Talk:Waldensians/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Joseph of Aramathea

I call for the inclusion of the document discovered by Caesar Boronius the Vatican librarian of 1596 who wrote the Annals Ecclesiasticci stating the discovery of the ancient manuscript concerning Joseph of Aramathea and many others forced onto an oarless and sailess boat settling in Southern France. This is relevant and needs to be mentioned in article otherwise this wikipedia article is a farce. I suggest possibly something as The Vatican Librarian Caesar Boronius in 1596 who wrote the Annals Eccleisistici stated that Joseph of Aramathea and others were forced onto a boat which settled in Southern France I leave this to other editors here to maybe rewrite this paragraph. 2 primary sources have been mentioned previously but as a poster mentioned a modern day source is required which there are several qualified scholars who have commented on this discovery — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.4.211 (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

If this is to be included in Wikipedia, someone will need to give specific data for the sources: book, page number, etc. To insert the sentence as suggested has no more weight than if I would say that "Barney the Clown wrote in 1987 that Joseph of Aramathea had three legs." That could be a fact. It could be that Barney made it up. It could be that Barney was repeating hearsay that has no other source to back up the statement. That is where scholarship comes into play. If you want it included, I would suggest that you do the research and cite the sources since since so far no other editor has taken it upon himself to check into the matter. If solid sources are given, and it is shown that this incident is indeed connected to the Waldensians, other editors will be likely to assent to inclusion in the article. As it stands, the sources are very vague, and the incident does not appear to be directly connected to the Waldensians. If you can show otherwise, that would be great. Thanks for trying to improve Wikipedia! Mikeatnip (talk) 04:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As has been explained in detail on your account's talk page and in the article's edit summaries, you need to cite academic sources. Caesar Baronius's Annales Ecclesiastici are full of what we would now call legends (to be polite about it), and you're wrong about the contents, following a total blunder made by the 1961 pseudohistorical fiction book "The Drama of the Lost Disciples." The Annales say that Joseph of Arimathea went to Britain (not that any evidence is provided for that, either).

You have also not provided any evidence of relevance -- you suggested edit is therefore absolutely useless, if not nonsensical, unless you suggesting some that the Waldensians are descended from folks from a completely different part of France who were supposedly converted by Joseph of Arimathea despite there being no evidence he was ever actually there. Occam's unplugged and clogged electric shaver still goes through that like a cinderblock through an old cracked window. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Robert Olivetan writes: "Since the time of the apostles, or their immediate successors, the torch of the gospel has been lit among the Vaudois, and has never since been extinguished." this is not in the article

J. A. Wylie, Presbyterian historian, in his History of Waldenses (1860), on p. 3 writes: "Their traditions invariably point to an unbroken descent from the earliest times, as regards their religious belief. The Nobla Leycon [Noble Lesson], which dates from the year 1100, goes to prove that the Waldenses of Piedmont did not owe their rise to Peter Waldo of Lyons he was the leader of The Poor men of Lyons and a lapsed Catholichis confession of faith is totally different spiritually and religiously from the three known actual confessions of faith of the Waldenses. This article is totally Catholic biased and quite frankly a disgrace of truth upon all who read it, we are not living in the inquisition I call for a complete overhaul and inclusion of all the relevant missing historical documments to give a true picture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stetson7 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Those "sources" are extremely outdated propaganda, not modern academic history. The article is not biased toward Catholicism, it's merely not biased towards a WP:FRINGE attempt by a few protestants to try and claim the Cathlic doctrine of Apostolic succession through a group that claims to have been founded by Peter Waldo. WP:GEVAL means that Wikipedia is under no requirement to give revisionist history equal footing with what mainstream academia (which is not merely Catholics, but every scholar who isn't trying to claim apostolic succession through the Waldo-enisians). Ian.thomson (talk) 14:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

And the Didache Ian which the ancient Waldenses claim as their only rule of faith attested by modern day scholars to be first century and authentic how does this bring light to the situation and is also missing from this article, no you are wrong this article is totally Catholic based and a fraud, I call for its entire removal and to start again— Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.4.211 (talk • contribs)

The Waldensians themselves and secular (i.e. non-Catholic) academia trace the Waldensians to Peter Waldo. The only people who trace the Waldensians to before Waldo are a few fringe non-Waldensian Protestants who try to claim apostolic succession (a concept the Waldensians don't care about) through the Waldensians. It makes about as much sense as a Wiccan trying to trace their religion to Moses through Muhammad.

Claiming that the Waldensians used the Didache to prove any age of theirs is like trying to trace Seventh Day Adventism to Moses because they accept the Pentateuch.

