Jump to content

Talk:John Calvin/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

At the time of John Calvin's birth Noyon was NOT in France.

In the Noyon link it reads as follows...

'"Having been ravaged by Habsburg troops in 1552, Noyon was sold to France in 1559, under the conditions of the Treaty of Cateau-Cambrésis"'

John Calvin was born in Noyon on the 10th of July 1509

Nyon was sold/annexed into France on the aforesaid "1559" date above - 50 whole years after John Calvins life - infact the bulk of it!

Something needs to be reworded but somehow I get the feeling noone here give a flabbertoss. Sigh.

Picardy seems to say that France captured the region in 1477 from Burgundy. Who owned it in 1509? Rmhermen (talk) 02:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hullo, where exactly in the Picardy wiki link does it seemingly say Nyon was captured by France? - anyway, the act of say Argentina capturing Port Stanley doth not make Port Stanley a part of Argentina. Anyway, why have you brought the aforesaid up, when the Nyon wiki link itself mentions a veriviable treaty. Nyon was obviously in either the Spanish Netherlands or Flanders, or somesuch at the time, NOT France. John Calvin would be 50 years old! before his birthplace, Nyon, was forced into France! He probs felt more at home with both the Dutch and the English of Doway before France - SOMEONE PLEASE REFLECT THIS ON THIS WIKI PAGE.

I haven';t seen anything that shows Noyon was not in France in 1509. It may have been captured/sold several times in that time period. Rmhermen (talk) 02:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Rmhermen, you don't make sense - how can you say "you haven't seen anything that shows Noyon was not in France in 1509" when both the Noyon wiki, and Treaty of Cateau-Cambresis wiki pages cleary state otherwise. Go read them, and then have the decency to get back to me...

ps watch out for sad little Francophone nationalists whom love spiking and corrupting English language wikis with their sad French imperialism and believe it or not, their sad cringeworthy Germanic-wannabeism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.68.32.34 (talk) 02:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that instead of writing our interpretations of Calvin's feelings(he probs felt more at home with both the Dutch and the English of Doway before France), that we use what published sources state and nothing more. As for where Calvin was born;
  • The Cambridge Companion to John Calvin, by Donald K. McKim, page 277, "Jean Calvin was born on July 10, 1509 in the small French town of Noyon...[]...but the fact that Calvin was a Frenchman.."
  • Conflict, Conquest, and Conversion: Two Thousand Years of Christian Missions, by Eleanor H. Tejirian, Reeva Spector Simon, page 57, "John Calvin was born Jean Cauvin in Noyon, France, in 1509..."
  • The Reformation of Rights, by John Witte, page 42, "John Calvin was born in 1509 in Noyon, France..." --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

YOUR HAVING A LAUGH

I knew I was right! is that all your got...(you and your cherypickings are right and an historical document/treaty is wrong!)? I'm going to 'interpret your feelings' and say you don't even believe John Calvin was born in France, do you - hence you haven't even got the guts (or decency) to use that crude little attempt of yours on both the 'Nyon' and 'Treaty of Cateau Cambresis' wiki pages. Feel free to argue that the Treaty of Cateau Cambresis is a fraud and that John Calvin's birthplace was never sold to France, and at that, 50 YEARS AFTER JOHN CALVIN'S BIRTH! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.68.32.34 (talk) 10:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Since you have presented no sources to back your rantings, you really have nothing to discuss. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
You seem to miss the option that Noyon may have been captured from France after Calvin's birth and sold back at that later date. Rmhermen (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Your trying so hard. Read this selfsame article, the Nyon article and the Treaty Cateau-Cambrés article - Noyon was NOT taken FROM France after Calvin's birth - Noyon was sold to France 50 years after John Calvin's birth. I am sorry but it is the truth. This is what you get for being imperialistic - most of the rim of France is annexed land and quite lately too. Deal with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.121.254.236 (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI, there is no "Treaty Cateau-Cambrés" article. It is redirected to Italian War of 1551–59.Peace of Cateau-Cambresis
The sentence in the Noyon article was plagiarized from an extremely unreliable book. That sentence has been removed. Since you have not brought any sources for your "concern", we are done here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

