Talk:John Calvin/Archive 3

John Calvin
John Calvin
Born	10 July 1509; Noyon, Picardy, France
Died	27 May 1564; Geneva, Switzerland
Title	Protestant Reformer, Minister
	Theological work
Tradition or movement	Reformed, Calvinism
Main interests	Systematic theology
Notable ideas	Predestination, Monergism

John Calvin
John Calvin
Born	10 July 1509; Noyon, Picardy, France
Died	27 May 1564; Geneva, Switzerland
Title	Protestant Reformer, Minister
	Theological work
Tradition or movement	Reformed, Calvinism
Main interests	Systematic theology
Notable ideas	Predestination, Monergism

This is an archive of past discussions about John Calvin. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Infobox

Is there any reason Calvin doesn't have an infobox? John 20:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I added one, but it seems that a few dedicated editors of this page are dead set against it. See below.

TuckerResearch (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Image (1)

Is there a specific reason why the image is left-aligned on purpose? Galoubet (talk) 08:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, to make it face the text. This has been discussed a few times here (see the archives), but if you're interested in discussion of the general concept of conflict between the "right-aligned lead image" guideline and the "portrait facing the text" guideline, it might be a good idea to look into the ongoing (and very extensive) RFC at Talk:Joseph Priestley. —JAO • T • C 12:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

A summary from the archives is as follows. The picture was selected as the best candidate for the lead image because it is near contemporary (unlike other portraits) and it is well-recognised in modern times as it is used on the cover page of two of the best biographies on Calvin, Cottret and Parker. As Calvin is facing directly to the right, aesthetically it makes sense that the image is left-justified so that Calvin looks toward the text, not off the screen. As mentioned in the RFC on the Joseph Priestley talk page, there is a contradiction in the MOS guideline. So the same principles apply for this article. I hope that the hidden HTML comment above the image will be enough so that an editor will read this talk page first. Please take up any disagreements on the image justification on the MOS talk pages rather than moving the image. --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please do not understand me wrong, it was not my intention at all to move the position of the image, I was just being curious, and what you are saying does make sense to me, looking towards the text seems logical. My curiousity being satisfied now. Thanks! BTW, in the worst case scenario, one could center the image, put it in a nice frame and start the text under the image. There is a solution to every (edit) issue, I guess! Galoubet (talk) 06:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a RfC discussion about the issue of left-aligned images in the lead currently under way at Talk:Joseph Priestley. Other editors' input is welcome. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why an image should be "looking towards the text", when MOS:IMAGES clearly states to "Start an article with a right-aligned lead image", not "Start an article with a right-aligned lead image, unless the image is looking away from the text, in which case, it should be left-aligned." Seth Whales (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

5 lines below that is the section on having portraits face the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.233.109.67 (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The down side of placing the image on the left is that on high resolution monitors (I'm viewing with 1680 pixel wide resolution) the lead text finishes before the bottom of the image and so the right of the lower part of the image and the TOC is all white space. If the image were on the right then the amount of white space would be reduced. Greenshed (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not swap the lead image with the left facing Titian portrait which is arguably a better representation and can be placed on the right. Greenshed (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

See RelHistBuff's argument above. Awadewit (talk) 15:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not just flip this image itself so it is facing the other way, upload a separate copy on Commons of it. Edit - here, I've flipped the picture around, is it alright to put it in? - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not a good idea to flip images, as it misrepresents the artistic work. Awadewit (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Calvin vs. Cauvin

The aritcle begins "John Calvin (10 July 1509 – 27 May 1564), né Jean Cauvin..." Later it reads "Calvin was born Jean Cauvin on 10 July 1509 in Noyon..." That implies that he was born Jean Cauvin and then changed his name to John Calvin later in life. But that's not right, is it? He lived in French-speaking countries most of his life, so I'm assuming that he was known to French speakers (and referred to himself in French) as Jean Cauvin throughout; John Calvin is an anglicization of his name.

Please note that I'm not saying that the article title should be changed, as he's universally known as John Calvin in English. I'm just saying that there should be a way to make it clear in the article that this name is an adaption, and Jean Cauvin is the name he would have used for himself. Unless I'm terribly wrong about that? --Jfruh (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that part can be improved. I'll take a look at the sources after the TFA hoopla dies down. Basically he normally used a latinised version of his original name (Ioannes Calvinus). What is used among anglophones is the anglicisation of the latinisation (John Calvin). Similiarly, the francophones use a francisation of the same latin name (Jean Calvin). --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

On the small bit of research I've done, Jean Cauvin seems to be the name which should lead the article, followed by John Calvin. No similar anglicization of a French name comes to mind although there probably are one or two. If Jean Cauvin never changed his name to John Calvin and John Calvin is simply from the Latin, Jean Cauvin should be the primary name in the English Wikipedia. Breschard (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I can certainly think of one: Joan of Arc. Almost all English speakers know her by that name, which is just a misreading of Jeanne Darc (she was actually from Domrémy). I agree with Jfruh; in the English Wikipedia, we should use the name that English speakers universally use. We're not going to change Confucius to Kǒng Fūzǐ, are we?Pirate Dan (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Another similar anglicisation (via Latin) is Martin Bucer. His original German name was Butzer, but like Calvin he normally used a latinisation of his original name, Bucerus. The accepted name in English is shortened from the Latin. I think all that needs to be done is to add a sentence or two after the first sentence explaining the Cauvin-Calvinus-Calvin evolution. I just haven't had time to get to the sources to properly cite the explanation. --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Jean not John. This is the 21st Century and there is certainly no need to continue the errors of the past. A person's name is what they called themselves. The common usage is to maintain the French name, a contemporary, Jacques Cartier, for example. Ne is certainly misleading in that it usually signifies the person changing their names themselves, one way or the other. Breschard (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "ne" is inappropriate and should be replaced with "or." But I do not agree that Jean should be placed first or that John is an "error of the past." "John" is simply the name Calvin is known by in English, and is the appropriate name for him in the English Wikipedia, just as "Jean d'Angleterre" is the appropriate name for King John of England in the French Wikipedia. As I interpret WP:Naming conventions (use English), John Calvin is the appropriate name for the English Wikipedia. Pirate Dan (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:Naming conventions (use English) begins "Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works)." Here is a list of encyclopedias that I have quick access to online and how they refer to Calvin:

Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy - John Calvin
The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions - John Calvin
The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church - John Calvin
World Encyclopedia - John Calvin
A Dictionary of World History - John Calvin
The Oxford Companion to Philosophy - John (Jean) Calvin
The Oxford Dictionary of the Renaissance - Jean Calvin
Encyclopedia Britannica - John Calvin (article notes at the beginning "French Jean Calvin, or Cauvin")
World Eras, Vol. 1: European Renaissance and Reformation (1350-1600). - John Calvin
Encyclopedia of World Biography, 2nd ed. - John Calvin (articles notes "Also known as: Jean Chauvin, Jean Calvin")
Historic World Leaders - John Calvin (article notes: "Also known as: Jean Chauvin, Jean Calvin")

It is clear from this list that the most commonly used name in reference works is "John Calvin". Awadewit (talk) 15:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

To complicate matters, modern French now uses "Jean Calvin", not "Cauvin" (fr:Jean Calvin). They must have been influenced by the Latin form as well. But "John Calvin" is, of course, the right choice for the English Wikipedia. Lesgles (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The John Cabot entry exemplifies a nice way to go. Breschard (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

