From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Protestant Reformation)
Jump to: navigation, search
  1. May 2005-Nov 2011

Current status[edit]

Article still needs more and better citations. -- 1editonec (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Sentence tries to do too much[edit]

"The Roman Catholic Church responded with a Counter-Reformation put in to motion by the Council of Trent—the most important ecumenical council since Nicaea II 800 years earlier (at the time, there had not been an ecumenical council since Lateran IV over 300 years prior, a length only to be matched by the interval between Trent and Vatican I)—and spearheaded by the Society of Jesus."
Although not the topic of this Article, this sentence tries to sum up 37 or more other Articles. Someone help with this!
Is there anything wrong with just saying: "The Roman Catholic Church responded with a Counter-Reformation put in to motion by the Council of Trent" and ending there? If forced, I have no problem with adding: "and spearheaded by the Society of Jesus." Komowkwa (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Map of Europe 1648.PNG Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Map of Europe 1648.PNG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Map of Europe 1648.PNG)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


--Moved from personal page to talk page where it belongs-- The Reformation was also caused by the Renaissance. Because of the invention of the printing press, more people began to read the bible. The spirit of the Renaissance made people feel more curious and ready to ask questions. Many were no longer willing to accept all the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Martin Luther criticized certain practices and teachings of the Church. He gained many followers who were, of course, the Protestants. The Protestant movement spread to other countries of northern and western Europe. Several different Protestant religions developed. And in the article, it says that the ""15th-century invention of the printing press, and the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire, contributed to the creation of Protestantism"", as you see, the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire was caused by the takeover of Constantinople by the Ottomans (as the article states), who conquered the city, thus, caused that the migration of Greek scholars and texts to Italy following the Fall of Constantinople. Thus when the article that you reverted mentions ""15th-century invention of the printing press, and the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire, contributed to the creation of Protestantism"", of course this had something to do with and had to go through the Renaissance since all of this was caused in the Renaissance era. And the spread of ideas was the cause for the Reformation. I see you are new to Wikipedia and please state your reason first why this change needs to be reverted. Thank you. (Slurpy121 (talk) 07:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC))

you need documentation to back it up every statement made in the article. Your statement above is not documentation. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
It is documented, and in fact it doesn't need to be, since the previous statement was in fact saying the same thing, indirectly. (Slurpy121 (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC))
it is not documents nor is it found anywhere in the article. it is OR based on indirect speculation. Get some documentation and put it in the article. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
It is in fact. Read about the Renaissance and how the printing press helped to spread Renaissance ideas throughout Europe and influence people such as Martin Luther to question the bible. It's pure reason and logic if you will. I don't know why you deny reason against such logic. (Slurpy121 (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC))
Please stop removing my edit. If you are trying to pass yourself as a contributor just by deleting a content and saying it needs source if the source is as Chrystal clear in front of you, then you are not contributing in anything at all, but trying to make things worse for knowledge seekers! If it's hard for you to acknowledge the fact that the printing press and the fall of the eastern roman empire was the cause of the protestant reformation, then you my friend need to learn your history, that's why we have talk pages so we can discuss the history and the cause of the reformation. The 15th century invention of the printing press and the fall of the eastern roman empire contributed to the reformation, that's what it states in the article, right? And do you think these events led to the reformation directly? No? First it had to go through the renaissance and by the invention of the printing press, humanist ideas spread and the ability for many of the people to be able to read the bible, one individual being Martin Luther, a leader of the protestant movement, Is that so hard for you to understand?? You might also want to read this Wikipedia:Edit warring. (Slurpy121 (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoyBurtonson (talkcontribs)
WP is not about truth or logic, but about what is supported by reliable sources. you are inserting unsupported OR. That is not allowed. get some reliable sources and you can put whatever you want. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 07:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Read a book sometime, or learn from online courses. I'ts even written in my old "History for Kids book". Everyone with a knowledge of history knows that and It's not always necessary to provide a source if the answer is RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU. How do you think the Reformation began? You must Stop deleting without consensus. (Slurpy121 (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC))

Actually, sir or ma'am, it was not caused by the Renaissance, but rather aided by it. It used many tools that the Renaissance used (scholarship, printing, the "return to the sources" approach, etc.). However, it was not caused by it. Its primary cause was the decadence of the Renaissance clergy, their ineptitude or neglect of their flocks, the doctrine of the Catholic Church that laid the foundations for the abuses, and first and foremost the relationship between man and God. Furthermore, proof for this could be found in the fact that it didn't end until ca. 1750, when the Age of Enlightenment took the upper hand.

Thank you,

Dgljr5121973 (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Someone please fix first section under "history"[edit]

The section as it is right now ignores the fact that mainline protestants are a minority. Most protestants today are not mainline. The article previously had the word "mainstream" which is even worse, because that actually suggests that they are the majority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Sir or Ma'am:

Actually, the mainline "protestants" are the majority of the "Protestant" sects. It's just that attendence and membership is lower across the board.