The article is not Catholic biased, it is merely not supporting your favorite conspiracy theory. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Wrong again Ian about the Waldensians themselves agreeing we came from Waldo....I AM Waldensian and know the Waldo story is a fraud and a lie. Waldo founded Poor men of lyons and had nothing to do with us. Modern day Waldensians have been corrupted with mainstream protestantism,— Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.4.211 (talk • contribs)

• Waldensian.info - "There simply could not have been a continuous group," and "Historians now agree that the Waldensian movement began in Lyons, France about 1170."
• American Waldensian Society - "The Waldensian Church originated with the preaching of the merchant Valdo (Waldo of Lyons, from whom the church’s name originates), 1140-1217."
• Waldensian Evangelical Church - "L'aggettivo "valdese" prende origine dalla vicenda di un mercante di Lione vissuto nel XII secolo che decise, al termine di una profonda crisi spirituale, di vivere l'esperienza cristiana seguendo l'esempio degli apostoli" or 'The adjective "Waldensian" originates from the story of a merchant of Lyons lived in the twelfth century, who decided, at the end of a deep spiritual crisis, to live the Christian experience, following the example of the apostles.'

If you are a Waldensian, you have been "corrupted" by mainstream protestantism, particularly the 1931 Baptist work The Trail of Blood.

Wikipedia does not care about what you or anyone else "knows," it only cares about what is verifiable. There is no verified evidence of the Waldensians before the 12th century. There are Waldensians who trace their movement to Waldo. They predate Protestants who hijack the movement's name to try and claim apostolic succession (a Catholic doctrine that anyone who accepts "sola scriptura" has no reason to care about). Secular academia (i.e. non-Catholic) also goes with Waldo, and what reason would they have to side with Catholicism? If anything, debunking Catholic claims of apostolic succession would be more ideologically acceptable for secularism, and yet secular academia cannot in all honesty do so.

Believe whatever what you want, but don't get your conspiracy theories mixed up with what everyone else observes. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

We have some reason to include The Trail of Blood as part of the continuity legends, but the rest is fringe, agreed Ian.thomson Serten II (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The sources you site Waldensian .ifo states that the name of Peter was added 150 years after his death, so Peter never existed where did the name Peter come from, it was invented. The American Waldensian Society you also site is not original Waldensian it is Waldensian / Methodist society also mot original and lastly as I will not reply anymore so have your last say Ian. Revelations states the true church would be protected in the mountains for 1260 years, the woman being the church, this is not the Empire of Roman Catholicsm which was not hidden or persecuted but did the persecuting. If one accepts these facts that are being presented here that there was never any other group of Christians that existed down the ages who as written in also Revelations persecuted by satan who kept the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ then the espounders of this history created here in this article has declared the God who wrote the bok of Revelations to be a liar.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.4.211 (talk • contribs)

And the Quran condemns the worship of Jesus, the Upanishads say that existence is an illusion, Richard Dawkins says all religion is wrong, and Scientology's OT3 says Jesus was just part of a brainwashing program by the alien psychologist Xenu -- Do you see why Wikipedia doesn't cite any of those texts or any other religious texts (especially one as intentionally cryptic as Revelation) to determine article content? Do you invite Muslims to rewrite articles in line with Sharia law? Do you invite atheists to rewrite the Jesus article to say that there was no historical figure? No? Then don't be a hypocrite, and don't try to force your personal religious beliefs onto articles.

Your interpretation of Revelation is just your personal interpretation of Revelation. There are plenty of others by other people beyond the idea that Revelation is a commentary on all history since it was written. There are some who think that few (if any) of its events have started yet, there are some who think that the only events that did not finish before the fall of the Roman Empire are the resurrection of the dead and the second coming, there are some who think that the majority of the work is a metaphor for a gradual social improvement brought by Christian charity, and everything inbetween. By denying them, are you saying that the author of Revelation was a liar? No, because those interpretations (like yours) are attempts to understand an intentionally cryptic work whose author did not leave a commentary explaining it. In fact, to pretend that countering one's interpretation is to call John of Patmos a liar is to claim that one's interpretation supersedes the actual book of Revelation, which is to claim that one's subjective opinions trump the word of God.

And again, with that variation of belief, the only position Wikipedia can take is neutrality. That does not mean giving equal validity to claims that run counter to mainstream academia, but it does mean that this site will not be forced to hold a particular position because a new self-appointed Inquisition tells us that our articles are heretical.