In case nobody has noticed, the first line of the article has been changed without any consensus. One of the editors insists on reverting my edits without any reference to the current usage. I'm not going to get into an edit war, but if you insist on reverting my edits, you really should give proper reference to what is currently on the page. What we know so far is that using ne is misleading and that Jean Cauvin probably never used John Calvin as his name. The title of the piece will remain John Calvin, but there is no consensus for the present first line, and it is misleading.Breschard (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Democracy

The Texas State Board of Education just ruled along party lines, 10 Republicans vs. 5 Democrats, to remove Thomas Jefferson from the curriculum concerning influential thinkers during the Age of Enlightment (post 1750) and replace him with John Calvin as a formative Age of Enlightenment philosopher. This is among 300 other amendments that infuse a certain political agenda into the state's school curriculum. The unsubstantiated argument that John Calvin somehow influenced the rise of Capitalism (an economic theory) and Democracy (a political theory) or the various Revolutions of 1750 to 1848 (which is the result of the thinkers of the Age of Enlightenment) is a pretext to further the political agenda of arguing that America was founded as a Christian nation. These political zealouts attempt to undermine the influence of Deists in American history, such as Thomas Jefferson, and instead are attempting to rewrite the role that Religious Reformers from two centuries earlier played. Texas has also included Thomas Aquinas as an "Age of Enlightenment" Philospher. He is a Catholic Theologian who lived almost 300 years before the New World was even discovered, and about 500 years before the Age of Enlightenment occurred. The inclusion of this statement that somehow Calvin contributed to Democracy, Capitalism, or Individual Liberty is a politically motivated statement. John Calvin was no more influential upon Capitalism than was Martin Luther or John Knox, other Protestant Reformation leaders. He was first and foremost a Religious scholar. Wikipedia is serving the interests of Neoconservatives who seek to rewrite the American history to justify it as a decisively Christian nation, and these same people seek to rewrite the role of Protestant Reformers as the framers of the future United States. I bring up this issue because it highlights WHY statements such as this one are so dangerous, and so misleading. John Calvin has replaced Thomas Jefferson in the Texas Public Education System as an Influential Age of Enlightenment thinker. Concepts of Democracy, Capitalism, and Individual Liberty in the political context were not truly seeded and harvested on a large scale in Europe or America until closer to the 1700s. The Age of Enlightenment has nothing to do with John Calvin. John Calvin preached about Predestination and the selection of those who God had foreordained as saved. That is no way consistent with concepts of Capitalism or Democracy, let alone individual liberty. This statement should be removed due to the political motivation of some to include it and to insinuate the role of John Calvin in framing the concepts of the Revolutions of 1776 to 1848. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.118.61.2 (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The claim the Calvin is somehow responsible for democracy is not substantiated. There was some democracy in ancient Athens, before Calvin's time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.167.45 (talk) 10:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hall, David W. (2005), Genevan Reformation and the American Founding, Lexington Books, ISBN 9780739111062. --86.151.48.145 (talk) 10:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The America founded was founded on African slaves and sequestered Indian land for a long time.

Also, white women were dis-enfranchised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.167.45 (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The article makes a specific claim at the end: "Political historians have recognised his contributions to the development of representative democracy in general and the American system of government in particular; the doctrine of sin and human fallibility, for instance, lent support to a division of authority in a system of checks and balances, and Calvin's ideas on Christian liberty contributed to the growth of religious freedom and the openness of society." - This is sourced to page ix-xiii of the Hall book above. Awadewit (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

IP: The article is not saying that Calvin is responsible for democracy, rather that his work was an influence on the idea of representative democracy and the US system. This is well-referenced, and I don't see any problem with the content.

The system of checks and balances originated with the Roman Republic, and it was to the Roman Republic and other classical examples, not to Calvin, that the Federalists referred when arguing for ratification of the Constitution. Hall's thesis that Calvin, who demanded and received the execution of Michael Servetus and the suppression of heterodox worship in Geneva, was the source of religious liberty in the United States has no support outside Hall's thesis, at least so far as the article now shows. Pirate Dan (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Date Calvin broke with the Catholic church

The statement that Calvin broke with the Catholic church sometime in the 1520s sounds odd in view of the fact that he was only 10 when the 1520s started. Other sites give 1528 to 1533, and according to http://www.tlogical.net/biocalvin.htm, his 1532 commentary on Seneca's De Clementia shows that he was then still a humanist within the Catholic church. It gives 1533 as the date of the break.Dudley Miles (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't "he suddenly broke from the Roman Catholic Church around 1530." be preferable in terms of accurary and style? Greenshed (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Earlier version

I put the article back to the early morning version during the TFA. I did notice one valid criticism and that is that Hall is a pastor. This does weaken the weighting of the source (I was always uncomfortable about using this source anyway), so I will reduce this text accordingly. --RelHistBuff (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed Hall's particular thesis, but retained the part where he discussed the support from political historians. --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the vandals were a little tired after the previous day. Not much action here. :) Awadewit (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

TFA hit count

38.6 thousand hits while on the main page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Castellio vs. Calvin

Readers might find Stefen Zweig's book on Castellio's criticism of Calvin interesting, "The Right to Heresy" [1]. In general, I am surprised by how sanitized this article is now. There is a lot of learned criticism of Calvin, by A.C. Grayling, by Jacob Bronowski. Why are those POV's completely absent? DonPMitchell (talk) 04:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

There are certainly a lot of criticisms of Calvin made by various persons throughout history especially in relation to the Servetus affair. For example, Voltaire's criticism concerning Calvin and Servetus is mentioned in the Legacy section. Castellio's criticism concerning tolerance is mentioned in the Theology section. So it is not correct to say that this article is sanitized. The question is how much weight to place in the article on criticisms. At this stage, the two sections show a balance between the praises and criticisms for a largely biographical article. Any more details might merit a Controversies regarding John Calvin article. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sanitized was not a good choice of words. I've seen this article evolve over the years, and it definitely has a more pro-calvin POV now than it has at some points in the past. Servetus was only one of many people tortured or executed for opposing Calvin. Bernard Cottret's biography of Calvin mentions 38 individuals who were executed for various offenses such as being accused of sorcery or publishing papers criticizing Calvin [2]. This is a lower bound of course, just the number of particular people mentioned by this biographer.

In Jacob Bronowski's _The Western Intellectual Tradition_, he writes, "In all essentials, Calvin's state was a theocratic dictatorship", and he goes on to discuss Calvin's opposition to science which was even stronger than the Catholic Church's stance at that time. Bronowski points out that ironically, while Calvin was absolutely opposed to tolerance or freedom of religious thought, the minority status of later calvinists lead the movement in later generations to advocate religious freedom and even democracy.

The British philosopher A.C. Grayling writes extensively about Calvin in his book _Toward the Light of Liberty_. In his view, religious freedom was one of the first milestones toward modern ideas of democracy and freedom. Grayling portrays Calvin as an important opponent of political liberty and religious freedom. I think, given that there are important scholars who have such a negative view of Calvin, that there should be a stronger indiction of that opposing POV in the article. DonPMitchell (talk) 03:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I am no fan of Calvin myself, but I believe it would be a major mistake to present Bronowski's view of Calvinist Geneva as "theocratic" as a scholarly consensus. Alister McGrath's The Life of John Calvin and many other sources make it very clear that the secular authorities, not the churchmen, were firmly in the saddle in Geneva throughout Calvin's lifetime. Thus, while it would be perfectly accurate to say that Geneva was extremely religiously oppressive, it would be a mistake to call it a theocracy. And "oligarchy" would be far more accurate than "dictatorship"; Geneva was run by a council, not by one man.

