|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Wycliffe article.|
|This article is written in British English (colour, realise, travelled, aeroplane), and some terms used in it are different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.|
|John Wycliffe has been listed as a level-4 vital article in People. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Ordination status?
- 2 Age
- 3 Cleanup!
- 4 Requested move
- 5 Unable to disambiguate link to Westbury
- 6 Cite or Remove "Bases for his reformatory activities"
- 7 John Wycliffe
- 8 Old vandalism repair
- 9 Question.
- 10 Appeal to Rome?
- 11 Possible copyright violation
- 12 C Class
- 13 Good Article
- 14 John Wycliffe's date of birth
- 15 Intro is muddied
- 16 At Oxford -- foundation
- 17 Re-write
- 18 Date of Wycliffe's translation of Bible
- 19 Cleanup/Rewrite
- 20 Edward I of England
- 21 ‘Precursor’ to the Reformation?
- 22 Public Declaration problems
- 23 My deletion of the OR tagged section on 9/9/2013
The article as is says that Wycliffe died while saying Mass. If he was a layman (even a lay preacher), this would seem strange, as in the Catholic tradition, Mass is only "said" (or celebrated) by an ordained priest. If Wycliffe was a layman, he would not be "saying Mass" unless of course he was doing so against the teachings of the Church. Since I don't know which is the case, perhaps someone can look into this and update it? (Note: preaching is not the same thing as "saying Mass" which refers primarily to the ceremony of consecrating the elements, celebrating the sacrament of the Eucharist, though it also includes the prayers and other things leading up to and following it... Deacons, Subdeacons and acolytes may assist at points, but the consecration is done only by the priest). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
According to the Oxford DNB (not sure if you can cite it as it's behind a paywall, but free access is available in libraries), John Wyclif(fe) was "ordained subdeacon on 12 March 1351, deacon on 18 April 1351, and priest on 24 September 1351." However, the same source also cites John Horn, a priest who was with Wyclif in his later years, as saying that Wyclif "was struck by further paralysis at the elevation while hearing mass in Lutterworth church on 28 December 1384, and that he did not speak again, and died on 31 December" which conflicts with the statement of death.
The articles states that he was born in the mid 20's and passed in 1864, at the age of 64, with these dates wouldnt he have been about 60 at the time of his passing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I came upon this article to learn about John Wycliffe, so admittedly I don't know enough to do a rewrite. Instead I had tried to reword some of the verbiage, but now I give up.
As someone who would genuinely like to learn about this man, here is what needs to be done:
- An enclopededic biography should be comprised mainly of pure, unadulterated facts that are short and sweet. This article has so many suppositions about why Wycliffe did what he did that it's impenetrable!
- phrases such as: "may have been", "It seems", "this suggests", "he might easily have been", "this must be because" etc. not only suggest an opinion, but that some sort of syllogism is being concoted as I read. these phrases are used with amazing frequency as replacements for facts. If they aren't referencing some scholar, then it's an opinion that I don't care about.
- use lots of headings! nothing harder to read than a huge paragraphs without breaks.