What the hell are you going on about now? your so sad, now you're trying to make out there was never a Treaty of (or Peace of) Cateau-Cambrésis! https://www.google.com/search?q=Treaty+of+Cateau-Cambr%C3%A9sis&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&gfe_rd=cr&ei=uvEgVoG4BOiq8wfZhrPAAg&gws_rd=ssl#q=Treaty+of+Cateau-Cambr%C3%A9sis&safe=off&tbm=bks AGAIN, NOYON WAS SOLD TO FRANCE IN 1559. JOHN CALVIN WAS NOT BORN IN FRANCE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.121.254.236 (talk) 12:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

"FYI, there is no "Treaty Cateau-Cambrés" article. It is redirected to Italian War of 1551–59."
Learn to read. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
You have not presented any evidence about the status of Noyon in the year 1509. Its status 50 years later is not relevant. Because it was sold to France in 1559 does not mean it was not in France in 1509 - it may have been captured in 1558 for example. Rmhermen (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

You do NOT know the status of Noyon in 1509, anyway, it is irrelevant, what status IS known, is that John Calvin was NOT born in France, indeed, Noyon was NOT within France almost the whole of John Calvin's life save a year or two. Why are you so desperate for John Calvin to of been born in France, it so sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.121.254.236 (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

You have presented no sources stating John Calvin was born somewhere besides France, where as I have provided 3 sources, and quotes, that clearly state he was born in France. Therefore, your ranting means nothing here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Please qoute me where I am claimed to be 'ranting'? PS NO MATTER HOW ABUSIVE YOU ARE TO ME, OR HOW MUCH YOU LIE JOHN CALVIN WAS STILL NOT BORN IN FRANCE (: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.43.114 (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

"'...OR HOW MUCH YOU LIE JOHN CALVIN WAS STILL NOT BORN IN FRANCE"
Since you are too immature or ignorant to understand, I will explain it again. I am not saying Calvin was born in France, the reliable sources state Calvin was French and was born in France.
  • The Cambridge Companion to John Calvin, by Donald K. McKim, page 277, "Jean Calvin was born on July 10, 1509 in the small French town of Noyon...[]...but the fact that Calvin was a Frenchman.."
  • Conflict, Conquest, and Conversion: Two Thousand Years of Christian Missions, by Eleanor H. Tejirian, Reeva Spector Simon, page 57, "John Calvin was born Jean Cauvin in Noyon, France, in 1509..."
  • The Reformation of Rights, by John Witte, page 42, "John Calvin was born in 1509 in Noyon, France..." --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
It seems possible that Noyon was also captured by the Hapsburgs in 1557 during the Italian War of 1551–59 ‎when they captured Saint-Quentin 40km to the northeast, which town was returned in the 1559 Peace of Cateau-Cambrésis. But that is long after 1509. Rmhermen (talk) 08:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Noyon was besieged and taken according to The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II, Volume 2, by Fernand Braudel, page 944, but Philip pulled his troops back to the Spanish Netherlands* after seeing the carnage from the Battle of St. Quentin. So, Noyon was part of France or else Philip II would not have had to besiege it. But then again, facts are wasted on a silly IP. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • A Global Chronology of Conflict: From the Ancient World to the Modern Middle East, edited by Spencer C. Tucker, page 518, "After sacking the city[St. Quentin] and terrorizing its inhabitants, Philip orders the Spanish army to withdraw to the Netherlands and winter quarters."
Meaning the plagiarism, from the unreliable source, the IP edit warred into the article was incorrect, and that the town of Noyon was not held by the Spanish, who were in winter quarters in the Netherlands.
According to The Saturday Magazine, Vol. 10-11, (1837), page 250, "The famous battle of St. Quentin, in which Philip the Second of Spain, aided by English troops, completely defeated the French, was fought in the neighborhood of Noyon in 1557; the town was shortly afterwards taken by the Spaniards, and almost wholly burnt by them." The source is dated and most likely unreliable. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