I am all in favor of including any properly sourced mention of any other executions besides Servetus' that Calvin was involved in. But note that merely because someone was executed in Geneva does not mean Calvin had a hand in it; he had no power to pass judgment or sentence on anyone (except as a member of the Consistory, whose harshest available punishment was excommunication). Servetus is emphasized because Calvin's role in his death was so clear and heinous: he originally denounced Servetus to the authorities, served as principal witness against him, and had promised to do his best to have him executed. Based on the Cottret review you linked to, all that can be said about the other executions is that Calvin preached approvingly about them, and spoke generally in favor of hunting down and killing "sorcerors." Pirate Dan (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

Hello all,

I created a new infobox for Christian theologians. Since infoboxes look better on the right, I put a left-facing image in it's place, much to the consternation, it seems of a user named User:RelHistBuff. But I think the new infobox could be useful.

TuckerResearch (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes are not required and only repeat information that exists in the lead section. --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

They aren't required, but they aren't not required. If this image is the best, in your humble opinion, move the infobox to the left side. TuckerResearch (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

First, Tucker, please don't attack other editors as you did in your edit summary here. See Wikipedia's policy against personal attacks. I have to say I agree with RelHistBuff, that this infobox adds nothing to the article. Unlike infoboxes on articles of chemical elements, this box replicates basic factual information already in the lead and greatly simplifies a complex person. The "Notable ideas", "Main interests", "Influences", and "Influenced" sections are particularly egregious, as these are matters of scholarly dispute, not non-controversial facts. Awadewit (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

First, "your arrogancy" is hardly an attack. Settle down. I could say that your note above is your failure to assume good faith on my part. I added an infobox in good faith and you "attacked" by describing it as "egregious." Then, just like you, I could point you to a tough-sounding policy. See Wikipedia's policy on assuming good faith. See.

Second. You could say all infoboxes "add nothing to the article." They're not supposed to. They are supposed to be quick references. That's why they're called "Infoboxes" and not "articles." I could say that the infobox on chemical elements, to utilize your example, "merely replicates basic factual information already in the lead and greatly simplifies a complex" chemical element. I assume, though, that you're not going to remove Presidential infoboxes or Prime Minister infoboxes using this same criterion. Are you? If so, start removing all infoboxes, I suggest starting with Barak Obama and Tony Blair. Good luck. It seems, from User:RelHistBuff's comment above, and, yours, that you are dead set against infoboxes just because y'all don't like infoboxes. Tough. Infoboxes are here to stay, and I thought it would be good to have one for Christian theologians.

Third. I fail to see how the infoboxes sections are particularly "egregious." Calvin influenced Beza. Duh. Sounds to me like a "non-controversial fact" not a "matters of scholarly dispute." But, again, change what's in the infobox, don't just torpedo the infobox because you hate infoboxes.

TuckerResearch (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"Your arrogancy" IS indeed a personal attack and is precisely the kind of behavior we don't need on Wikipedia. Attacking a person is what you did - I simply attacked your work, which is perfectly permissible. Moreover, I don't think you understand my comparison with chemical elements. The infoboxes in chemical element articles don't simply replicate facts already in the article - they also contain information that is not in the article. Moreover, chemical elements can easily be measured and assigned categories, whereas people cannot. The only thing all people have in common is that they are born and they die (and dates for those moments are not available for every person, either). Also, you seem to misunderstand my comment about the "Influences", etc. sections. The point is that one cannot and should not simply make a haphazard list like this, as it will become nonsensical. Different scholars have argued that Calvin influenced different theologians, for example, but if we included each person each scholar has made an argument for, the list won't be helpful, because it will be illogical. Moreover, that is precisely the kind of information that is debated (I have seen edit wars over that field in philosopher infoboxes). Finally, infoboxes create an enormous amount of code at the top of the article that new users are put off by. In the usability study, many new editors simply stopped editing when they saw all of that code. I am not convinced that this infobox provides enough of a benefit to the reader to outweigh these problems. I sit here ready to be convinced, however. Awadewit (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Then why have you not removed all infoboxes from all biographical pages? I will not try to convince you, because you are dead set against infoboxes, as your response shows. If, indeed, the "egregious" infobox is substandard, and you think it can be improved, go to Template:Infobox Christian theologian and improve it. But, I doubt you will. As to editors being "put off" by code, readers have asked, on this very talk page, why Calvin lacks an infobox. I, in good faith, tried to give the people what they want. Again, if you so believe that infoboxes put people in arbitrary categories, I again implore you to go on an infobox-removing frenzy. Similar "categories" are on poets pages, musicians pages, politicians pages, etc.; I am not convinced that consensus (what Wikipedia is about) could not be achieved a piddling matter like Calvin's influences (Augustine) and whom he influenced (Beza), etc.

TuckerResearch (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No one is advocating a crusade against all infoboxes. Simply said: infoboxes are optional. There may be cases where an infobox would be useful. Perhaps they might be used to provide a common "look" for a series of tightly-related articles on very specific subjects (as Awadewit mentioned, chemical elements). But "Christian theologian" is a very loose category covering persons from various eras, faiths, doctrinal specialisation, etc. As Awadewit said, the only thing they have in common is that they lived and died. Concerning your example, I would disagree that the five points are specifically his ideas. Also just mentioning Beza is too simplistic. He influenced thousands of arguably more influential people through the centuries. --RelHistBuff (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes are "designed to present summary information about an article's subject." (See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes)). Yes, many infoboxes merely repeat information in the article, but this is what they are meant to do. They are quick summaries, an "article at-a-glance" as it were. I think an infobox for Christian theologians would be helpful, just as someone thought an infobox for philosophers, all philosophers, would be helpful. Someone on this very talk page above asked for an infobox, it isn't just me. Still, you say you believe that "'Christian theologian' is a very loose category covering persons from various eras, faiths, doctrinal specialisation, etc." Again, the very similar box for philosophers, which nobody argues against like you two, does just this. "The only thing they have in common is that they lived and died." This is not a valid argument, in my opinion. Again, the philosopher infobox is used for people as un-similar as Socrates and Jean-Paul Sartre! Hardly a "series of tightly-related articles on very specific subjects," as you say. In fact, I could argue that Christian theologians have more in common than any two philosophers. "Concerning your example, I would disagree that the five points are specifically his ideas." True, he never distilled his ideas as such, that occurred at Dordrecht. But you could instead change it to predestination or ecclesiology or whatever you like. But you don't. "Also just mentioning Beza is too simplistic." Okay, then add a few others. This is an example infobox. Instead of torpedoing the idea, try improving it. "He influenced thousands of arguably more influential people through the centuries." I suppose. If you want to take "influenced" to mean anything, then, you could put your name there and my name there and James White's name there. Stretch it further, he influenced Woodrow Wilson. But here you are being hyper-literal because you are hyper-critical of, and dead-set against, infoboxes. You know as well as I that those in the "influenced" category are supposed to be direct or significant influences. Thus for Jacobus Arminius, he directly influenced Simon Episcopius and he significantly influenced John Wesley. That's fairly simple. Wikipedians come to a consensus on things such as this dozens of times a day. But for you to say it is impossible to add a few names to a theologian infobox because "he influenced thousands" and it is, in effect, too hard for you to do, this is because you hate the idea of the infobox. To take my two examples from above. For Socrates, under influences, we have: "Western philosophy, most specifically; Plato, Aristotle, Aristippus, Antisthenes." Simple enough. For Calvin we could have something similar: "Calvinists, Theodore Beza, etc. etc." Simple enough. Under Jean-Paul Sartre there are several influences and influenced by people. Infoboxes are here to stay on Wikipedia, and you can try to keep one off of Clavin's page forever, I suppose, but to say the current proposed infobox is "a very loose category" or the idea of Beza as influenced is "too simplistic" are, in my opinion, specious arguments put forward by you two just reflecting your hatred (for some reason) of infoboxes, and your dedication to Calvin's page (making you try to keep it just as you like it). And again, I ask of you, if indeed you believe that infoboxes are fine, but that my proposed infobox is just "egregious" and "loose," I beg you to go to Template:Infobox Christian theologian and improve it. But, again, I doubt you will. And, if you honestly believe that infoboxes for people as radically different as Socrates and Sartre or Robert Walpole and Harold Wilson are arbitrarily putting people into "loose categor[ies] covering persons from various eras..." when their only commonality "is that they lived and died," then, if these are indeed your beliefs, you are indeed "advocating a crusade against all infoboxes." Start removing them all. But, again, I doubt you will.