If you are not here to build a neutral encyclopedia but are promote your religious beliefs, remove content that doesn't support your beliefs, and otherwise crusade against anything that offends you, you are not welcome here. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

First Translation of the Bible into French

"The first French Bible translated by Pierre Robert Olivétan with the help of Calvin and published at Neuchâtel in 1535 was based in part on a New Testament in the Waldensian vernacular. "

Olivétan's translation was not the first translation of the bible into French. There were several translations into French in the middle ages Wikipedia, and the first printed translation was in 1530. According to this entry he was the first to translate the Bible into the French language starting from the Hebrew and Greek texts.

Recommend that the sentence be modified to remove "first", ie. "The French bible translated by...". Possibly mention that this was the first translation starting from the Hebrew and Greek texts, but I think this is too much detail for this section, which is about the Waldenseans, not (primarily) French bible translation.

[Edit] Deleting the word "first", as notified here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Javaman59 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

"the Waldensian vernacular" what is the Waldesian vernacular? - was it the from the Italian Alps or from Lyons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.175.73.12 (talk) 10:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

the Waldensian vernacular and the churches in Waldensia - so come on, folk want to know what is the vernacular? and where on earth is Waldensia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.26.111 (talk) 09:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

THE NAME: 'WALDESIANS' IS TAKEN FROM 'VALLEYS' NOT PETER WALDO!

EARTH TO TALKPAGE

THE NAME: 'WALDESIANS' IS TAKEN FROM 'VALLEYS' NOT PETER WALDO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.243.97 (talk) 04:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Capslock is not cruise control for cool, Wikipedia summarizes published mainstream academic sources, and Wikipedia does not use original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The Biblica Italica which was distributed by the Waldenses in scripture for hundreds of years prior to the mysterious Peter Waldo proves they had the original Bible scriptures. This should be mentioned in the article. Why hasn't the testimony of the Catholic Inquisitor Reinerous Sacco stating the Waldenses went as far back as the 4th century with Pope Sylvestor and even to the Apostles not mentioned in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.191.102.177 (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

If there are reputable sources, feel free to add the information into the article. I would suggest signing up for a Wikipedia account so that discussion could go along with the suggested edits as you make them, if you do add the material. Mikeatnip (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Britannica on the Waldensians

@Stetson7: As can be seen at http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/634415/Waldenses , the EB does not say or even imply that "there was another church movement highly advanced and in existance prior to Peter Waldo." It was original research to claim so, and we do not use original research (as has been explained before). Claiming that the EB supports that claim is like saying that Luke 6:29 proves Jesus supported assault. Also, a single source does not trump the majority of mainstream academics. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Stetson7: Again, Wikipedia does not use original research. If you want to add something, every single piece of information must be directly supported by the source cited. Where in the EB does it say that the Waldensians predate Waldo, without interpretation or inserting material? It does not say that anywhere. Therefore, you in any honesty or competency pretend that the EB "proves" there was a movement predating Waldo. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Britannica mentions that Peter Waldo was releasing scripture not of the Latin Bible but from another Bible which was the Biblica Itala this is very important as it proves the existance of another Christian group which the dishonest editors of this article are wanting to hide. The Biblica Itala bible is known as the only other Bible in existance at the time and for me to say a highly advance group with respect to the article by me not even mentioning they were Waldenses was quite noble and respectful of me. Biblica Itala must be mentioned as the scriptures PW was releasing thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stetson7 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

As has been explained for you over and over, Wikipedia does not say something that the original source does not make explicit. For you to claim that the EB says that the Waldensians predate Waldo, the EB must explicitly state that the Waldensians predate Waldo. We do not accept speculation from users based on sources -- we only summarize the sources without addition. If you did not mean to say that this hypothetical "advanced group" (that, again, is NOT mentioned in the EB) was not the Waldensians, then they are not relevant to this article. It is disingenuous to pretend that you were not implying that those were the Waldensians. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I would need to check my sources again, but my understanding of the story is that Peter Waldo was responsible for translating the Scriptures into the local language. The Peter Waldo article states it like this:

″The Waldensian movement was characterized from the beginning by lay preaching, voluntary poverty and strict adherence to the Bible. Between 1175-1185 Peter Waldo either commissioned a cleric from Lyons to translate the New Testament into the vernacular, the Arpitan (Franco-Provençal) language or was himself involved in this translation work. Regardless of the source of translation, he is credited with providing to Europe the first translation of the Bible in a 'modern tongue' outside of Latin.″