Bantosh 16 June 2006
This article is a disaster. I completely agree with the comments above. Someone needs to get the guts and energy to just take knife to a lot of this. Theriddles 19:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the above comments. I could not make any sense out of what is being said, so simple editorial work is no help. We need someone who knows the topic to start over. Tennysonm (talk) 10:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I suggest that we change the main name of this article to John Wycliffe, because it is the more commonly used spelling. A quick search on google returns 9,430 pages for "John Wycliffe" and only 2,890 for "John Wyclif". May I change this? --Chuck Smith
- Support. "John Wycliffe" is the most common spelling used for his name in the majority of encyclopaedias, texts and online resources. – AxSkov (T) 08:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Mildly oppose — Google hits are useful, but they should not be the determining factor in naming conventions. The Church of England calendar names him John Wyclif. I have seen both forms used, and I would suggest that we be not hasty to move to what seems a more popular version of this name. --Gareth Hughes 14:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Philip Baird Shearer 16:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Mild Support Both are permissable. Average user would more likely look for Wycliffe. Op. Deo 19:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- It is spelled john Wycliffe in my history
If we are to be consistent in the use of the most standard spelling in English as the baseline for orthographical practice, I would say yes. user:sjc
- The spelling Wyclif is favoured by he Church of England, the Catholic Encyclopedia, the BBC and the Columbia Encyclopedia among others. It also seems that a lot of the hits for the Wycliffe spelling are to sites that use the Wyclif spelling, but put up redirects from the more common spelling. I would say the weight of authority is behind Wyclif (Britannica, however, uses Wycliffe), and the weight of popularity behind Wycliffe. I would imagine an encyclopedia would choose the former. --Gareth Hughes 18:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- I think this is very hard to call. It seems there are two spellings in use. This is confirmed by the SOED which specifically says John Wyclif or Wycliffe. As noted above Britannica places the article under Wycliffe but also says Wycliffe also spelled Wycliff, Wyclif, Wicliffe, or Wiclif. Academic works seem pretty well split between the two, although from my quick survey those dealing with manuscripts tend to use Wyclif. The Times is a good test of British usage. This gives 2708 hits on Wycliffe against 141 on Wyclif. If we restrict the search to John Wycliffe I get 82 hits versus 26 for John Wyclif Op. Deo 19:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
This article contains the following:
- He had already resigned a prebend in Westbury because it was contrary to his convictions to hold more positions than those in which he could personally exercise the cure of souls.
Unfortunately there are at least three places called Westbury in England, and there is no context to indicate which is being referred to here. So the link remains to the dab page. Please correct if you can. -- Chris j wood 22:03, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I don't know which one it is, but there is a high likelihood that it's the Buckinghamshire one, which is not far from Ludgershall where he was a rector. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 00:02, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Westbury-on-Trym - a parish immediately to NW of Bristol, possibly immediately adjactent to the route of the M5. Wycliffe was Prebend of nearby Aust. Op. Deo 09:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Cite or Remove "Bases for his reformatory activities"
most every sentence in this section is in need of a citation.
- "this suggests the answer to the question how he came to his reformatory ideas."
- "It was not as a teacher or preacher that Wycliffe gained his position in history"
- "The root of the Wycliffite reformatory movement must be traced to his Bible study and to the ecclesiastical-political lawmaking of his times."
such claims could be edifying but only if they are made by an expert source.
otherwise the section should be removed, Bantosh 16 June, 2006
FOX'S BOOK OF MARTYRS CHAPTER VII An Account of the Life and Persecutions of John Wickliffe It will not be inappropriate to devote a few pages of this work to a brief detail of the lives of some of those men who first stepped forward, regardless of the bigoted power which opposed all reformation, to stem the time of papal corruption, and to seal the pure doctrines of the Gospel with their blood.
Among these, Great Britain has the honor of taking the lead, and first maintaining that freedom in religious controversy which astonished Europe, and demonstrated that political and religious liberty are equally the growth of that favored island. Among the earliest of these eminent persons was
John Wickliffe This celebrated reformer, denominated the "Morning Star of the Reformation," was born about the year 1324, in the reign of Edward II. Of his extraction we have no certain account. His parents designing him for the Church, sent him to Queen's College, Oxford, about that period founded by Robert Eaglesfield, confessor to Queen Philippi. But not meeting with the advantages for study in that newly established house which he expected, he removed to Merton College, which was then esteemed one of the most learned societies in Europe.
The first thing which drew him into public notice, was his defence of the university against the begging friars, who about this time, from their settlement in Oxford in 1230, had been troublesome neighbors to the university. Feuds were continually fomented; the friars appealing to the pope, the scholars to the civil power; and sometimes one party, and sometimes, the other, prevailed. The friars became very fond of a notion that Christ was a common beggar; that his disciples were beggars also; and that begging was of Gospel institution. This doctrine they urged from the pulpit and wherever they had access.
Wickliffe had long held these religious friars in contempt for the laziness of their lives, and had now a fair opportunity of exposing them. He published a treatise against able beggary, in which he lashed the friars, and proved that they were not only a reproach to religion, but also to human society. The university began to consider him one of their first champions, and he was soon promoted to the mastership of Baliol College.
