Talk:John Calvin

Image

MOS:Start an article with a right-aligned lead image

• Contray to the 21 June 2009 comment and others, thiis is not a conflict in the MOS:IMAGES. It is only, at worse, not as clear as could be.
• The text make perfectly clear "Start an article with a right-aligned lead image" (or an infobox); it does not say "It is often preferable to start an article with a right-aligned lead image." The reason for this (being right-aligned) is that when we place the image on the left the lead text finishes before the bottom of the image and so the right of the lower part of the image and the TOC is all white space.
• The guideline father down only speaks of preferances for all images in the article, not just (or even so much) the lead image.
• If "start an article with a right-aligned lead image" and "place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text" were both "often preferable" then could see that a sort of conflict-- or just a licence to go either way as needed; but that is not the MOS.
• While I would also want the image to be faceing the text-- if all other things (the quality of images) were equal-- the MOS calls on us to place the image (or infobox) on the right, even if on our own browser it seems okay. ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 19:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that MOS:IMAGES should be followed in this case. -- Radagast3 (talk) 06:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Since there is a desire to archive, and there are no objections voiced, we'll regard this as consensus, and I'll fix the image accordingly. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 17:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The compromise concerned the infobox, not the alignment of the lead image. The message requested to bring to the talk page first, so for the moment, the original alignment is kept. --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No one ever claimed this was a "compromise"; someone has to disagree first before there would be what you call a compromise.

When editors post here and only people who agree respond-- after others are given time to respond-- and any editors that "disagree," opt out to said disscussion or simply find themselves unable post couter-arguments to clear policy, that is call WP:Consensus. Consensus is how Wikipedia resolves issues.

If you want to open this disscussion yet again I won't object-- but keep the photo right-jusified as it is until and unless any newer consensus emerges otherwise. Given you have still failed to post any reason to not follow MOS:IMAGES on this issue, even now, and that you also archived parts of the disscussion, leads me to think you don't plan even to do this. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 23:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Awadewit, TuckerResearch, and I, all said it was a compromise concerning the infobox only. Please see the end of the section, Talk:John_Calvin/Archive2009#Arguments_against_an_infobox. At that point, the image was in it's original position, left justified. The consensus for the left justification was achieved and agreed to during the article development and the FA process. If the consensus changes, then fine, but it is up to those who are introducing the new ideas to bring their arguments. That is why I reverted your bold change, following WP:BRD. So please discuss without edit warring please.

The arguments for the left justification can be found in the archives. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

MOS is only a guideline, and this image placement was vetted at FAC. There is no problem here; leave the image alone, pls. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

If the arguments in the archive for a left-justified image were so noteworthy then why were you in such a hurry to archive them yesterday after this post of mine? ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 21:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I only archived the infobox compromise as Awadewit had requested (and of course previous stuff). I did not archive your post or the thread on the image justification. I left it here and you can see it above. --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

False again. You removed this to here, of which MOS:Start an article with a right-aligned lead image was just a subsection. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 01:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Forget all the arguments over whether having the first image on the left or right is a policy or only a guideline. It's the later, but that is not as important as whether it simply looks wrong. And it does. It looks very awkward. Let's fix this please. Jonathunder (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

From the style manual:

• Start an article with a right-aligned lead image or infobox.

I see no good reason to depart from that here, so I've fixed the layout accordingly. Jonathunder (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

As Sandy stated, the MoS is a guideline. The image was accepted as a Featured Article. There is no "fixing" needed. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The MOS does not call for right-alignment of the first image for no reason. This serves our readers by making the text more accessible on a wider variety of devices. Jonathunder (talk) 05:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• I vote we delete the image all together and move on. This topic comes up every 3 months and it's never going to be resolved, so let's just forget it. Aristophanes68 (talk) 06:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The consensus for the image placement was achieved during the FA process. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

RelHistBuff, that is not an argument. You've used this argument before (like here and here, and several places on the talk pages). It is not the policy of Wikipedia that once an article is featured that it is then "perfect" and can't be changed by other editors. (This is not Citizendium or Nupedia. Look at the very top of this talk page: "John Calvin is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.") I think there is definitely not a "consensus" that the right-facing image must be on the left-side of the article. I think Jonathunder's idea of putting the Titian image on the right solves the problem. Which brings me, RelHistBuff, to a second issue with you. Just because you like the image and you've seen it on the cover of Calvin biographies (like you've said several times, like here, and several places on the talk pages), is not a valid argument either. I have a selected collection of Calvin's writings with the Titian image on the cover. Does this mean I should argue we lead with the Titian image because I have a book I like with that on the cover? No. Here is how I see it:

(1) There is a right-facing image.