This is taken from an 1975 biography by T.H.L Parker, hight: John Calvin: A Biography "At Paris the nations (composed only of art students) had been four - French, Norman, Picard and English. Jean Cauvin had, of course, belonged to the Picard"--5.69.57.38 (talk) 11:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.69.57.38 (talk) 11:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Note Picardy has generally been considered part of France - even when "owned" by Burgundy (under France at the time, by the way). Hugh Capet of France - was crowned at Noyon. Collect (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Noyon has always been in France. It may have belonged to a fiefdom thereof, or may have been occupied by foreign troops but it has always belonged to France. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
T.H.L. Parker was Emeritus Reader in Theology at Durham University, not an historian. Parker wrote the biography from a theologic standpoint, not an historical one. Nor does his mention of "Picard" prove anything, since there were no "Normans" in 1509 at the time of Calvin's birth.
Pity the IP took the sentence out of context;
  • "And here we must mention another aspect of medieval university life. This is the system by which students were grouped according to their nationality or province."
Talk about cherry picking! LMAO. --Kansas Bear
Moreover, the comparizon with Britany or Normandy is not relevant, because both were independent duchies. Picardy was never a duchy or a county with clear and defined borders. The only relevant point concerning a Picard identity is linguistic. Picard is not Parisian French, not Norman, not Wallon and of course not Flemish. Culturally, especially in what is today the Oise departement, Picardy was always submitted to a strong influence from Paris.Nortmannus (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Calvin was born in Noyon which has been in France since the conception of that country. It just wasn't always in the "Demesne de France", the French Crown domain. Two items that are particularly confused in this conversation. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Removed content

Why I removed this content by Lorenbailor, I don't know. If it's factual, it can be edited and added to the article. — Eru·tuon 14:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Enter John Calvin the tyrant murderer

Most denominations who follow Calvin’s doctrines do not know of the following accounts and historical facts. The following events were conducted under the direct supervision of John Calvin him self.

February 1545 - Freckles Dunant dies under torture without admitting to the crime of spreading the plague. His body was then dragged to the middle of town and burned.

1545 - Following the incident with Dunant, several more men and women were apprehended including a barber and a hospital supervisor who had "made a pact with the devil."

March 7, 1545 - Two women executed by burning at the stake (presumably for the crime of sorcery, i.e. spreading the plague). CALVIN INTERCEDED apparently to have them executed sooner rather than later after additional time in prison. The Council followed his directive happily and urged the executioner to "be more diligent in cutting off the hands of malefactors."

1545 - more executions, tortures carefully watched to prevent death. Most of the tortured refused to confess. Means of death varied a little to include decapitation. All under the crime of spreading the plague. Some committed suicide in their cells to avoid torture, afterward the rest were handcuffed. One woman then threw herself through a window.

1545 - CALVIN HAD the magistrates seize Belot, an Anabaptist (against infant baptism) for stating that the Old Testament was abolished by the New. Belot was chained and tortured.

May 16, 1545 - The last execution concerning the plague outbreak, bringing the total dead to 7 men and 24 women. A letter from CALVIN attests to 15 of these women being burned at the stake. CALVIN'S only concern was that the plague had not come to his house.

April 1546 - Ami Perrin put on trial for refusing to testify against several friends who were guilty of having danced. She was incarcerated for refusal to testify.

July 1546 - Jacques Gruet was accused of writing a poster against Calvin. He was arrested and tortured until he admitted to the crime. He was then executed."

http://www.amazon.com/Calvin-Biography-Bernard-Cottret/dp/0802842895/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265068601&sr=1-1

Interesting to note:

John Calvin went to his grave unrepentant, as the letters he wrote later in his short life were often filled with excuses and reasons for the many people he had tortured and killed.

