John Calvin

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am planning on bringing this to FAC. Based on past peer reviews of other articles, I suspect it is the prose that needs the most work, but any comments are welcome!

Thanks, RelHistBuff (talk) 12:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just renamed the "Thought" section to "Theology" and I am going to rewrite it. For those peer reviewers, please ignore the Theology section for the moment. Thanks. --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The new Theology section is almost done, so I have struck-through my comment. I will continue to copy-edit, though. I hope someone finds this article interesting enough to review. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is on the backlog list - someone should review it in a few days Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a Legacy section. The article is now complete. More advice is welcome! --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

Yes, it means he was particularly advanced or mature for his age. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is very little known about his conversion. At the time, the Reformation was just beginning (it was less than twenty years after the 95 theses). As Luther's publications were well-known, Calvin most likely heard about Luther first. There were other reformers that were Luther's contemporaries (e.g., Bucer and Zwingli) who had different points-of-view. He communicated with all the major reformers, but he ended up striking his own path. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed "it" to "this" so that the understanding is the posting of the placards. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources do hint at details on why his friends urged him. Cottret said, "Celibacy was hardly proper for a preacher of the gospel; it was important to set oneself apart from the old clergy by visibly embracing the life of ordinary men." Since this looked more like a historian analysis of the situation, I didn't put this in. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not evident from the description given by Parker. He did not excite the crowds like Knox did. Here is an indication from Parker: "Like many reserved persons, he could forget himself in the pulpit and speak from the heart as easily as in print." --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting question. The cited sources do not say that Calvin specifically asked for the tortures or the beheading. So I tried looking up other sources and found a small detail that the council appointed a commission to investigate. Another said that the magistrates beheaded Gruet with the consent of Calvin. I will add these in. --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was careful not to delve into that because the comparisons can get lengthy, but I will add some of the differences on major issues. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He was very powerful within the church in Geneva. However, official church decisions were made by the Consistoire, so he did not have direct power. Calvin did not have any power in the civil area (politics). In fact, the politicians often clashed with the churchmen. It was only during his final nine years that he stood uncontested, but they were quiet years of mainly writing theological works and giving sermons. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In general, a compehensive and well-written article (as usual) and probably a well-deserved future FA article, which I am not, however, 100% sure that it sheds light to all the aspects of this complex personalities.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Karanacs

Overall, this looks like a fairly comprehensive article.

Rewritten a bit. Although he established the theology, Calvinism has moved on much further. So really he was simply a theologian rather than a "developer" of a system of theology. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was the original existing hierarchy. I agree the top level section is unnecessary. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know, this is my weakness as seen in all the other peer reviews that I've had. Physicist background unfortunately, i.e., all equations, no prose! I will go through the article again. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added clause. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rewritten. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't made explicit, but the intention was for heresy to be extirpated. Persecution of reformers occurred before and after the period of the edict. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Edict was an internal French affair to deal with heretics. The troop movements were a military squabble between France and the Holy Roman Empire separate from the religious issue. The source just noted this was reason for the detour and gave no other details. I changed the wording a bit. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reform the church in Geneva. Changed. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Parker said he was elected, but gave no details. Cottret provides a bit more info. Rewritten. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rewritten. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There were three items that contributed: the subscription requirement, the rumours, and the unleavened bread argument. I separated the paragraph and changed the wording so hopefully it is clearer now. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to catch most of these. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's due to the paragraph on Bucer and Calvin which is on their relationship, not on the biography. I've temporarily taken it out. I'm not sure where I can introduce it. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is from Parker and it is cited. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I should point out that the opinion that many of Calvin's ideas were of an extreme nature is due to certain past biographers. In fact modern sources point out that his views were very much in common with the other major reformers. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC) PS. I'm not watching the page, so if you have any questions, please ping me on my talk.[reply]

User:Reywas92
Too bad you were not able to comment before the bot closed the PR; otherwise your comment would have extended the life for the PR for another two weeks. Né in French means "born" and née is the feminine form. The usage is accepted in English. The word is appropriate in that he was born Cauvin, but the latinised name Calvinus shortened to Calvin is the accepted name (in both French and English). I will address the unanswered comments in the PR before submitting the article to FAC. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Categories