Thank you,

Dgljr5121973 (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC) (Episcopalian-turned-die-hard Evangelical (Lutheran))

Unitas Fratrum/Moravian Church[edit]

There is a problem both in the article on the Unitas Fratrum and the Moravian Church (as well as their mentions in the page on the Protestant Reformation). They both state that the movement started with Jan Hus. This is in error. The Moravian Church and the Unitas Fratrum both originated with Nikolaus Ludwig, Graf von Zinzendorf und Pottendorf in the 1700s. The church that followed Jan Hus (the Hussites) later split in many directions: the Ultraquists (or Calixtines), the Bohemian Brethren, the Unity of the Brethren, the Czechoslovak Hussite Church, and the Taborites. These need to be changed ASAP.Thank you, Dgljr5121973 (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Response: You seem not to understand the Moravian Church's History. The Unitas Fratrum, Unity of brethren, was founded in 1457 by moderate followers of Jan Hus. They received episcopal ordination in 1467. This Unitas was forced underground or into exile in 1620 by the Habsburg takeover of Bohemia and Moravia. John Amos Comenius was their last bishop. Descendants of the Unitas kept their evangelical faith alive in secret as "the Hidden Seed". In 1722 under the leadership of Carpenter Christian David, many of this "Hidden Seed" began to emigrate to the estate in Saxony of the young nobleman Nicolas Ludwig Count von Zinzendorf. There under his guidance and leadership the descendants of the Unitas were forged again into a congregation of Brothers and Sisters in Herrnhut, consciously adopting Comenius's Ratio Disciplinae as a model for their "Brotherly Agreement" in 1727. They were of course very heavily influenced and transformed by the Pietism of the 18th Century in Germany and the strong personality of Zinzendorf, but most of the first 2 generations of Herrnhut "Moravians" were in fact descendants of the Ancient Unitas Fratrum.. Under Zinzendorf's leadership they began the worldwide protestant missionary movement in 1732 and in 1735 received the episcopal ordination of the Ancient Unitas in 1735 from the 2 remaining bishops of the Unitas, Comenius's grandson Jablonski in Berlin and Sitkovius in Lissa. The Moravian Church still preserves this episcopal order from Comenius. Scattered across the world in 17 Unity Provinces, the so-called "Moravian" church, is just a nickname, it is in reality the Renewed Unitas Fratrum, and legitimately lays claim to the inheritance of the Ancient Unitas Fratrum. — Preceding unsigned108.73.44.193 (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Pastor R. comment added by (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The important thing is to have reliable sources to use in the article. If you have sources, make changes and list the sources. Don't wait for someone else to do it for you. If you don't have sources then you should not make any changes. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


Please correct the antiquated abbreviation AD to CE to reflect modern dating standards. (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Rewriting the lead section[edit]

When I first read the lead section, it came across as both muddled and in some ways misleading. For example, 1517 as the usual starting-date appeared twice (paras. 1 & 4); Wycliffe and Hus were listed among the initiators although they had died long before 1517 (they are usually classed as precursors of the Ref.); the Black Death's influence must have been remote and the impact of the Fall of Constantinople was probably more indirect in that it contributed to the later Renaissance than direct. I have tried to give what I consider to be a reasonable shape to the lead section and hope it stimulates work on the rest of the article which needs to balance the theological, the socio-religious and the political aspects of a very complex process and in several sections needs more adequate sources. (I will try and deal with the section on the Church of England.) Jpacobb (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

looks like a good rewrite to me.  :) --RoyBurtonson (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Core Contest[edit]

I'm going to tackle this article for the newest running of the Core Contest, I hope. This will involve cleanup, adding citations to existing text, replacing out of date or unreliable citations (I'm looking at the citations to other wikipedia articles, specifically) and a general expansion. If all goes well, it should be close to GA status when I finish up. (In the past I've worked over Middle Ages and Crusades for earlier versions of this contest). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Church of England?[edit]

I have two questions about the recent insertion into the lead section: "It [the CofE] considered itself Protestant until the rise of the Oxford Movement in the 1830s." First, as it stands it is seriously misleading in that it implies that the Church's understanding of it changed in the 1830's. The opinions of Newman, Keble and others were first expressed in that decade but remained a minority view until much later in the century and even today the CofE's official web-site includes being protestant as one of its defining characteristics. Secondly, I doubt whether this information (even in a corrected form) is of sufficient relevance to the topic of this particular article on the Protestant Reformation which ended in 1648 to merit inclusion in the lead—or even in the corresponding section. — Jpacobb (talk) 00:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

better source than Simon?[edit]

In February someone questioned Simon as a source. Simon's book doesn't match the description of unreliable sources, see WP:NOTRS. Also, Simon is cited on a Stanford web site, so that speaks in its favor. Can someone please remove the "better source needed" tag? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 03:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Actual beginning of "Protestant"[edit]

I am amazed that this and other articles about Protestant/Protestantism totally neglect the actual origin of the term Protestant and thus its actual meaning. Please, someone work in the information that the term comes from the Protestation at Speyers in 1529, after which those princes and cities who had protested the Diet's decision, and thus those they represented in religious terms, were called "Protestants". This definition -- the proper historical one -- excludes Zwinglians and Anabaptists.