Discipline and opposition (1546–1553)

Calvin forced the citizens of Geneva to attend church services under a heavy threat of punishment. Since Calvinism falsely teaches that God forces the elect to believe, it is no wonder that Calvin thought he could also force the citizens of Geneva to all become the elect. Not becoming one of the elect was punishable by death or expulsion from Geneva. Calvin exercised forced regeneration on the citizens of Geneva, because that is what his theology teaches.

Michael Servetus, a Spaniard, physician, scientist and Bible scholar, was born in Villanova in 1511. He was credited with the discovery of the pulmonary circulation of the blood from the right chamber of the heart through the lungs and back to the left chamber of the heart. He was Calvin's longtime friend in their earlier resistance against the Roman Catholic Church. Servetus, while living in Vienne (historic city in southeastern France), angered Calvin by returning a copy of Calvin's writings, Institutes, with critical comments in the margins. Servetus was arrested by the Roman Catholic Authorities on April 4 but escaped on April 7, 1553. He traveled to Geneva where he attended Calvin's Sunday preaching service on August 13. Calvin promptly had Servetus arrested and charged with heresy for his disagreement with Calvin's theology. The thirty-eight official charges included rejection of the Trinity and infant baptism. Servetus was correct in challenging Calvin's false teaching about infant baptism for salvation, but he was heretical in his rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity. Servetus pleaded to be beheaded instead of the more brutal method of burning at the stake, but Calvin and the city council refused the quicker death method. Other Protestant churches throughout Switzerland advised Calvin that Servetus be condemned but not executed. Calvin ignored their pleas and Servetus was burned at the stake on October 27, 1553. John Calvin insisted that his men use green wood for the fire because it burned slower. Servetus was screaming as he was literally baked alive from the feet upward and suffered the heat of the flames for 30 minutes before finally succumbing to one of the most painful and brutal death methods possible. Servetus had written a theology book, a copy of which Calvin had strapped to the chest of Servetus. The flames from the burning book rose against Servetus' face as he screamed in agony.

John Calvin celebrated and bragged of his killing of Servetus. Many theological and state leaders criticized Calvin for the unwarranted killing of Servetus, but it fell on deaf ears as Calvin advised others to do the same. Calvin wrote much in following years in a continual attempt to justify his burning of Servetus. Some people claim Calvin favored beheading, but this does not fit charges of heresy for which the punishment, as written by Calvin earlier, was to be burning at the stake. Calvin had made a vow years earlier that Servetus would never leave Geneva alive if he were ever captured, and Calvin held true to his pledge. Truly John Calvin is burning in Hell for his heresy, blasphemy of God and murder of many.

Another victim of Calvin's fiery zeal was Gentile of an Italian sect in Geneva, which also numbered among its adherents Alciati and Gribaldo. More or less Unitarian in their views, they were required to sign a confession drawn up by Calvin in 1558. Gentile signed it reluctantly, but in the upshot he was condemned and imprisoned as a perjurer. He escaped only to be incarcerated twice at Berne where, in 1566, he was beheaded. Calvin also had thirty-four (34) women burned at the stake after accusing them of being witches who caused a plague that had swept through Geneva in 1545. The number of people murdered by John Calvin has been a dispute -- not the fact that he murdered them. Calvinists reject the references describing John Calvin's reign of terror because they worship him. John Calvin's actions were very paganistic like his mentor, Saint Augustine. Jesus and all of the Apostles would have abhorred and condemned these blatant mass murders.