(2) We either:

(a) have it on the left-side of the article facing the text, which many say looks funny

(b) have it on the right-side of the article facing away from the text, which many say look funny

(3) It is disputed as to whether sticking it on the left facing the text is a rule or merely a guideline

(4) Every few weeks an edit war begins on right or left side

(5) Thus, I think the best solution is to replace it with a left-facing image and stick it on the right

Titian's image fits the bill. It is by a well-known painter, it is contemporary, and it is widely-used. I think it is a great compromise.

TuckerResearch (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The Titian image of Calvin is completely unknown. It makes no sense to use such an image solely to fit a guideline. The original image is well-known and is the classic view of Calvin.

Titian is a major artist and this portrait is well-documented. The image of it that we have on Wikipedia is of much better resolution than the one from a completely unknown source. Those are all reasons to lead with the Titian portrait. Jonathunder (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"The Titian image of Calvin is completely unknown." Says who? Obviously we know it, we're talking about it. And, as I said, I own a book with this image on the cover. "It makes no sense to use such an image solely to fit a guideline." Says who? You? Apparently it makes sense to me and Jonathunder. Right? "The original image is well-known and is the classic view of Calvin." Says who? You, RelHistBuff? The "classic view of Calvin"? What does that even mean? I could make the argument that the "classic" view of Calvin is one of the woodcuts. I've seen far more of the woodcuts than either the Titian image or the anonymous image. I believe Jonathunder offered a reasonable solution to a perennial problem on this article. I find your continually apparent unwillingness to change "your" article quite perplexing. TuckerResearch (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop with the personal attacks, Tuckerresearch. Advice: avoid using the sarcastic "you", "your", etc. and your arguments will go better. As mentioned previously, the Geneva Library painting is on the cover of three major biographies (Gordon, Cottret, and Parker). Others have made copies of this with Calvin in the same position (Selderhuis' Calvin's Handbook). It is a near contemporary. It is owned by Geneva's Library and kept in the Reformation Museum. Which book uses the Titian painting? --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

RelHistBuff, I am not personally attacking you. I am merely pointing out what I perceive are the flaws ("...classic view of Calvin.") and bluster ("The image was accepted as a Featured Article. There is no 'fixing' needed.") in your arguments, thus I will use pronouns like "you" and "your." And I do not seek or appreciate your condescending advice. I wholeheartedly admit to sarcasm. I'm happy you like the anonymous painting. However, many Wikipedia users find a lead image on the left-side of the text distracting and clunky, thus they place it on the right. Others find a leading right-facing portrait looking right offscreen to be annoying, thus they place it on the left. It seems to me the simple solution is to put a left-facing portrait on the right-side of the screen. Titian's fits the bill. So do many others. We could use a different one. Perhaps this one?

If the Titian isn't acceptable, how about a compromise left-facing image from the Bibliothèque de Genève?

If you do a Google Book or Amazon search for "John Calvin," you'll see that books use a whole panoply of images for Calvin: left-facing, forward-facing, right-facing, color, black & white, paintings, woodcuts, etc. Same goes for a Google Image search. I for one don't care which image leads this article, or whether it is on the left or right. Since the compromise on the infobox, I've never changed the lead image. But, I will not stand silent and let you attempt to bully people by telling them they can't change this article because "The image was accepted as a Featured Article. There is no "fixing" needed." or "The consensus for the image placement was achieved during the FA process." I think such behavior would indicate to a neutral observer that you feel you own this article. Left or right image, I don't care, but I think it is bad form for you to tell people they can't change this article because you believe your image is "classic" and because you think it was once perfect as a featured article. TuckerResearch (talk) 09:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I can honestly say I am not "bullying" and I do wonder why you continue with your personal attacks. The consensus achieved at FA is important so the argument to change it to the Titian has to be strong, not simply to fulfill a guideline. I pointed out why the current lead image is better (see above). The Titian is practically unknown. I've read many books on Calvin (and the Reformation in general) and often they have pictures of Calvin (none used the Titian picture). So what book cover used the Titian? I am curious. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This behavior of constantly refusing to accept change in the article, even on something like layout of images, unless there is a "strong" consensus to change, is not consistent with the Wiki Way. It is ownership. This behavior could also be seen as bullying by some of those who have tried to improve the article in the past and have been discouraged from doing so. FA status does not mean unchanging perfection. In fact, if FA status is being used to keep the article unchanged, the article will benefit from removal of that status. Jonathunder (talk) 11:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