About this time, Archbishop Islip founded Canterbury Hall, in Oxford, where he established a warden and eleven scholars. To this wardenship Wickliffe was elected by the archbishop, but upon his demise, he was displaced by his successor, Stephen Langham, bishop of Ely. As there was a degree of flagrant injustice in the affair, Wickliffe appealed to the pope, who subsequently gave it against him from the following cause: Edward III, then king of England, had withdrawn the tribune, which from the time of King John had been paid to the pope. The pope menaced; Edward called a parliament. The parliament resolved that King John had done an illegal thing, and given up the rights of the nation, and advised the king not to submit, whatever consequences might follow.
The clergy now began to write in favor of the pope, and a learned monk published a spirited and plausible treatise, which had many advocates. Wickliffe, irritated at seeing so bad a cause so well defended, opposed the monk, and did it in so masterly a way that he was considered no longer as unanswerable. His suit at Rome was immediately determined against him; and nobody doubted but his opposition to the pope, at so critical a period, was the true cause of his being non-suited at Rome.
Wickliffe was afterward elected to the chair of the divinity professor:
and now fully convinced of the errors of the Romish Church, and the vileness of its monastic agents, he determined to expose them. In public lectures he lashed their vices and opposed their follies. He unfolded a variety of abuses covered by the darkness of superstition. At first he began to loosen the prejudices of the vulgar, and proceeded by slow advances; with the metaphysical disquisitions of the age, he mingled opinions in divinity apparently novel. The usurpations of the court of Rome was a favorite topic. On these he expatiated with all the keenness of argument, joined to logical reasoning. This soon procured him the clamor of the clergy, who, with the archbishop of Canterbury, deprived him of his office.
At this time the administration of affairs was in the hands of the duke of Lancaster, well known by the name of John of Gaunt. This prince had very free notions of religion, and was at enmity with the clergy. The exactions of the court of Rome having become very burdensome, he determined to send the bishop of Bangor and Wickliffe to remonstrate against these abuses, and it was agreed that the pope should no longer dispose of any benefices belonging to the Church of England. In this embassy, Wickliffe's observant mind penetrated into the constitution and policy of Rome, and he returned more strongly than ever determined to expose its avarice and ambition.
Having recovered his former situation, he inveighed, in his lectures, against the pope-his usurpation-his infallibility-his pride-his avarice- and his tyranny. He was the first who termed the pope Antichrist. From the pope, he would turn to the pomp, the luxury, and trappings of the bishops, and compared them with the simplicity of primitive bishops. Their superstitions and deceptions were topics that he urged with energy of mind and logical precision.
From the patronage of the duke of Lancaster, Wickliffe received a good benefice; but he was no sooner settled in his parish, than his enemies and the bishops began to persecute him with renewed vigor. The duke of Lancaster was his friend in this persecution, and by his presence and that of Lord Percy, earl marshal of England, he so overawed the trial, that the whole ended in disorder.
After the death of Edward III his grandson Richard II succeeded, in the eleventh year of his age. The duke of Lancaster not obtaining to be the sole regent, as he expected, his power began to decline, and the enemies of Wickliffe, taking advantage of the circumstance, renewed their articles of accusation against him. Five bulls were despatched in consequence by the pope to the king and certain bishops, but the regency and the people manifested a spirit of contempt at the haughty proceedings of the pontiff, and the former at that time wanting money to oppose an expected invasion of the French, proposed to apply a large sum, collected for the use of the pope, to that purpose. The question was submitted to the decision of Wickliffe. The bishops, however, supported by the papal authority, insisted upon bringing Wickliffe to trial, and he was actually undergoing examination at Lambeth, when, from the riotous behavior of the populace without, and awed by the command of Sir Lewis Clifford, a gentleman of the court, that they should not proceed to any definitive sentence, they terminated the whole affair in a prohibition to Wickliffe, not to preach those doctrines which were obnoxious to the pope; but this was laughed at by our reformer, who, going about barefoot, and in a long frieze gown, preached more vehemently than before.