With this post, I resign commenting again on this page on this subject, as I have hit an impenetrable wall named RelHistBuff and Awadewit. And I don't want you reporting me for "attacking" you or being "un-Wikipedian" in some way. You win.

TuckerResearch (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed infobox

Proposed "egregious" infobox by TuckerResearch†:

† N.B. Changed to the new proposed infobox by şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:. TuckerResearch (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

What do fellow Wikipedians think? TuckerResearch (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

PS - I added the offending "egregious" infobox to Jacob Arminius after I first added it to Calvin's page, without it being attacked. TuckerResearch (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I watch this page, so naturally I would weigh in on such a change at this article. Awadewit (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Image redux

There are reasons why the lead image is left justified (see section above). Other examples using this reasoning include Joseph Priestley. --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a dunce, I understand why images are put on the left side. However, there is no absolute need for a comparable left-facing image to be used, or put into the infobox. If you think the right-facing image is the "most contemporary" or "best likeness," so be it. But that is no reason to poo-poo the idea of a Christian theologian infobox. TuckerResearch (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Infobox 2

Concerning the newly proposed infobox, please see the section above. The Person Infobox is very general and categorizing Calvin as a Person does not really add anything. The image, however, is interesting and it could be an alternative to the current image. I have seen the woodcut version. My preference is still toward the first image because it graces the cover of Cottret (in both the French original and the English translation). But the new image is also fine. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I am a bit concerned that the alternative image was touched up using Photoshop, probably from the Bridgman image. If the painting was professionally restored, that's one thing, but changing the image strikes me as an amateur's attempt that might interfere with the artist's intent. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Calvin and antisemitism

While the text of the new subsection is fine, there is a problem with the source. Here is a link to a description of the publisher and it is clear the work is self-published. According to our policy on self-published sources, this is not normally an acceptable reliable source unless it was "produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". It is not clear this is the case with Bob Fischer. Can this be improved? I tried looking through other sources including Cottret and I found no reference to this. --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Point. To the library for me. The quotation is all over the Web, but it really should be possible to reference a print source for this, and I will try to find one. Pirate Dan (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I also saw it on many websites, but as the quote was simply copied without attribution, this looks like the case of a inflammatory quote going "viral". All my sources indicate that Calvin was accused to be the other way, i.e. he was overly philosemitic. He was not tolerant in the modern sense, but he strongly defended the Jews against the antisemitism of the day. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

There is attribution, but it all seems to go back to Gerhard Falk's The Jew in Christian Theology from 1992. Falk isn't self-published; McFarland published his book, and is a reputable publisher. Still, I think I had better look at Falk himself, as my library's references don't mention this quote or Calvin's Ad Quaelstiones tract at all, and the interpolation of [the Jews] after "Their" in the quote is a bit suspicious. I'm ordering the book by loan tomorrow, and in the meantime, I'll temporarily take down my edit. Pirate Dan (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with Falk is that he is a professor of sociology and he writes on a number of topics outside of his domain. However, I think the quote is probably accurate. What is needed are solid sources from scholars that are experts on the topic. I think I found some pretty good leads, but I will need to go to the library to download some papers from the journal websites. In the meantime, I have added some subsection titles in preparation for the additional text. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I have put some text on the new subsection. I also have access to some more sources so I will likely expand/adjust it later. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think what you have there is a good start. I'm still waiting on Falk to arrive, but based on the references I have, I think you're quite right that Calvin's attitude toward the biblical Jews was far more benign than his feelings about contemporary Jews.

However, assuming that Calvin's quotation that contemporary Jews should die in misery unpitied by anyone proves accurate, and that context doesn't change its meaning, then I think that the phrases "highly polemical" and "using the negative stereotypes" do not convey the depths of Calvin's animosity toward contemporary, unconverted Jews, at least not nearly as well as the actual unexpurgated quotation would. I thus would like to hold open the possibility of restoring the quotation to the article if it proves accurate, although fairness and NPOV may require that we balance it with a representative quotation of his thought about biblical Jews. Pirate Dan (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that NPOV means "balance". Putting one quote for one side and one for the other just leads to tit-for-tat battles that I've seen in other articles. If you insist on putting a quote then let's put in one negative quote. No "balance" is needed; the whole point is to show Calvin's view against contemporary Jews. However, I would insist that it comes from a solid secondary source from a journal article or book of a historical expert of the period. I would not agree that Falk is such an expert. Several sources I have do have samples of Calvin's negative quotes. If you have a sample quote from a solid source, then go ahead and add it with the citation. If not, then I will do so. Would that be ok? --RelHistBuff (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I now have Falk. The quotation appears on page 84. In context, Calvin is responding to a hypothetical Jew's objections to Christianity. The Jew asks, "If we are in exile because of our attitude toward Jesus, what has become of the verse, 'Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do?' All of these questions were answered by Calvin with this judgment: 'Their [the Jews'] rotten and unbending stiffneckedness deserves that they be oppressed unendingly and without measure or end and that they die in their misery without the pity of anyone.'" It is thus apparent that Calvin's quote was intended to justify the exiled and oppressed position that Jews occupied in Christian society of the time. The assertion is properly cited, to Rudolf Pfisterer, Im Schatten des Kreuzes, Hamburg: Evangelischer Verlag, 1966, p. 72. I see no defect in scholarly method, no assumption of expertise that Falk lacks, and no violation of WP:RS, at least in this portion of the book.