RelHistBuff, let us look at some of the criteria for bullying:

• Asserting ownership, some examples of which include:

1. An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article daily. The editor might claim the right, whether openly or implicitly, to review any changes before they can be added to the article. (This does not include egregious formatting errors.)

2. Article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not. (This does not include removing vandalism.)

Consensus changes.

• Making "no-edit" orders, such as "hidden text that would not be missed if one attempts to edit the article or section" telling folks "not to edit at all or in a particular manner, or not to edit a particular page or part of a page at all or in a particular manner." Now there is an exception for consensus, but consensus is neither absolute nor permanent, and it is apparent that there is not consensus on the placement or choice of lead image.

Now if a neutral observer were to look at some of your actions on this page, hidden text orders, reverts, claims that your image is "classic," demanding that no changes be made because the article was once a featured article, etc., that same neutral observer would probably conclude that you are asserting ownership of his article and bullying other editors.

Now to my supposed "personal attacks." In this conversation I have pointed out the flaws in your reasoning. Yes, perhaps sarcastically, but nothing I have said concerning the image is a personal attack against you. Perhaps you may claim my sarcasm is uncivil, but I don't think that I am being uncivil. I am definitely not attacking you personally. I defy you to point to anything above that may be regarded as a personal attack. Read the page: Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Have I called you a name? Have I threatened you? Have I disparaged anything but your logic and conclusions? No. I quote the page: "However, when there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack. A posting that says 'Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y', or 'The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research', is not a personal attack." Pointing out an unverifiable claim that your image is "classic" is not a personal attack. Pointing out that "my image is on the cover of some biographies" is not a suitable argument is not a personal attack. Pointing out that featured article status does not mean you can keep the page the same forever is not a personal attack. So please, address my arguments instead of complaining, falsely, that I am attacking you personally.

So let's turn to your argument. Listen, I am going to wholeheartedly admit that I've seen your image more than Titian's. I'll even admit it is probably more "classic" (whatever that means) than Titian's image. But so are these:

• 
• 
• 
• 

All of these have just as much right to be called "classic," all of which I have seen on book covers, all of which should be placed as the lead image to this article.

My intention in joining this fray was to support Jonathunder's actions and proposal that the article lead with a left-facing image on the right-hand side. This will hopefully stop the intermittent (and, let's admit, infantile) edit wars on an otherwise great article, as almost everyone can agree that a lead image that is left-facing on the right-hand side is acceptable all around. You reverted Jonathunder's actions, and you've totally ignored my proposal for a third compromise image. There are several choices at Wikimedia Commons: John Calvin, all may be considered "classic" to fit your bill and left-facing to fit the bill of many others. But no, no, no, no. You consider your image the best, and it was right-facing on the left as a featured article, thus it must, according to you, stay your way.

Which brings me to your curious request, given twice now, that I tell you which book I have with the Titian image on the cover. I think you don't believe me. That's not really assuming good faith, is it? But what if I was lying? Would that diminish my argument somehow? Would it then mean that we should lead with your image and only your image because you have three books with it on the cover and I have none? I think not. But, since you keep asking, I have an electronic collection of writings on my iPad and my LOGOS Bible Scholar software that uses the Titian image as a cover for the Institutes. True, not a physical book, but a book nonetheless, and a cover nonetheless. Still, my argument was that an image on a cover does not an argument make. I was not advocating the Titian image because I have a "book" with the Titian image on the cover, I was illustrating the absurdity of your argument that we should use your image because you have three books with it on the cover. Does this mean you can argue, "Well, I've got three real books with my image on the cover and he's got one fake book with the Titian image on the cover, we should thus lead with my image"? That too is not a valid argument. But, I bet you still don't believe me. Alas, alas, from Amazon.com.