In the year 1378, a contest arose between two popes, Urban VI and Clement VII which was the lawful pope, and true vicegerent of God. This was a favorable period for the exertion of Wicliffe's talents: he soon produced a tract against popery, which was eagerly read by all sorts of people.
About the end of the year, Wickliffe was seized with a violent disorder, which it was feared might prove fatal. The begging friars, accompanied by four of the most eminent citizens of Oxford, gained admittance to his bed chamber, and begged of him to retract, for his soul's sake, the unjust things he had asserted of their order. Wickliffe, surprised at the solemn message, raised himself in his bed, and with a stern countenance replied, "I shall not die, but live to declare the evil deeds of the friars."
When Wickliffe recovered, he set about a most important work, the translation of the Bible into English. Before this work appeared, he published a tract, wherein he showed the necessity of it. The zeal of the bishops to suppress the Scriptures greatly promoted its sale, and they who were not able to purchase copies, procured transcripts of particular Gospels or Epistles. Afterward, when Lollardy increased, and the flames kindled, it was a common practice to fasten about the neck of the condemned heretic such of these scraps of Scripture as were found in his possession, which generally shared his fate.
Immediately after this transaction, Wickliffe ventured a step further, and affected the doctrine of transubstantiation. This strange opinion was invented by Paschade Radbert, and asserted with amazing boldness. Wickliffe, in his lecture before the University of Oxford, 1381, attacked this doctrine, and published a treatise on the subject. Dr. Barton, at this time vice-chancellor of Oxford, calling together the heads of the university, condemned Wickliffe's doctrines as heretical, and threatened their author with excommunication. Wickliffe could now derive no support from the duke of Lancaster, and being cited to appear before his former adversary, William Courteney, now made archbishop of Canterbury, he sheltered himself under the plea, that, as a member of the university, he was exempt from episcopal jurisdiction. This plea was admitted, as the university were determined to support their member.
The court met at the appointed time, determined, at least to sit in judgment upon his opinions, and some they condemned as erroneous, others as heretical. The publication on this subject was immediately answered by Wickliffe, who had become a subject of the archbishop's determined malice. The king, solicited by the archbishop, granted a license to imprison the teacher of heresy, but the commons made the king revoke this act as illegal. The primate, however, obtained letters from the king, directing the head of the University of Oxford to search for all heresies and books published by Wickliffe; in consequence of which order, the university became a scene of tumult. Wickliffe is supposed to have retired from the storm, into an obscure part of the kingdom. The seeds, however, were scattered, and Wickliffe's opinions were so prevalent that it was said if you met two persons upon the road, you might be sure that one was a Lollard. At this period, the disputes between the two popes continued. Urban published a bull, in which he earnestly called upon all who had any regard for religion, to exert themselves in its cause; and to take up arms against Clement and his adherents in defence of the holy see.
A war, in which the name of religion was so vilely prostituted, roused Wickliffe's inclination, even in his declining years. He took up his pen once more, and wrote against it with the greatest acrimony. He expostulated with the pope in a very free manner, and asks him boldly: 'How he durst make the token of Christ on the cross (which is the token of peace, mercy and charity) a banner to lead us to slay Christian men, for the love of two false priests, and to oppress Christiandom worse than Christ and his apostles were oppressed by the Jews? 'When,' said he, 'will the proud priest of Rome grant indulgences to mankind to live in peace and charity, as he now does to fight and slay one another?'
This severe piece drew upon him the resentment of Urban, and was likely to have involved him in greater troubles than he had before experienced, but providentially he was delivered out of their hands. He was struck with the palsy, and though he lived some time, yet it was in such a way that his enemies considered him as a person below their resentment.
Wickliffe returning within short space, either from his banishment, or from some other place where he was secretly kept, repaired to his parish of Lutterworth, where he was parson; and there, quietly departing this mortal life, slept in peace in the Lord, in the end of the year 1384, upon Silvester's day. It appeared that he was well aged before he departed, "and that the same thing pleased him in his old age, which did please him being young."