Perhaps Stetson7 is confusing this translation with a purported earlier one? That said, many people, including Waldensians from as early as the 1400s (The early Bohemian Brethren had contact with remnant Waldensians and spoke of this belief of continuity in their documents), believed that the Waldensian movement was but a continuation of a larger non-conformist movement disassociated with the larger Catholic/Orthodox movement. Sources to definitely prove or disprove this connection are missing, as far as I know, which is nothing uncommmon considering the paucity of any definite sources from the period. One author I read seemed to think the Poor of Lombardy were in fact a similar movement on the Italian side of the Alps that actually predated Waldo. In my opinion (totally opinion from my personal research), there was a pre-Waldensian movement that would have had a lot in common with what Peter Waldo stood for. No official connection with this movement is documented (that is, they did not help Peter Waldo start his reform), but in all probability there was likely some influence. It would be like the Moravian Brethren to the Methodists: The Moravian Brethren were an influence on Wesley, but they did not start the Wesleyan movement, and had no official connection to it. It is therefore wrong to say that the Methodist movement predated John Wesley, even though the Moravian Brethren have roots going clear back to the mid 1400s.

What I am trying to say is that there is probably some truth to the idea that the Waldensian movement predated Waldo, but only in the sense of a "Waldensian-like" movement. How to incorporate that into the article is beyond my ability at the moment, without spending a lot of time to find and cite the appropriate sources. But until those sources can be found and cited, the article needs to leave out all assumptions and personal interpretations, including my own (even though it may be correct). Mikeatnip (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I wish to have included the historical fact that Waldenses knew and possessed the Vulgate. But the Italic, the earlier Latin, was their own Bible, the one for which they died for . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stetson7 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 6 June 2015‎ (UTC)

@Stetson7: According to what reliable source did they have the Italic? We need a source that states specifically that they had it and used it. We can't infer or play connect-the-dots based on other pieces of information; that sort of synthesis is not allowed. —C.Fred (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I have seen how you operate C Fred and will not play your self deluded elitist game of saying outdated history or modern historians disagree Have fun with your corrupted historical wikipedia articles C Fred and Godbless you too — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stetson7 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

1487 order of extermination

"In 1487 Pope Innocent VIII issued a bull for the extermination of the Vaudois." Doesn't this statement need a supporting citation? What was the name of the papal bull issued that called for the extermination of the Vaudois? Piosdad (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

--- and why is the word: "Vaudois" being used over: "Vallenses", "Valdesi" and (wait for it) "Waldenses" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.233.98 (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Earlier historical name for Waldenses in English was "Woldsfolk"

Should I bother posting the source or are the Catholics/French still going to pretend the names: "Waldenses"/"Waldesians"/ "valdesi" and so forth are from so-called: 'Peter Waldo' rather the VALLEY PEOPLE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.69.58.27 (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Wold — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.69.58.27 (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

It would help if you would sign up for an account and talk through this, providing verifiable and reputable sources for this very same edit that keeps popping up under anonymous IPs. Until that happens, I think you can expect that this edit will continue to be reverted, since more than one editor has reverted this before. Thanks for understanding. Mikeatnip (talk) 01:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk Page Archiving

I suppose I could ask SigmaWP, since his bot is the one doing the archiving, but I'm wondering if anyone knows how to change the parameter for thread archiving. 180 days is an awfully short time for a talkpage that has as little traffic as this one. In my opinion, a parameter of about one year would make much more sense, so that people could reply to comments that were a few months old or more. Anyone? Quinto Simmaco (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

What the hell happened to the: Poor of Lombardy?

Under History, it reads: Because of the shunning of the wealth of the Roman Catholic Church clergy, the movement was early known as The Poor of Lyon and The Poor of Lombardy. - unlike the so-called Poor of Lyons and even though Lombardy being bigger both in terms of area and population, why are The Poor of Lombardy at no further point mentioned in the article? Indeed, why does this writeup lack an explanation as to why the Waldenses happen to go by two sundry names and places? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.26.111 (talk) 09:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Citation

historical evidence proves this article is basically an untruthful one sided Catholic affair stating Peter Waldo born in 1140 started the Waldenses ( Valdensis ) insert this into the article which proves this Wikipedia article is a dishonest sham Eberhard de Béthune mentioned the name Waldenses more than a decade before Waldo, while the abbot Bernard de Foncald wrote about heretics named "Valdensis" who were condemned during the pontificate of pope Lucius II (1144), nearly three decades before Waldo.21 Both Eberhard and Bernard said that their name is derived from "vallis densa," a dreary, deep valley.22 Further, a letter written by the bishop of Liège to pope Lucius II mentions heretics as "old enemies" who scattered themselves all over France with their own church polity and discipline.23 This proves clearly that a church organization, apart from Rome, was in existence before the year 1144. Well before the time of Waldo, in the early twelfth century, a report was written in the chronicle of the abbey of Corbie, telling about the activities of a "peculiar and ancient kind of people" inhabiting the Alps, who learned the Bible by heart and often wandered about as merchants. They despised the ceremonies and customs of the church and showed no regard for images and relics== — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.191.252.228 (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Mind sharing that source here? Mikeatnip (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Evidence is emerging that Waldenses are of Jewish descent through DNA ancestry profiling confirming what was claimed by the ancients of their Jewish heritage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.191.252.228 (talk) 03:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The extraordinary evidence of Waldensian Jewish origins was discovered by Vincenzo Ruello in late 2016 when he published his families dna https://gloria.tv/video/2WTnL6yfMF7s1qeRiicdPcrWJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.191.252.228 (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

