We are supposed to keep a Neutral Point of View. This article basically worships Calvin. The bias is overwhelming. Too many people complaining about an individual is not an excuse to ignore them all. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a spin off goes against the guidelines on NPOV. You would have to summarize the content on the article, including the criticism. By the way, Tale of a Tub, a very famous work by one of the top English authors and Dean of St. Patricks (Anglican), discusses Calvin as one of the main characters. That is more than just a small commentary on by some random famous person. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for a "Views of Calvin" article, I would fully expect that the material be properly summarized in this article and hence wouldn't be a POV fork, but again we would need similar selection criteria for creating the summary. --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed about Calvin v. Calvinism. I think we need at least the material about capitalism, representative democracy, and individualism, which is fairly widespread claim in the literature (I'd be shocked if some of your already cited books didn't deal with some or all of these topics at least in passing, and cf. Calvin and Calvinism: Sources of Democracy?). I think it's entirely appropriate to have some representative and notable negative views of the man and his ideas too, but secondary sources must be our gauge of importance. (Does Voltaire's complaint qualify? Does Cottret hold his view to be important or influential?) --Flex (talk/contribs) 20:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can ask User:Geogre about the amount of sources dealing with Tale of a Tub and John Calvin. I can count quite a few when I worked on Swift (I focused on his religious works and pamphleteering, not his satire). Voltaire should have a lot of sources, and I would contact the group that worked on the Voltaire FAC. They should be able to provide some. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I had been writing the article (actually, I did write considerable parts of the pre-FAC article), it would have been more theological in nature and less biographical, but I think the latter focus is equally acceptable and probably better for this article. (If desired, the theology of John Calvin (which is not the same as Calvinism) can be covered elsewhere -- cf. Theology of Huldrych Zwingli, which RelHistBuff spun off while taking Huldrych Zwingli to FA.) That biographical focus, however, means that there will necessarily and appropriately be fewer controversies and contemporary negative opinions described throughout the article. I tend to think we're missing criticism from the Catholic Church and perhaps other Protestant contemporaries, but I'm not yet convinced that plaudits and criticisms from Swift, Voltaire, et al. are necessary or appropriate here. (At least there's a book in your Amazon search about Catholic criticisms.) The best (only?) way to determine relevance to any of these articles is with reliable, secondary sources that gauge importance. I don't think we're ready to call in User:Georgre or anyone else to help us until we can first establish the relevance of any person's or institution's opinion. Otherwise, we'd need to go consult about myriad others' views of Calvin. Chances are, we can establish the necessary framework for positive/negative views from the sources already cited. --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned previously, any analysis made that is significantly distant from Calvin’s lifetime will be difficult to differentiate as a view of Calvin or a view of Calvinism. In addition, views change with time and each era (Age of Enlightenment, 19th century/Victorian, current, etc.) has their own biases. The various views would be difficult to filter and prioritise. Even current views are contradictory. Weber’s thesis is well-known, but many have noted that he dealt mainly with Calvin’s heritage as opposed to Calvin himself. Others have disagreements with him. Hall’s view is considered new and provocative. I believe this article should concentrate on his life and theology and I prefer the original Legacy section without the last paragraph. Having said all that, I do not see much of a problem if two opposing point-of-views are presented and it is stated that there are many different opinions. Readers can then do their own research and come to their own conclusions. I consider this matter closed. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some problematic language, especially here: "He defends the trinitarian view of God and notes that images of God lead to idolatry, a strong polemical stand against the Catholic Church". The sentence reads as if "a strong polemical stand against the Catholic Church" modifies the -complete sentence-. Thus, it would be saying that Catholics don't have a Trinitarian view of God. This should be rewritten. Also, you have "He often cited the Church Fathers in order to defend the reformed cause" but don't put anything about the attacks that he received. You should probably separate this into a paragraph and include who the attacks came from. Otherwise, you created a strawman. Finally, the Theology section reads like a summary of Institutes of the Christian Religion instead of about his theology as a whole. Its one thing to refer to it, but calling it a "magnum opus" and breaking down book by book seems a tad excessive, especially when it doesn't include his whole theology, which is far more nuanced and developed over time. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the trinity sentence. I'll let RelHistBuff handle the "attacks" part from the sources. (In essence, I'd guess that Catholics were arguing that Protestant doctrine was novel and that Calvin responded by trying to show it wasn't by quoting the Fathers. But I'd like to see it cited rather than just asserted.) As for the Theology section, the Institutes *is* a summary of his entire theology, and so it seems appropos to summarize it in order to summarize his theology. As the article says, he revised it several times, but it almost always expanded to cover additional topics rather than changed coverage of existing topics. Hence, his theology was pretty stable over time. --Flex (talk/contribs) 23:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Comment: Ottava Rima dislikes the complexity of the syntax. Since I teach second language students, I've become reasonably adept at reducing the cognitive load created by syntactic complexity. Anyone mind if I look 'n see what I might simplify? Feel free to revert me if I turn silk purses into sow's ears. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 12:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia, so please go ahead. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oi, are there two Philibert Bertheliers? How could he be in a dispute in 1553 if he was beheaded in 1519? ...... Oh OK. Father/son; daddy beheaded in 1519. Got it. Wikipedia needs to draw ths distinction. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 13:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Support. I commented during the peer review, and I think the article has much improved since then. I do think some of the detail in the Early life section could be trimmed out - for example, where he hid out during his period of hiding after Cop's speech. There are other tidbits like this throughout the article that could be removed without really losing anything important. As written, though, the article seems comprehensive and reasonably well-written. Karanacs (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Comprehensive and well written, this article deserves recognition as a featured article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coemgenus (talk • contribs)

Support. Nasty lead image location (flush right is the only way to go!), but a solid article. Nicely done. (Just do something about that image!) --Spangineerws (háblame) 00:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS recommends portraits look towards the text. It is bizarre aesthetically to have a person staring off of the screen. Awadewit (talk) 09:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note: There are some comments about this near the top of the FAC. Other FAs such as Joseph Priestley have the image on the left. Another editor added some special parameters concerning the TOC that should make the flush-left image to fit better. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reversed the image and moved it rightward. That's one small flip for PaintShopPro; one giant flip for Wikipedia. ;-) Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 11:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I am not sure if that is allowed or desired. I think this kind of image flip has been discussed in other forums and the idea has been deprecated. Personally, I am not too keen on messing around with someone else's painting. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awadewit's comment makes sense, but I think Ling.Nut's edit "aesthetically" is the best overall. But if there is a major issue with flipping images, I'll relent. --Spangineerws (háblame) 13:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Flipping images is a terrible idea. We don't alter quotations in this way, so we shouldn't alter images. It is best to retain the artist's intention. I've reverted this change. Awadewit (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To form an alliance. I added a clause. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting coincidence. I had just finished a stub article on Berthelier. He and two others had insulted a minister. I added a sentence. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think this article should be prohibited from becoming FA only because of Ottava Riva's strong oppose. I also think that religious articles like this one and RCC should not be prohibited from becoming FA based on desires of people to have huge amounts of negative opinions of non -believers included in the article. If we require these articles to include such info, they will be too large and will not help Reader find the facts about the article they came to seek. All of these articles have some summary of criticism with a link to a main article discussing criticisms in greater detail. Let's not toss someone's huge contribution to Wikipedia just because we don't like the subject matter or because we feel we have been treated unfairly or held to different standards at another FA. NancyHeise talk 16:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'd add that RelHistBuff has done a great job in reconstructing the article and responding to criticism here and on the article's talk page in a timely fashion. --Flex (talk/contribs) 00:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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