Nevertheless, if you have quotes and sources that reflect Calvin's thought about Jews' position in society better than this one, I would like to see. Pirate Dan (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that Falk is quoting someone else's work, Rudolf Pfisterer. Since he is a sociologist and not a historian, he is in effect a reporter (a tertiary source). It would be better to cite a historian analysing primary sources. I added a quote that clearly indicates Calvin's view of contemporary Jews and is supposedly the only statement in which he reveals that he actually encountered Jews. It comes from Selderhuis' compendium from a historian who believes that Calvin was truly anti-semitic. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment I am cancelling the 'editsemiprotected' above, for now, because a) the article has been nominated (by the requestor) for review, Wikipedia:Featured article review#John Calvin, and b) it would appear be be a content query up for discussion, not a simple request to 'change X to y' (with references). Please reinstate the request if a consensus to change is apparent, and references provided - although I expect other contributors will express opinions/perform edits, per the review. See below request details; please add comments for consensus. Chzz ► 21:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The Texas State Board of Education just ruled along party lines, 10 Republicans vs. 5 Democrats, to remove Thomas Jefferson from the curriculum concerning influential thinkers during the Age of Enlightment (post 1750) and replace him with John Calvin as a formative Age of Enlightenment philosopher. This is among 300 other amendments that infuse a certain political agenda into the state's school curriculum. The unsubstantiated argument that John Calvin somehow influenced the rise of Capitalism (an economic theory) and Democracy (a political theory) or the various Revolutions of 1750 to 1848 (which is the result of the thinkers of the Age of Enlightenment) is a pretext to further the political agenda of arguing that America was founded as a Christian nation. These political zealouts attempt to undermine the influence of Deists in American history, such as Thomas Jefferson, and instead are attempting to rewrite the role that Religious Reformers from two centuries earlier played. Texas has also included Thomas Aquinas as an "Age of Enlightenment" Philospher. He is a Catholic Theologian who lived almost 300 years before the New World was even discovered, and about 500 years before the Age of Enlightenment occurred. The inclusion of this statement that somehow Calvin contributed to Democracy, Capitalism, or Individual Liberty is a politically motivated statement. John Calvin was no more influential upon Capitalism than was Martin Luther or John Knox, other Protestant Reformation leaders. He was first and foremost a Religious scholar. Wikipedia is serving the interests of Neoconservatives who seek to rewrite the American history to justify it as a decisively Christian nation, and these same people seek to rewrite the role of Protestant Reformers as the framers of the future United States. I bring up this issue because it highlights WHY statements such as this one are so dangerous, and so misleading. John Calvin has replaced Thomas Jefferson in the Texas Public Education System as an Influential Age of Enlightenment thinker. Concepts of Democracy, Capitalism, and Individual Liberty in the political context were not truly seeded and harvested on a large scale in Europe or America until closer to the 1700s. The Age of Enlightenment has nothing to do with John Calvin. John Calvin preached about Predestination and the selection of those who God had foreordained as saved. That is no way consistent with concepts of Capitalism or Democracy, let alone individual liberty. This statement should be removed due to the political motivation of some to include it and to insinuate the role of John Calvin in framing the concepts of the Revolutions of 1776 to 1848. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oghmatist (talk • contribs) 17:25, 15 March 2010

John Calvin did not influence Capitalism, Democracy or Individualism

Comment I am cancelling the 'editsemiprotected' above, for now, because a) the article has been nominated (by the requestor) for review, Wikipedia:Featured article review#John Calvin, and b) it would appear be be a content query up for discussion, not a simple request to 'change X to y' (with references). Please reinstate the request if a consensus to change is apparent, and references provided - although I expect other contributors will express opinions/perform edits, per the review. See below request details; please add comments for consensus. Chzz ► 21:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

CommentPlease remove "and some political historians have argued that his ideas have contributed to the rise of capitalism, individualism, and representative democracy in the West." and simple replace it with a period. As described in the talk section above for Democracy, this section is misleadind and was inserted to facilitate an overt political agenda that would reposit Protestant Reformation thinkers as the framers of the Enlightenment principles. This has been demonstrated in Texas, where the State board of education has removed Thomas Jefferson and replaced him with John Calvin as a primary influential thinker of the Age of Enlightenment. Wikipedia's inclusion of this kind of statement only serves to corroborate this unsubstantiated and factually incorrect claim. Wikipedia must adhere to the highest standards of accuracy. To allow posters to claim that John Calvin contributed to Democracy, Capitalim, or Individual Liberty without detailed sources and allowance for the counterpoint that he was NOT a proponent of such ideas is to allow academic and intellectual dishonesty. It also plays into a current political agenda to rewrite American and European history -by insinuating that Protestant Reformationists were the guiders of the Age of Enlightenment (and by extension, the American and French Revolutions) instead of the actual people, such as Thomas Jefferson.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Oghmatist17:33, 15 March 2010 (talk • contribs)

There are clear citations to some heavy-hitting historians that Calvin contributed to the rise of capitalism and democracy at the end of the article. See footnotes 94 and 96, citing to Max Weber and George Bancroft. Both scholars' works precede the Texas Board of Education's antics by over a hundred years. Those statements should not be changed without superior countervailing evidence.

The lede's statement that Calvin contributed to the rise of individualism does appear to be unsupported, though. Note 95 to John Stuart Mill says that Calvin harmed the development of the individual. And Calvin is of course well known for holding that individual merit contributes nothing to salvation. I'd be OK with changing that part. Pirate Dan (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed "individualism". I believe that was leftover text that should have been removed when I took out the text sourced to David Hall (see Talk:John Calvin#Earlier version) --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment Please include a link to this site: https://www.dordt.edu/publications/pro_rege/crcpi/115756.pdf which links to this article: 'Did John Calvin teach that “Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God”? Areview of David W. Hall, The Genevan Reformation and the American Founding.' (Lanham: Lexington, 2003). Xiv, 484 pages. Reviewed by Dr. Paul Otto, Associate Professor of History, George Fox University.

Regarding Calvin's impact on "representative democracy" I want to address your wording above. You state, "Some political historians, such as George Bancroft, have recognised his contributions to the development of representative democracy in general and the American system of government in particular." and then you cite to Footnote 96, which is Hall 2005, p. ix; see also George Bancroft (1855), Literary and Historical Miscellanies, p. 406.

My first issue is that you attibute this belief to George Bancroft, but your cite is to Hall. So, it is important to allow the article I added above so that people can read a critique of Hall's thesis. Referencing this in the text immediately in the next sentence would also be necessary.

In pages 293-295 of The Theology of John Calvin, by Charles Partee, he makes a completely DIFFERENT case for how Calvin impacted representative democracy, and he uses some reference to Bancroft as well as several primary sources from the 16th century. See this link for a scanned image of these pages: http://books.google.com/books?id=O9dwNotog3gC&pg=PA293&lpg=PA293&dq=George+Bancroft+(1855),+Literary+and+Historical+Miscellanies+John+Calvin&source=bl&ots=hdN752KgL7&sig=mq49fw_sm2Lbx8ux-X5B6i4osiM&hl=en&ei=Gb-fS5CNEY-Qtgevk-z7DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=George%20Bancroft%20(1855)%2C%20Literary%20and%20Historical%20Miscellanies%20John%20Calvin&f=false

Calvin is discussing the role of politicians as "ministers of God." and he states that "those who rule are raised to that honor not by chance but by Providence." Those are Calvin's own words, as quoted by Partee. So, to use Hall as your primary quote, then to insert a reference to Bancroft on one page of his book, while several other historians and theologies will contradindicate your point seems a bit misleading. If you are going to cite Bancroft, then add this part as well, and revise your should also revise the introductory text as well that makes this claim.

I would also like to see more footnote cites in that introductory sentence that makes the claim that Calvin impacted Capitalism and Representative Democracy.

I will accept the Max Weber analysis of Capitalism as it pertains to the Calvinist work ethic. I just would like to see a reference that HONORS Weber's own words on the subject - that Calvinism was only ONE OF MANY influences in the rise of Capitalism. This article appears to credit Calvin more than Weber himself did. So, at least stay true to Weber's own analysis if you are going to quote him. Don't overstate the Weber attribution.