TuckerResearch (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Disclosure: I was asked to give input in this discussion via email. As I stated in the FAC, I was and continue to be opposed to any image leading the article on the left side of the screen. Surely it is much more jarring to the casual reader to see a left-aligned image in the lead than to see an image of someone facing off-screen. I suspect that many fail to notice the latter, but none the former. That said, at the time of the FAC I did not realize that there were images as good or even better than the original lead image (16th century, unknown artist). Now that I am aware of such options, it's clear to me that the Titan image, showing Calvin's entire face and feeling more true than the more stylized previous lead image, is preferable. File:Calvijn.jpg would be preferable for the same reason, if a larger resolution image could be found. The argument that the 16th-century image is more well-known falls flat with me; the purpose of a lead image is to convey information, not to decorate. The image that tells a reader more about what John Calvin looked like is Titan, easily. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 00:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Tuckerresearch, you supplied the image of a cover, but what is the book (in terms of publisher, editor, etc.). If one looks at the major books published on Calvin the one that clearly leads in its use among the top publishers is the Geneva Library image. The second most used is likely the Jeune Calvin image. Images of both these paintings are widely-used. The originals are on public display and the source and attributions are well-known. In most of the major books, other images of Calvin are shown on special illustration pages; often both of these are included, but I have not yet seen the Titian. The provenance of the Titian is also a bit mysterious. The image is taken from the Bridgman website (the Bridgman watermark is evident in the image). It is only on the website that the source and attribution given. Does your e-book give this information? If the Titian were as widely understood and used as the Geneva Library image, then it would definitely be acceptable as the image for the lead. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Legacy: adding Guy de Bray as the Author of the Belgic Confession

Quote from Legacy Section:

Due to Calvin's missionary work in France, his program-(me)[spelling of 'programme' is old fashioned] of reform eventually reached the French-speaking provinces of the Netherlands. Calvinism was adopted in the Palatinate under Frederick III, which led to the formulation of the Heidelberg Catechism in 1563. This and the Belgic Confession were adopted as confessional standards in the first synod of the Dutch Reformed Church in 1571.

I intend altering these sentences to read: Due to Calvin's missionary work in France and his production of the Gallic Confession (1559), his program of reform eventually reached the French speaking provinces of the Netherlands (den Nederlanden). Calvinism was adapted in the Paltinate under Frederick III, which led to the formulation of the Hedielberg Catechism (1563). These and the Belgic Confession (1561), authored by the Flemish (Vlams) Pastor, theologian and martyr Guy de Bray (Guido de Bres), were adopted as confessional standards in the first synod of the Dutch Reformed Church in 1571.17:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ieuan Sant (talk • contribs) Ieuan Sant (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)Ieuan Sant (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Ieuan Sant (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The spelling "programme" is standard British English; it is not old-fashioned. Please do not change this. The information in the current paragraph is sourced to Holder and McGrath. If you add any additional clauses (i.e., references to the authorship of the Belgic Confession), please also add a citation to the source of the information. Thanks. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello RelHisBuff Ok I will leave the spelling alone, do you approve of my intended addition (in blocks) otherwise? I intend to insert in a about a week if no one complains.Ieuan Sant (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

If the new text has a citation to a source, then no problem (see WP:BURDEN). If you don't have a source then please do not add it until you have the source information. Otherwise it will appear that your addition is credited to Holder and McGrath which is not correct. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, wikki articles cite the author of the Belgic Confession as De Bray and I have sourcesIeuan Sant (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Please cite the source (book, journal article, etc.) directly. Note that wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources (see WP:CIRCULAR). --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, the Belgic Confession source is: J. van Engen, Walter A. Elwell (ed.), 1985, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Avon, Marshall Pickering, p. 132 and the Gallic source is: N.V.Hope, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 1985, page 438.Ieuan Sant (talk) 01:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)Ieuan Sant (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

So I will leave it a few days before insertion.Ieuan Sant (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Ieuan Sant (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Opening Sentence

I am not happy with the opening sentence on this excellent article.