Wickliffe had some cause to give them thanks, that they would at least spare him until he was dead, and also give him so long respite after his death, forty-one years to rest in his sepulchre before they ungraved him, and turned him from earth to ashes; which ashes they also took and threw into the river. And so was he resolved into three elements, earth, fire, and water, thinking thereby utterly to extinguish and abolish both the name and doctrine of Wickliffe forever. Not much unlike the example of the old Pharisees and sepulchre knights, who, when they had brought the Lord unto the grave, thought to make him sure never to rise again. But these and all others must know that, as there is no counsel against the Lord, so there is no keeping down of verity, but it will spring up and come out of dust and ashes, as appeared right well in this man; for though they dug up his body, burned his bones, and drowned his ashes, yet the Word of God and the truth of his doctrine, with the fruit and success thereof, they could not burn.
This article takes a LOT of things from this website http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/john-wycliffe.html .
Changing a few words here or there doesn't mean it's original. Shouldn't those stolen quotes be removed?
Old vandalism repair
It appears as if this series of vandal edits back in December, which removed all wikilinks and tags from the article, was never properly reverted. I'm going to see what I can do about restoring it to approximately the state it was beforehand while retaining substantive edits made in the meantime. If I inadvertently miss any, I apologize in advance. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for noticing. I suspected something might be up with the mis-directed peace congress link, but I didn't go back through the history enough to really find what was going on. Kingdon 02:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Your peace congress fix is what made me go back and look. It seemed like such a weird link that I got to wondering how long it had been there -- then I noticed this vandal removing all the wikilinks and there not being quite so many as there once was, and a missing section (that was a different anon vandal). But there had been a number of real improvements since, so a simple revert wasn't possible. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
'... [C]harged them with so neglecting their duty that the breaking of the evil fiend into the English sheepfold could be noticed in Rome before it was in England.'
'Evil fiend' does not seem all that proper a description in a historical analysis. It may be how someone was viewed by another at a certain time, but that is rather unclear here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 05:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Appeal to Rome?
Why would Wycliffe have appealed to Rome against a decision of the Church hierarchy in 1366, when the Curia and Pope were in Avignon? I note that this is also stated by Foxe, but that does not make it correct. Perhaps Foxe just meant "Rome" as shorthand for "the Curia"? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- And the Papacy was taken back to Rome in January 1378 not January 1377. The confusion probably arises because contemporary chroniclers do not start the year until Lady Day, but today historians usually prefer to use our current calendar years. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation
At 17:15, 2008 September 9, anon IP 188.8.131.52 blanked most of the article page with the explanation "massive copyvio of http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/john-wycliffe.html", which was quickly reverted.
However, on looking at the web site, it does appear that the wikipedia article is a copy, or perhaps vice versa. The cited source is copyrighted material (1997 – 2003) by Greatsite Marketing. The original wikipedia article is dated 18 December 2001 by User:Alan Millar, who has not made any wikipedia contributions since 2002. That original wikipedia article does look like it was copied from somewhere (it included entire sections with mandatory line breaks for each line of text), and the wording is suspiciously similar to the copyrighted material. The similarities remain in the current article, including like-named section headings.
If wikipedia is the offending party, removing questionable material piecemeal is not viable, as this applies to the bulk of the article - a rewrite is the most likely practical solution, and it would involve a considerable amount of work.