As far as Calvin's impact on Representative Democracy - I think the introductory topic sentence (at the top of the article) is too loosely worded, has no citations, and omits significant contrary analysis by other theologians and historians, such as Charles Partee. With the Legacy section discussing Representative Democracy, although there is a single citation (#96), in this instance, I think that you should at least include the analysis done by Charles Partee in his book, The Theology of John Calvin. I recommend that you make a reference in the text (in the intro and in the legacy section) to Partee's analysis on pp.293-295 which also cites the same book that you do in footnote 96, and make sure that you link to Dr. Paul Otto's critique of the Hall theory as well (as I provided both links above). This way, you can allow the reader to see that this issue is not cut and dried, and that others disagreed on the matter of Calvin's theories of representative democracy.

"The American System of Government in particular" is another statement you make that I am not sure is sufficiently backed up by the sources you cite. This statement implies that Calvin had a specific, particular impact on the American revolution, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitutional process, etc. I am not sure how "particular" his impact would have been. I already detailed above, and below, why I am not convinced (nor are other historians) that Calvin had an impact on representative democracy in general. How much less convinced, therefore, would I be (and they) that he had a PARTICULAR impact on the American system of government. I believe this is a stretch designed for other purposes, and cannot be seriously included in this article. I see too much effort to politicize the role of Calvin into modern American issues. The American system of government was more directly influenced by its own contemporaries, founding fathers, and political realities of the time. The role that Calvin played may be trumped up by a single historian such as Hall, but I am not sure even Hall can make this kind of claim very accurately. I believe any such discussion of Calvin's impact upon the American System of Government, specifically, would require its own sub-article, with significantly more room for quotes, cites, and discussion. More than one historian would need to be referenced, and a detailed analysis of his theology (his hallmark to history) be incorporated in that specific discussion. Otherwise, it serves only as a throw-away concept here, designed to impart a certain credibility to a fringe viewpoint, embedded in an otherwise very well written and peer-reviewed article about John Calvin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oghmatist (talk • contribs) 18:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

One more point - in Charles Partee's book, he cites to J.W. Allen, "A History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century," (London:Methuen and Co., 1928) p. 107 and says "France and Scotland both repudiated Calvin's doctrine of submission to established rulers." He goes on to state that it was John Knox who had a greater impact on convincing Calvinists to reject this idea. Allen states that Calvin himself had less to do this with, and that his followers went a different way under the Knox view of political thought. I think this is an important distinction in historical scholarship -- what the followers of a thought leader do is not always indicative of what that leader stood for. More credit can be given to Knox, perhaps (and this is not the forum to debate his role, per se) on the idea of representative democracy than on Calvin, who was not so clearly a supporter of such.

Thank you. I would make these changes myself, but I am still unable to make edits since the text is still semi-protected. Oghmatist (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

When the article was developed, I considered it mainly as a biographical article which included a short description of his theology because, well, he was a theologian. The article did not need much more than that. In my view, Calvin's supposed impact on modern society and the reverse case which are modern opinions and assessments of Calvin are not really solid facts, but simply opinions that evolve and change with the times. Unfortunately during the FAC process, another editor added text concerning Calvin's impact on political history (albeit prompted by the request of a reviewer). I was not happy about this as I thought this might lead to edit disagreements. What you now propose and added to the article has confirmed my fears. It is likely that someone else will come and add his or her favourite scholar's opinion. I am going to go back to the original text (20 January 2009) that I had before the FAC which did not include these modern "opinions". The basis for this action in our policy is WP:UNDUE. We would be giving a platform to any scholar who has an opinion on Calvin. It is best to stick to straight facts. --RelHistBuff (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

THANK YOU. I MUCH PREFER YOUR REVISED ARTICLE. I think that Calvin should be studied as a Religious figure, not as some political figure that is hijacked by modern political influences to pigeonhole their ideology into his life. This is occuring right now, and my efforts to include a balanced perspective were in response to exactly what happened to the Cavlin article in the first place - with people trying to make him the "Father of Democracy, Capitalism, and America" with an eye towards claiming America as a "Christian Nation" from its inception. Your removal of all those things is truly preferred. Calvin had no knowledge of a United States, the Constitution, the War of Revolution, the Founding Fathers, or any other number of events that would transpire 200 years after his death. Oghmatist (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

Hello. At the end of the "Legacy" section after Reference 92, I believe it would be helpful to add "Today, Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan is named after John Calvin as a testament to his life and legacy."

(The link for Calvin College is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Calvin_College&oldid=351088853.) Stevevisser (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the suggestion, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 00:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Quiet, courteous Jean Cauvin, thee thine acolytes do defend.

Subtly POV modifiers such as "quietly" and "courteously" proliferate in this article. -- JALatimer (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read the response to Sadolet, or his addresses to Bullinger and Melanchthon, so I don't know how accurate the word "courteous" is for them. But the use of the word "courteous" is not necessarily a POV of Calvin's supporters. Calvin was capable of using tremendous vitriol against his opponents - "scoffer" and "barking dog" are some of his favorite epithets - so if it says that his writings about Sadolet or Melanchthon were "courteous," it's an important distinction from the Institutes and some of his other works. Pirate Dan (talk) 15:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a sober assessment and comparison Calvin's tone in his various works is necessarily POV. What concerns me is that the Calvin of scoffers and barking dogs seems absent from this article; instead, the overall impression one gets of Calvin from the article is something like even-tempered humility. Considering the religious values of Christianity ("Blessed are the meek," etc.), and the obvious concern of partisans on both sides of the Catholic-Protestant divide to define their heroes as the embodiment of those values, the proliferation, as I said, of positive qualifiers, and the seeming absence of negative ones, in the article looks suspiciously hagiographical. Due to the necessary subjectivity involved in assessing an historical personage's tone and/or demeanor, caution must be exercised. I suspect whoever put in "quietly" and and "courteously" in the first place did so with good intent; perhaps some of the text or at least some of these modifiers were copied from a Protestant source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JALatimer (talk • contribs) 00:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

On the letter to Sadolet, the source is Cottret, p. 154, as shown in the cite. Cottret wrote, "He [Calvin] courteously greeted the cardinal, whose knowledge he praised, expressing the 'great admiration and esteem' of his contemporaries. Hyperbolical and flattering, the tone is still that of Renaissance humanism, sometimes carried to the point of sycophancy." Cottret is the founding chairman of the Department of Humanities, Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines and wrote several books on European religious and political history. --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Just because a supposed expert said it doesn't make it true, and certainly doesn't make it NPOV. You may include 'courteous' if you like, but then I will insist on including 'sycophantic' as well. "Cottret is the founding chairman of the Department of Humanities, Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines and wrote several books on European religious and political history" -- good for him. -- J A Latimer 19:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

"Verifiability, not truth" is the core of WP:V. JALatimer, Wikipedia strives to present a summary of scholarly views in its FAs. If you feel that the article fails to do this, please explain how, using the sources. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Please reread my comment and my edit summary. The point I'm trying to make is that "courteous" is not presented as being the analysis of a scholar, namely Cottret (verifiability), but is simply stated, without quotation marks, as fact (truth). Moreover, "courteous" is selectively used while other parts of the analysis (sycophancy) are ignored. That's why I made the threat (in jest), above. Would you suggest we call Calvin a sycophant because Cottret did? I don't think so. So why is "courteous" in and "sycophantic" out? Neither is really NPOV. Suggestion: include the scholarly opinion, but do it as a quote so that its opinion status (POV) is clear. -- J A Latimer 22:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 70.106.124.73, 10 June 2010