Witches were never (well, hardly ever) accused of spreading the plague. Those who were accused of spreading the plague were "greasers" (engrasseurs), who were employed to remove bodies, fumigate and clean houses after death by disease. This job became quite a money-maker during the plague. Some greasers, during slow times, were suspected of mixing plague germs with grease and smearing it on doorknobs, so as to increase their income.[1] Burns claims that Geneva (1541-1564) had the lowest rate of execution of arrested witches (20%) in Europe, the majority of witches being banned from the city as their punishment.Markewilliams (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
The tone is definitely unacceptable and not objective, but this article does need some counterbalance with criticism. There are respected scholars who are very critical of Calvin's behavior as leader of Geneva: A.C. Grayling for example ("After Martin Luther had opened the door to discussion of the fundamentals of faith, Ulrich Zwingli and John Calvin slammed it shut, ruthlessly crushing opposition"). This is one of several troubled articles that I've watched for years, and I've seen scholarly criticism added and then removed for the most trumped-up reasons. One citation about the burning of witches was removed because it referenced an old German historical study, the editor claiming that in the English-language version of Wikipedia, German-language references could not be sited! So this page needs attention by a wider audience of responsible editors. DonPMitchell (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ Burns, William E. Witch Hunts in Europe and America: An Encyclopedia.

World

The article says that Calvinism has spread to South Africa, North America and the world. This is largely as a result of military invasion of these areas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.30.71.244 (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Securing the Reformation

I'd fix this sentence if only I knew what it was supposed to day:

"However, the ministers continued never how that form to protest and as in the case of Servetus, the opinions of the Swiss churches were sought."

184.60.28.251 (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Minasbeede without logging in