John Calvin (Middle French: Jean Cauvin) (10 July 1509 – 27 May 1564) was an influential French theologian and pastor during the Protestant Reformation.

I am suggesting an insertion as follows:

John Calvin(1509 -1564) along with Luther, was one of two leading Church Fathers of the 16th Century Reformation. His name has entered the English language and his doctrine known far and wide. He tutored national Church leaders, theologians and martyrs, and like His master Jesus Christ, changed the world for the better, forever.

Ieuan Sant (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead section is a summary of the article (see WP:LEAD). Additions should be placed in an appropriate section in the article first (with citations) and then possibly the lead could be edited (citations not needed there). The three sentences make strong statements that could be challenged. For that, you would need to show a good survey of high-quality sources making such claims. Otherwise this would fail the FA criteria, (see criteria 1c and 1d of WP:WIAFA). Do you have sources that can support these statements? --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The citations are already inplace in this article, it is certainly true that Calvin was a near genius holding as he did two licentiates and had been offered two doctorates and had a phenonemal mememory. It is also true that he taught many of the national church leaders and some of those ended up martyrs. As rgerds Calvin's nam enetering the English langigae I have four quotations regrding the use of that name. Parker T.H.L., gives a full list of what Calvin studied from his ten years of University and he was declered an advanced student by his pears, (Bucer from memory.)

I just think we do Calvin and Wikki an injustice by defining him simply as an 'influential French theologian', that's not to say he wasn't influntial but it typical English undertsatement. I think most readers will be suprised that that is the best we can do. It's true to say Calvin was french but to limit him to being just a French Theologian is again understatement, the article itself pormotes his univeral respect and acceptance. He changed the face of Europe and took over from Martin Luther's work and refining it and writing a complete new systematic theology.

The Wikki policy is to be bold and I have been bold. I think the existing sentence is mealy mouthed and limiting. I think my take is better and should be included. Of course I undertsand that a lot of work has gone in to this but I am a memebr of the Calvin project, whatevr that means and I assure you I have great respect for Calvin's work and would hate to do him an injustice.

If you don't agree with my 3 sentences I will not persever but I can provide the sources but you already have them in the articel. He was universally respected in the Reformed community, a near genius in intellect, know world wide even in secualr circles. He taught many of the national church leader, De Bray (holland), Knox (Scotland) et al.

regards Ieuan Sant (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, I agree with the gist of your three sentences (perhaps I would have used different words). But note that I said "in my opinion"! Here on wikipedia, however, my opinion does not matter. One could believe that he was a near genius, but that would only be one's opinion. What we have to put down on wiki are summaries, paraphrases, reports of the analyses of experts. Let's examine your three sentences:

• He was "one of two leading Church Fathers of the 16th Century Reformation". In my opinion, this is obvious. But as this is a bold statement, this would be better off to be cited. Do you have a source that makes this statement? Then it would be possible to put this in the Legacy section and the lead.
• "His doctrine known far and wide" might be controversial. How deep is his theology known? Most people have only the slightest understanding of Calvinism. Also with certain exceptions, Calvinism largely centers around Western Europe and North America.
• He "changed the world for the better". This is definitely controversial. Many might argue the other way.

Multiple sources will be needed to support the latter two statements. And they have to be of impeccable quality. --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, good points, far and wide covers Reformed Churches in the Antipodes, North America, Argentina (Welsh Colony of Patagonia), Khasiland (Welsh Calvinistic Methodist Churches set up in 19th Century), India, UK and Northern Europe.

The thing about quoting exact statement is that they very much look like copying, don't we have any leeway to make a statement that can be grleaned from the historical facts? I notice 'French Theologian' is taken from T.H.L. Parker back cover ad it seems so trite that we have to copy trite remarks from Authors and not make a BOLD statement based on the evidence before us and actually in our own Wikk article. But I can supply statement from parker's book to supoort his near genius, although the quotes will not use those axact words.