- My guess is that both come from an old source, out of copyright, such as 1911 Britannica. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Millar's edit summary at the time said "old encyclopedia". It's lifted from The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. XII: Trench - Zwingli by Philip Schaff. Now I'll look to see when that was published. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Further to the two above posts, from WP: "The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge is a religious encyclopedia (1st edition 1882-84; 3rd edition 1891; new edition published in thirteen volumes 1908-14). It focuses on Christianity from a primarily Protestant point of view. ... As of 2004, the 1914 text is in the public domain (and thus can be incorporated into any other work). The Christian Classics Ethereal Library has digitised the work, and made it available to be read online." So we're OK now, but weren't necessarily when the text was first added. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Millar's edit summary at the time said "old encyclopedia". It's lifted from The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. XII: Trench - Zwingli by Philip Schaff. Now I'll look to see when that was published. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- We're not necessarily ok. It does look like the text was originally from an old encyclopedia, for both wikipedia and the copyright site ... however, the old encyclopedias do not have the section headings that are in both the wikipedia article and the copyright site (and they are the same section headings) - one is possibly taken from the other. And material copied from an old encyclopedia onto a copyright site makes the version on the copyright site copyrighted, especially when the wording has been modified, however slightly. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I know it is probably not an oversight but Wycliffe was a Roman Catholic priest and for all his vitriolic polemics against the Roman Catholic church (St. Catherine Sienna and St. Anthony of Padua have done the same) Wycliffe lived and died a Roman Catholic. --EliasT (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
John Wycliffe's date of birth
Intro is muddied
The introduction described the Lollards as rebelliously preaching as "the Gospel of Jesus Christ" which suggested that somehow the Roman Church did not. Updated to characterize their key doctrinal issues instead, rather than invite anti-catholic rhetoric. Uberhill 01:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
At Oxford -- foundation
The text states that Islip placed JW at the head of Canterbury Hall and that he "designed the foundation for secular clergy." This is unclear to me. Was Canterbury Hall a "foundation" of some kind? Or should it read that Islip "laid the foundation for secular clergy." Or, alternatively, Islip "intended Canterbury Hall to be for secular clergy; but when . . . ."?
Also, in what way did Woodford and Woodbridge keep the case alive or preserve an account of it?
"Woodford and Woodbridge later thought that this seemingly minor matter was one of the roots of JW's later assaults on Rome and monasticism"?
Also, I suggest ". . . parents recommending that he join a different university, but he did not do so."
I agree with comments above that the question is not editing for improvements (which has been tried many times) but a complete rewrite by someone who knows the subject. Any offers? Span (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Date of Wycliffe's translation of Bible
The lead states that 'Wycliffe completed his translation...in 1382', but then later on states 'The Bible was completed by 1384'. This is a contradiction. Can someone edit this with the correct date? VenomousConcept (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- First the dating is not known with certainty. Second, Wycliffe did not do all the work himself. It is possible both dates are correct in what they claim or they could both be wrong. Rmhermen (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm adding the following (rewrite) tag to the top of the article, for reasons outlined above -- the bulk of the article is lifted from that "greatsites" page, itself copied directly from a poorly-written century-old encyclopedia entry, all otherwise unsourced.
|This article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards.|
‘Precursor’ to the Reformation?
This article claims that the Lollard movement (and, presumably, Wycliffe himself) “was a precursor to the Protestant Reformation,” citing Heavy Words Lightly Thrown by Chris Roberts. No page number is provided. I do not doubt that the Lollard movement (and Wycliffe himself) was, in some loose and analogous sense, a ‘precursor’ to the Protestant Reformation, but this should be made less ambiguous. The word ‘precursor’ normally means a predecessor. The reason I add this is that, as far as we know, neither Wycliffe nor the Lollard movement was widely known by the Protestant Reformers until the Reformation had started. There is evidence that Wycliffe and the Lollard movement (as well as people like Jan Hus) were used by the Protestant Reformers once they knew who they were, but that is not the same as saying that they were ‘precursors’ to the Reformation. As far as I’m aware, Luther, for instance, had never heard about Jan Hus until Johann Eck brought him up in a debate. It would be better, I think, to say that in the course of the Reformation, Wycliffe (and others) became an influence on the Protestant Reformers, and held to be ‘precursors’ to the Protestant Reformation in a loose and analogous sense. Wycliffe and the Lollard movement weren’t ‘precursors’ to the Protestant Reformation in the same sense as, say, british medieval Watchmen were the precursor of the modern english police force. Carissimi (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Public Declaration problems
In the section "public declaration", it is said that one of John Wyncliffe's great works was the Summa Theologica. The Summa Theologica was written by Thomas Aquinas, not John Wyncliffe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
My deletion of the OR tagged section on 9/9/2013
This was tagged by someone as possibly being OR in 2007. I think wikipedia needs to delete sections of articles as historically important as this, when an OR tag has been on it that long.220.127.116.11 (talk) 03:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)