The title of this section: "Securing the Reformation" is not neutral at all. It sounds triumphant. Many, esp. the Arminians, would say Calvin sidetracked the reformation. I suggest changing the title or combining this section with the previous section.Markewilliams (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
It makes sense that it would sound triumphant since if you read the section, it is about how Calvin and his supporters gained power and influence in Geneva. There is no implication that that's a good thing. Combining with the previous section makes an overlong section. Do you have an idea for a more neutral title? --JFHutson (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Securing the Reformation implies that Calvin almost singlehandedly guided the entire European Reformation of the church, which is definitely not a true statement according to the other Wikipedia articles on the Reformers. Furthermore, "Securing the Reformation" is a cut and paste from other pro-Calvinist websites, from which this article originated. There is no neutrality in that heading. And, until a heading is found, it should read: No heading found yet that is neutral.Markewilliams (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
The sub-heading implies no such thing. Historians universally recognize Calvin as a major figure of the Reformation. Your accusation of cut-and-paste is a serious one, especially given that this is a featured article. Do you have any evidence for it? --JFH (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
The subheading and first two sentences are almost exactly the same as here: http://books.google.com/books?id=EKmWw72M8PkC&pg=PT972&lpg=PT972&dq=securing+the+reformation+-education&source=bl&ots=kE8Qae7wv9&sig=sLbCHpWKBJkgCW1RK_QCUCQHDAQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cqH1ULOxKIy_0QGVm4G4Aw&ved=0CFUQ6AEwCA
Same here: http://johnncalvin.blogspot.com/2011/12/securing-reformation-15531555.html
I understand Calvin is a major figure of the reformation, one of the top two, but to say that he singlehandedly secured the reformation is going too far, and would only be agreed upon by Calvin fans. Markewilliams (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
The first book appears to be a known FORK, see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Mno#MobileReference. The blog is also pretty clearly a fork. They left the footnote numbers when they copied it over, as well as the image captions without the images, and you can go back in the article history to before these blog postings to verify that the WP information predates the blog. Also, your examples undermine your point because there is no indication these publications are by "Calvin fans."
The heading doesn't say he single-handedly did anything. It's just telling us what the section is about. --JFH (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I took this off of WP:3O because there are more than one editors involved. If you need to have an external person comment, put it on WP:RFC ReformedArsenal (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about the cut and paste accusation. I was not familiar with "mirrors and forks". The heading definitely says the Reformation was Secured in Geneva, primarily by Calvin, over a period of certain years. Then the body of the section only talks about Calvin and his school and evangelists, ignoring Luther's, Zwingli's, England's and other groups' parts in the Reformation, as if those other groups were tiny and negligible, which to a Calvin-fan is the way it is. Until there is consensus you can't use that triumphant heading. Also at the end of the section is a paragraph about the libertines engaging in a little fistfight over power, and it gets four sentences with explanations. But when someone was burnt at the stake there was almost no detail. Why the difference?Markewilliams (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll have to think about the sub-heading. I'm not sure what you mean by there being no detail about someone being burned at the stake. There's an entire over-long section on Servetus. The stuff on the libertines is relevant because it explains how they lost power. --JFH (talk) 16:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Why isn't the libertines' grabbing of the sceptre merely a statement of facts? Why does it have so much emotive and defensive language? Why are we told that he made a mistake? Why can't we just tell the facts and let the reader decide if it was a mistake or not? Grabbing the sceptre receives two or three explanations as to what it means. One explanation would be sufficient. Most people would understand the incident with no explanation. And why is it told in such detail that we can envision the action taking place, whereas other aspects of Calvin's life that are not so triumphant and positive receive a summary that does not put us into the action in the same way? Whenever something ugly or nasty about Calvin is mentioned, it receives a glib gloss with defenders mentioned (even when they don't actually believe what Calvin believes). Whenever someone does something ugly to Calvin in this article it is dealt with in detail with lots of over explanations and emotive language. This is an article that is not neutral. Markewilliams (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the heading "Securing the Reformation". It's not talking about "the Reformation" as a whole, of course, but about the Reformation in Geneva. StAnselm (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with St. Anselm on the sub-heading. As for the level of detail for the baton-grabbing incident, the significance doesn't seem so obvious to me. If you want to remove the statement about it being a mistake, I'm OK with that, but I don't see what's "triumphalist" about the language here and I think by removing everything which might help the reader understand the significance of what's going on will be a step backwards.--JFH (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
If the heading is only referring to Geneva then it wouldn't be so bad. If you could specify: "Securing the Reformation in Geneva". At the same time it would mean that any competing reformers in Geneva weren't real reformers and that would be something only Calvin-fans would agree with. If Calvin had never set foot in Geneva, reformation would have continued in Geneva without him, just not in a Calvinist direction. When you say "Securing the Reformation" it sounds like you are claiming the word "reformation" as Calvin's particular brand name. You are saying by the heading that only kicking out and killing the competition enabled true "reformation" to occur in Geneva. The Reformation had been going on in various places in Germany, France, Italy, Spain, England before Calvin began studying and writing, and continued after Calvin died. To say that "Reformation" refers to Calvinism whenever it is used is inaccurate. Calvin took over the Reformation in Geneva. But the reformation was secure in Geneva long before Calvin arrived. A more neutral statement that Calvin-fans and not-Calvin-fans would agree on would be that Calvin came to power and his ideas took precedence in the Reformation in Geneva at that time.