Changed the world for the better means to spread the Christian doctrine world wide and free certain countries from say slavery and canibalism. But I can leave that out and put: caused vast upheavlas in Europe and eventually lead to the dilution of power of the Roman Catholic Church or leave this last part out alltogether. I will get my sources ready and post them on here. Ieuan Sant (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the opening sentence is fine as it now stands. TuckerResearch (talk) 06:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Opening Sentence Weak Working

My whole thrust in the preceding section regarding the opening sentence' is that Calvin was not just influentious, his publication of the Institutes of the Chrsistian Religion was a charter for change on a massive scale, he took the Reformation to new level. Here we have a man in Geneva recognised as one of the top acedemics, pastoring a church, writing commentaries on scripture that were earth shaking and not just that but free from Popish superstition and the fables of men. Here was vision, clarity and the truth of Christ presented so all men could see what the Bible meant. The ethos of Wikki demands we be bold, why be mealy-mouthed about him? why not say he was great, and a massive influence - which he was. He wasn't just an inflentious figure he was revolutionary in his thinking and wrote the first ever systematic theology.Ieuan Sant (talk) 09:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)Ieuan Sant (talk) 09:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the weakness of Wikki, despite a meaniful conversation one guy just plants an opinion with no back up whatsoevr QUOTE:

I believe that the opening sentence is fine as it now stands. TuckerResearch

So that nothing can be changed without a war ensuing, I can change it and just about anyone can come on and reverse it it. And all this just to change one sentence. The only one who win are the ones who are prepared to fight it out to the bitter end.Ieuan Sant (talk) 09:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ieuan Sant, You asked folks what they thought about a change to the first sentence. Then you say my opinion is not "meaniful" . I agree that Calvin was "influentious," but I believe that this article is very well-written, balanced, and the intro adequately and forcefully summarizes the article. That is my opinion "with no back up whatsoevr." Here's my argument, I think it is fine as it stands, I think RelHistBuff thinks so too. Change it if you want, but other people can come by and change what you've changed. You write above: "I can change it and just about anyone can come on and reverse it it." Um, I sort of think that's the whole point of Wikipedia. Is it not? TuckerResearch (talk) 03:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, so you have an opinion, so why do you think Calvins was just an influence when the rest of the world seem to think of him as a revolutionary thinker and leading Protestant Church Father? What good are opinions and original research on here, who cares what you think when we want facts. The fact is he was an earth shaking event to 16th century Europe.Ieuan Sant (talk) 09:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Ieuan Sant (talk) 09:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC) From the Catholic Encyclopedia: John Calvin from their website http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03195b.htm

>>This man, undoubtedly the greatest of Protestant divines, and perhaps, after St. Augustine, the most perseveringly followed by his disciples of any Western writer on theology<<

From the website: http://www.answers.com/topic/john-calvin

>>Few theologians have had more influence on Western Christian thought and culture than John Calvin, one of the fathers of the Reformed branch of Protestant Christianity. Born to a Roman Catholic family of means, Calvin was schooled in Latin, Hebrew, Greek, philosophy, and law<<>>Best Known As: Geneva-based leader of the Protestant Reformation<<

Tim Challies says:

>>Historians, by contrast, know that John Calvin was one of the most remarkable men who lived in the last five hundred years and that his influence on the development of the modern western world has been immense.” Indeed, Calvin’s influence is felt in the rise of democracy, capitalism and even in modern science. From: http://www.challies.com/book-reviews/john-calvin-pilgrim-and- Ieuan Sant (talk) 10:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Status

This article suffers from ownership problems. If this continues, we should pursue removal of FA status. Jonathunder (talk) 11:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC) I agree, classifying Calvin just as an influence' is a major understatement of fact and does the reputation of Wikki no good. It is also rediculous when viewed by Wiiki's article's on Calvin, a massive amount of fact and information that he was much more than just infleunctial. Even if you put that Calvin has been 'major influence' you would still be undertsating his contribution. If you put John Calvin has been a major leading influence you would not be doing justice to the facts of how his doctrines changed the Religious world of Europe and hence the world. I will say this about Wikki that it is an amazing free portal and does invaluable service to millions. There are shortcoming however and they need to be addressed. But not by me, I don't know the Wikki way of doing things and cannot comprhend the rules and regualtions at this stage.Ieuan Sant (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)