A self-published video on a sectarian site is not a professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic source. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Waldenses were slaughtered in 1144 under Pope Lucius II and called Valdensis,how can Catholics editing this site still keep a straight face and tell people Peter Waldo born in 1140 founded the group, it must be true when many say wiki articles are not history how embarrassing for wiki and especially Catholics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monashcat (talk • contribs) 04:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Sentence needs clarifying

The first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead needs clarifying. Here it is:

• Waldensians merged into the larger Protestant movement with the outbreak of the Reformation, and became a part of the wider Reformed tradition, having influenced early Swiss reformers such as Heinrich Bullinger in Zurich and after the thought of John Calvin and his theological successors in Geneva proved very similar to their own theological ideas.

The second half of the sentence is not entirely clear. I do not know enough about the subject matter to feel on secure ground to re-word the sentence, so I will leave it up to those who do know the subject matter, but I will make some suggestions. Perhaps adding a comma after "Zurich", making the preceding phrase a kind of parenthetical participial phrase, would be sufficient. In that case, I'm not sure the "and" is really needed since it would really be (without the parenthetical phrase), "and became a part of the wider Reformed tradition after the thought of John Calvin and his theological successors in Geneva proved..."

I think the problem is that it is not clear whether "(and) after the thought of John Calvin proved" follows directly upon "merged into the larger Protestant movement" or "became part of the wider Reformed tradition". I believe it really follows upon "merged into the larger Protestant movement", so, to make this clearer, "and became" should be changed to "becoming", making it a participial phrase:

• Waldensians merged into the larger Protestant movement with the outbreak of the Reformation, and became becoming a part of the wider Reformed tradition....., after the thought of John Calvin...proved very similar to their own theological ideas.

I believe this now makes sense. The problem now is what to do with the other participial phrase, "having influenced Swiss reformers such as Heinrich Bullinger in Zurich". If it is left in, it would look like this:

• Waldensians merged into the larger Protestant movement with the outbreak of the Reformation, becoming a part of the wider Reformed tradition, having influenced early Swiss reformers such as Heinrich Bullinger in Zurich, and after the thought of John Calvin and his theological successors in Geneva proved very similar to their own theological ideas.

If this is not considered too wordy, then I guess it's all right, but it would be less wordy and more elegant if that middle parenthetical phrase were left out:

• Waldensians merged into the larger Protestant movement with the outbreak of the Reformation, becoming a part of the wider Reformed tradition, after the thought of John Calvin and his theological successors in Geneva proved very similar to their own theological ideas.

 – Corinne (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Corinne: It's important to mention Heinrich Bullinger because the Waldensians influenced him, and through Bullinger, it can be said that they influenced the Reformation itself. I went ahead and changed the text as following (though I welcome further improvements):

In the era of the Reformation, the Waldensians influenced early Swiss reformer Heinrich Bullinger. Upon finding the ideas of other reformers similar to their own, they quickly merged into the larger Protestant movement, becoming a part of the Calvinist tradition.

Sondra.kinsey (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Sondra.kinsey, for your reply. I think your re-worded sentences are not only clearer but more concise. If I have one criticism, it is that they give no indication of the time relationship between their influencing Bullinger and their finding the ideas of other reformers similar to their own. It's a bit confusing because in the first sentence you have "early", and then in the second sentence you have "quickly", but readers may wonder what happened in between, and how long that in between was. Perhaps, before "Upon finding", you could insert a time phrase such as (I don't know the history so can't suggest anything truly accurate), "About thirty years later, upon finding....," or "Toward the mid-16th century, upon finding...," or "Around 1670, upon finding...." Another possibility is, instead of "upon finding", to use a simple verb (after the time phrase), "Around 1670, when they saw that the ideas of other reformers were similar to their own, they quickly merged..." Or do you think the time information is not necessary because this is just the lead?  – Corinne (talk) 22:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)