External link

Works of John Calvin in Post-Reformation Digital Library

70.106.124.73 (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Done CTJF83 pride 17:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

infobox again

infobox crowds lead section and is optional (see talk page), in any case function largely overlaps with Calvinism template in See also section

You do not seem to know what the function of an infobox is. It allows people to quickly find certain key imfomation by placing it is a predicable place in a predicable way. This is not the purpose of the template:Calvinism which only provides links-- nor is that template found in the predicable place. The infobox does not "crowd" the lead section-- surely no more than than the image already there does, and serves more purpose. ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 19:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

But what is the "key" information? To decide what pieces of info should be placed in the infobox is subjective. Also, the information is not necessarily sourced. An infobox may be fine for chemical elements, elementary particles, etc., but it makes no sense to "box" in a person's life and accomplishments. Finally, the most predictable place for key info is the lead section which is supposed to be a summary of the article. --RelHistBuff (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Aside from other troubles with your reasoning, your statements are not even about this article or its subject. If you want to change the Wikipedia guidelines and policies for people infoboxes, you should take that up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography or Template talk:Infobox person or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (infoboxes). To ignore the policy you don't like, only because you could get away with it, is just disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Please stop; thanks. ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 01:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The MOS on infoboxes are guidelines, not policy. Hence, infoboxes are optional. I am not trying to simply illustrate a point. There are reasons why infoboxes may be desired and there are reasons why they may be avoided. I gave my reasons above. We are simply disagreeing; there is no disruption on my part. For more on this subject, please see Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes are not required anywhere on Wikipedia. They are often useful on articles where they are not simply repetitious, but on biographical articles like this, they are not helpful. The consensus on this article has long been not to include an infobox. Awadewit (talk) 06:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

"Infoboxes are not required anywhere on Wikipedia." Infoboxes are not NOT required either. This is not a point.
"They are often useful on articles where they are not simply repetitious..." Infoboxes are by their very nature repetitious, and this has not stopped infoboxes from being placed on many biographical articles.
"they are not helpful" This is opinion, not fact.
And the coup de grâce, "The consensus on this article has long been not to include an infobox." Wrong. This has been the "consensus" of (1) Awadewit and (2) RelHistBuff. Now it seems that MORE than two people would like to see an infobox for this article as can be ascertained from this talk page. For an infobox: (1) John, (2) şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ, and me (3) TuckerResearch. 3 for, 2 against. So, now what is the blessed consensus?

See all my previous wonderful arguments above. TuckerResearch (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean a vote. The reasons why an infobox is not desired for this article are given above (subjective selection of categories, unsourced material, unnecessary and misleading summary of a person's accomplishments). Just saying that they are not "not required" is not a justification to apply an infobox. --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean Awadewit and RelHistBuff say so. TuckerResearch (talk) 10:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus does mean the history of the people editing the article have agreed. RelHistBuff has done the bulk of the editing on this article. I have helped out here and there. When new editors come by, they have to present their arguments to change the state of affairs (especially at an FA). As of yet, there are no real arguments except "I want an infobox." Awadewit (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This is simply your opinion. In my opinion, as of yet, there are no real arguments except "I don't want an infobox." TuckerResearch (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:Consensus can change-- and is always open revaluation. It is also a very bad idea to treat any article as if any one person owns it.

I agree with TuckerResearch that the objections to an infobox has no real reasons or reasoning. It is reasoning (and the consensus expressed in Wikipedia policy guidelines) and "numbers" that measure and form consensus.

You have none of these three. ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 08:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. I have given my reasons against the infobox. So far I have seen no argument against them. --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I have given my reasons for the infobox. So far I have seen no argument against them. TuckerResearch (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe that infobox can help especially to understant Calvin's influence. I believe that we must make some guidelines abount infoboxes in artickles about Christian theologians (look this page Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Theology work group). There are many articles on Christian theologians and it would be very usefull if agree about some basic infobox. I dont insist that this article need infobox. It must say someone who knows Calvin much better than me.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 18:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

As we are all just repeating ourselves now and getting slightly heated, I suggest we return to this discussion in three weeks. Awadewit (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

(1) 4 to 2 for an infobox; and (2) "I suggest we return to this discussion in three weeks" is code for "hopefully these other characters will forget in three weeks and Awadewit and RelHistBuff can continue to keep an infobox off this page." I recognize that you two have very heartfelt, sincere, and good-faith reasons for not wanting an infobox on this page, but Wikipedia biographies have infoboxes for very heartfelt, sincere, and good-faith reasons. The average Wikipedian expects to see a short summary of the subject's life in an infobox, and we can all arrive at a good consensus as to the contents of said infobox. I suggest instead we ask an administrator for some form of arbitration. TuckerResearch (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

As we keep telling you, there is no requirement to have an infobox and all types of mediation strongly discourage editors from asking for help resolving disputes over something where there is no policy. No amount of mediation, etc. is going to help us - we have to work this out ourselves at some point. Besides, there are issues that are more difficult to resolve than this one - don't waste the time of admins and mediators with this. Awadewit (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

As we keep telling you, there are good reasons for improving this article with an infobox, but the force of our numbers and arguments and, dare I say, nascent consenus, is met by the intransigence of two editors who think that they own this article because they have made very fine and extensive edits to the article in the past. TuckerResearch (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the infobox would be an improvement. If you are worried about overcrowding, decrease the size of the lead picture to the standard size (or move it). --99of9 (talk) 09:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Arguments against an infobox

I tend to agree with the arguments found here: Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes - please look at the examples. I want to emphasize the following:

Infoboxes are optional, therefore any decision to include one should be based on a strong argument for the benefit to the reader. As of yet, no such argument has been presented on this talk page.

Infoboxes in biographical articles tend to repeat information already found in the article, therefore they are unnecessary.

Infoboxes in biographical articles often summarize information in a confusing fashion (for example, if they list the theological influences on a person, they list 5 theologians and give no sense of the importance of the five or to what area of thought they contributed).

Infoboxes are responsible for lots of code at the top of Wikipedia articles. This code scares away new users and they are less willing to edit (see the videos at Commons). Since the infobox provides repetitive (at best) information and confusing and misleading information (at worst), this is an unacceptable result.

Thanks for listening. Awadewit (talk) 01:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

These arguments have all been countered above (in sections Talk:John_Calvin#Infobox_2 and Talk:John_Calvin#infobox_again). I grow weary of repeating them.

"Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes" Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes does not apply here. If you think it does you should remove infoboxes from all biographical articles. Might I recommend you start removing the optional, repetitious, unnecessary, confusing, and code-heavy infoboxes from, say, all the United States Presidents. Start with Barack Obama. I dare you.
"Infoboxes are optional" This is manifestly true. Which means we can have an infobox.
"As of yet, no such argument [for the benefit to the reader] has been presented on this talk page." This is your opinion, not fact. In fact at least four users on this talk page feel an infobox would be a benefit to them, as opposed to two who don't think it would be a benefit. Infoboxes in biographical articles provide readers with useful summaries of the article. If you truly believe that infoboxes are not a benefit to readers, you should remove infoboxes from all biographical articles.
"Infoboxes in biographical articles tend to repeat information already found in the article, therefore they are unnecessary." Again, this is your personal opinion. The opinion on Wikipedia, the consensus, if you will, as evidenced by the fact that infoboxes appear on thousands of biographical pages. This includes articles by other Christian theologians, from St. Augustine of Hippo to Martin Luther to Jacob Arminius and on and on and on. Thus, your argument that they are unnecessary and repetitive hold no water. And, again, if you truly believe that infoboxes are not a benefit to readers, you should remove infoboxes from all biographical articles.
"Infoboxes in biographical articles often summarize information in a confusing fashion...." Again, this is merely your opinion, and is countered by the opinion of all users who like the infoboxes on so many other biographical articles. As to what goes in the infobox, if we had one on this page, we can easily come to a consensus on that. If you truly believe that infoboxes are not a benefit to readers, you should remove infoboxes from all biographical articles.
"Infoboxes are responsible for lots of code at the top of Wikipedia articles." This argument is just bunk. Every Wikipedia article has "scary" code on it. If you truly believe that infoboxes are not a benefit to readers, you should remove infoboxes from all biographical articles.

The arguments for an infobox are given above too: (1) Users expect one; (2) it neatly summarizes pertinent information in an article; (3) it presents a uniform appearance, since many articles have an infobox (including other theologians); (4) it eases navigation between other articles (e.g. "Who was that student of Calvin?" Open the Calvin page, see "Theodore Beza" in the infobox. "Oh yeah!" Click on Beza.)

I tire of countering your (Awadewit and RelHistBuff) obdurate arguments based on your well-intentioned feelings that this article is your baby.

The proposed infobox is hardly an eyesore or egregious, and we can work on it before we post it, feel free to make changes as you see fit:

Otherwise, if you truly believe that infoboxes are not a benefit to readers, you should remove infoboxes from all biographical articles.

TuckerResearch (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

But I am not against all infoboxes. I think infoboxes should be carefully considered in each and every article on a case-by-case basis. I don't think they should be added to every article and I don't think they should be removed from every article. So, I'm here discussing why it would not work here - in this article and every article I work on. I have no responsibility to discuss the issue on every article on Wikipedia. And, by the way, the box you have made is an excellent example of a "disinfobox". You have proven my point that the information would be confusing (Who says these ideas are notable? Why these ideas and not others? Why list these three influences and no others? Etc.) It doesn't matter if people "like" something, when it is providing them with bad information. Awadewit (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

(1) All of your arguments are applicable to all infoboxes, not just this one. You have made no Calvin-specific arguments.

(2) "So, I'm here discussing why it would not work here - in this article and every article I work on." This statement proves that you are just manifestly anti-infobox. (But I guess you could say I'm just hopelessly pro-infobox.) Hey, some ingrate put an infobox on the Susanna Clarke article that you work on. Go tell 'em why it is optional, repetitious, unnecessary, confusing, and code-heavy, and how you've carefully considered it and discussed it with yourself and decided it is a "disinfobox." Then remove it. Why should she have an infobox when you've decided that Mary Shelly shouldn't and Mary Wollstonecraft shouldn't? You own those articles just like you do this one, right?

(3) I did not create this infobox, şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ did.

(4) We obviously disagree what a "disinfobox" is. I'd bet other editors would disagree with your interpretation. I posit that a Calvin infobox is not an disinfobox.

(5) "Who says these ideas are notable?" The same blessed consensus you point to when you say that you and RelHistBuff equals a consensus. I think it is disingenuous of you to say that predestination is not a significant idea in Calvinism. Same goes for your "why these and not others arguments." He was influenced by his reading of Augustine. Duh. He was not influenced by Confucius. Duh.

(6) "It doesn't matter if people 'like' something..." Yes it does. That is what Wikipedia editing is about: I don't like it, I'll make it better. "...when it is providing them with bad information." Again, it is your opinion that telling someone that Calvin was born in Picardy and influenced John Knox is somehow misleading.

TuckerResearch (talk) 03:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The fields are subjective and the entries are arguable. Hence, it is a disinfobox. Take for example, Calvin's supposed notable idea, predestination. Yes predestination is a significant idea within Calvinism, but that is Calvinism, not Calvin. Calvin contributed to the original ideas from Augustine of Hippo. Others contributed as well including Bullinger. His main interest was not to develop a systematic theology per se but to lead his congregation in Geneva. Through his work in defending his church and teaching his flock, he produced the Institutes and his Commentaries. As for his influences, who said it was those three? For example I know that a lot more studies have to be done on the influence of Zwingli on Calvin before any statement can be made. Neither is the influence of Luther obvious. As for what or who he influenced, why those? He influenced many people and movements and any editor can push in their addition. It is a disinfobox and should not be included in this article. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I prefer infoboxes that are informative rather than interpretive. Specifically, a good model for this is the Martin Luther box. The picture, birth, death, works, and family are sufficient. Luther's has influences & influenced lists, which I agree are extraneous, but it is less of a problem overall than the Calvin infobox in my opinion. RelHistBuff makes valid points about the problems with the Calvin infobox. The statement that his main interest was systematic theology is particularly problematic given that he was a pioneer in exegetical word studies. My preferences: 1. There must ultimately be only one picture in the lede, and it must be on the right. 2. Remove the box or reduce it to birth, death, main works, and tradition/movement.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that Epiphyllumlover's suggestion of a stripped infobox (and a left-facing image) is a reasonable compromise. TuckerResearch (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I noticed that all the new "pro-infobox" contributors here were canvassed by Carlaude. Therefore, this so-called "vote-counting" is an attempt to justify a false consensus (vote-stacking). However, Epiphyllumlover's suggestion has at least addressed my objection of subjective fields. What is left, however, is Example 1 of a disinfobox, i.e., basic info that can be easily found in the lead; it's not useful at all. But I suppose the goal of these infoboxes are to "attract the marginally literate eye". I still disagree adding this for such meager purposes, but for the sake of stopping the drama, I propose adding a reduced infobox at the top of the "Early life" section. This will keep the superior lead section image in its place. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

(1) I think this is a fine temporary compromise, though I fail to understand your devotion to the anonymous right-facing image, except that it is on the cover of one of your favorite books. Personally, I think Titian's image is a better candidate because it is by a famous painter and left-facing. (As an aside, I think the "image face must face the text" rule for leading portraits is silly and an affront to good design, but that's just me.) (2) I'd like to note that I know nothing of this supposed canvassing by şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:. (3) I do think that the infobox is a tad sparse as is, and borders on being a disinfobox, but, that can be worked on. (4) I find your statements: "But I suppose the goal of these infoboxes are to 'attract the marginally literate eye'" and "for the sake of stopping the drama" to be appallingly haughty and condescending. As if only hysterical dolts, I guess I am one of them in your opinion, would possibly think infoboxes might be good and useful on biographical Wikipedia articles.

Please forgive me my dramatic, marginal literacy. TuckerResearch (talk) 08:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Please note, that in effort to have more than just the 5 people state views, I posts an invitation on about 4 more peoples pages-- without asking them to give an opinion one way or the other. This is not inappropriate canvassing (see there what is appropriate canvassing and what is inappropriate canvassing). I found one editor with an interest in infoboxes (and theologians) and the others 3 I found as editors interested in Calvinism, (as editors of Calvinism). ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 20:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we agree to archive this now? This seems like a reasonable compromise to me. Awadewit (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)