The Perrin Libertine/Patriot/Spirituels final incident is typical of a losing faction finally declaring violent war after they have lost the battle (viz. US Civil War when the South declared war on the North about the time they realized they had been overtaken financially and politically by the North.). The Patriots believed Calvin's supporters had imported immigrants/voters so Calvin could take power. They tried to accomplish their political ambitions through the voting polls, and then when they had lost, they declared a mini-war that is laughable. They had a tug-of-war for the sceptre, like trying to grab the gavel at Town Meeting Day in New England. Only grabbing the sceptre got him banished. The last fist fight is not important. The battle had already been lost when the immigrants were granted voting rights. To focus on the last fist fight and to blame their violence for Calvin taking over is a red herring, and not neutral. Yes, tell the story, but don't explain it and detail it unless you are going to supply the same amount of detail all the way through. Also, imagine telling the story from the Patriots' point of view, then see how not-neutral the telling of the story is.Markewilliams (talk) 03:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Speculating on what would or would not not have happened is not the task of a Wikipedian. What our job is to do is to repeat what reliable sources have said. It seems that there are multiple sources that use this language, so we also should. The fact is that Calvin DID secure the Reformation (both in Geneva, and broadly) in various ways, we don't know if someone else would have come along and solidify the Reformation or not (Perhaps that person would not have been able to refute Sadaleto as skillfully, or would not have stood up to the Council of Geneva in the same way, we simply do not know what WOULD have happened). Luther ALSO secured the Reformation, as did Zwingli and Knox (in their own ways, both in their region and broadly)... but this article is about Calvin, not about Luther and Zwingli.ReformedArsenal (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
So JHutson said the subheading only referred to Geneva, now you say it refers to more than Geneva. The Reformation started in Geneva in 1519, the Roman Catholic Bishop was expelled in 1533, and Geneva was taken over by Calvin and his supporters by importing immigrants/refugees and letting them vote in 1553 or so, and then killing off those who disagreed. So what non-Calvin-fan scholars think that is "securing the Reformation"? Does it mean "securing" in the sense that finally the Reformation was on track? JHutson assured that was not the meaning of the subheading, yet StAnselm says it definitely is the meaning of the subheading. "Securing" means that something was adrift--a non-neutral pov, a Calvin-fan pov. The Libertines/Spirituels/Patriots/Humanists believed that Calvin and his supporters side-tracked the Reformation in Geneva. So they would have written the heading as "Sidetracking the Reformation", a subheading that probably half the theologians in the world today would agree with. The current subheading is saying the Reformation in Europe was primarily Calvinist. I don't think you would find many neutral historians to agree with you. I'm sure you would want other articles to be neutral as well. Some historians/theologians/sociologists believe that most Protestants in the United States today are Zwinglian. What if you saw a subheading in the Zwingli article that says "Securing American Protestantism"? What if there was triumphant language under that subheading? "The Calvinist made the mistake of pushing the doctrine of....resulting in a revolt by the American public such that Zwingli's beliefs finally became ascendant." Would you find that neutral?Markewilliams (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
The story of the seizing of the baton is told "in the action", whereas no other story in the article is "in the action". Therefore the pov of the article is that this story is the most important story on the page. It is also labels the rebels "libertines" a pejorative term, coined by Calvin, that the libertines never used. It is like pro-life people calling pro-choice people "abortionists" and pro-choice people calling pro-life people "anti-choice". When my white brother lived in South Africa during apartheid he mentioned "the terrorists" to one of the black men he was traveling with. The black man turned to him and quietly said, "We call them Freedom Fighters."
Phrases that are not neutral: "The libertines plotted to make trouble" "made the mistake of", "a virtual coup d'état", "The insurrection was over as soon as it started".
This paragraph could read: "Because of their continuing loss of power in elections, the libertines/Sprirituels and Patriots blamed the immigrants and refugees the Calvin supporters had welcomed into the city, and given voting rights to, and they decided to burn a house full of French refugees. The syndic Henri Aulbert intervened, carrying with him the baton of office that symbolised his power. Perrin seized the baton. Another syndic appeared and ordered Perrin to go with him to the town hall. Perrin and other leaders were forced to flee the city. With the approval of Calvin, the other plotters who remained in the city were found and executed. The opposition to Calvin's church polity came to an end.[63]"Markewilliams (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I am considering posting this on the NPOV board.Markewilliams (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Name in French

I edited the name in French because the French common contemporary spell is Jean Calvin (not CaUvin). Original Middle French Cauvin is perhaps best associated with JeHan as a first name. In the current version, however, both are presented as versions in French (no specification), which is historically a little inappropriate. That is simply due to the fact that I could not find adequate templates to:

  1. Separate both spells with or not in Italic (wished)
  2. Make the time distinction clear (with a footnote ?)(wished too).

I leave it as such wishing for an adequate typo but thinking that, perhaps, the mixed spell Jean Cauvin is also acceptable (in Middle French, that is). Best.--Pierre et Condat (talk) 05:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:John Calvin/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Fairly short article. Needs a longer introduction and more inline citiations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaldari (talk • contribs) 15:16, 20 October 2006

Last edited at 20:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Calvin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Calvin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Calvin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Calvin/Archive_5&oldid=1190242722"