This information is actually present in some small articles, but belongs in the larger ones so it's plain where the term "Protestant" came from and thus its historical meaning. Dismalscholar (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Hus and justification by faith[edit]

I added a citation needed markup because as far as I know Hus never developed any ideas about justification by faith alone. Of course, I don't know everything, but here is one online reference that says exactly the opposite: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeatnip (talkcontribs) 19:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest the removal of this sentence: "Hus rejected indulgences and adopted a doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone." The first part is repetition of the previous sentence, and the second part is not historically accurate. I will give time for other editors to comment. Mikeatnip (talk) 12:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Vital article[edit]

This article is currently at class C, which is rather low for a vital article. I have made a few improvements (I hope) to the sections on Scotland and England, but can people suggest any other issues which need attention? PatGallacher (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The "Roman" Catholic Church[edit]

I had made a few edits removing the improper colloquialism "Roman Catholic" and replacing it with the proper term "Catholic". My edit was reverted and the colloquialism restored. Can we please agree to make the change to the Catholic Church's proper name? The "Roman" is gratuitous at best, blatantly incorrect at worst. It's not even of Catholic origin—it was originally used as a pejorative by the Anglicans, alongside such epithets as "papist", "popery", and the like. It is also almost exclusively an Englishism; in Spanish, for example, it is almost always referred to as "la Iglesia católica"; the term "la Iglesia católica romana" is a rarity. If "Roman Catholic Church" seems more commonly used, that is because most Anglophone authors are Protestant, as a simple matter of demographics. Catholics generally don't use the term in speech, nor in writing.

If one were to walk up to the typical "Roman" Catholic, ask them what denomination they're part of, they'd respond simply, "I'm Catholic." The only other specification you'd typically get is "I'm [name a particular Eastern rite, e.g. Maronite] Catholic" if they're not part of the Latin Church, and they're feeling particularly talkative that day.

Thanks. Crusadestudent (talk) 05:28, 03 May 2016 (EDT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crusadestudent (talkcontribs)

I am strongly opposed to changing "Roman Catholic Church" to "Catholic Church" in this article. There is nothing at all "improper" or "blatantly incorrect" about the use of "Roman Catholic", it has a long and established history and is merely an English translation of equivalent Latin names which predate the Reformation. For an accurate and NPOV history of the use of "Roman Catholic", "Roman Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholicism" see the Roman Catholic (term) article. Afterwriting (talk) 09:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
i don't see any RS in the complaint. So I looked at the reliable sources and find "Roman Catholic" is used without any problems as a standard term. I browsed the titles in some self-identified Catholic scholarly journals to demonstrate this: 1) "Faith and Leadership: The Papacy and the Roman Catholic Church" in Catholic Historical Review. (Autumn 2015); 2) "The Feast Of Corpus Christi In Mikulov, Moravia: Strategies Of Roman Catholic Counter-Reform (1579-86)" in Catholic Historical Review (Oct 2010); 3) "Divided Friends: Portraits of the Roman Catholic Modernist Crisis in the United States." in U.S. Catholic Historian (Fall 2013); 4) "The church and the seer: Veronica Lueken, the Bayside movement, and the Roman Catholic hierarchy" in American Catholic Studies (Fall 2012); 5) "Incompatible with God's Design: A History of the Women's Ordination Movement in the U.S. Roman Catholic Church." Catholic Historical Review (Oct 2013); 6) "The Rise and Fall of Triumph: The History of a Radical Roman Catholic Magazine, 1966-1976." Catholic Historical Review (Spring 2015); 7) "Mary, star of hope: Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary in the United States from 1854 to 2010, as seen through the lens of Roman Catholic Marian congregational song." American Catholic Studies (Spring 2013); 8) "Roman Catholic Ecclesiastics In English North America, 1610-58: A Comparative Assessment" CCHA Study Sessions (Canadian Catholic Historical Association). 1999; 9) "Gender, Catholicism, and Spirituality: Women and the Roman Catholic Church in Britain and Europe, 1200-1900." American Catholic Studies (Fall 2012); 10) "Master'S Theses And Doctoral Dissertations On Roman Catholic History In The United States: A Selected Bibliography" U.S. Catholic Historian (Jan 1987). Rjensen (talk) 09:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

First line[edit]

The recent editorial changes raise two questions:

  1. How much information should be put into a lead section?
  2. Are the alternative names "Rebellion" / "Revolt" used sufficiently frequently to justify the space taken up by their inclusion?

It is a general principle of Wikipedia that the opening section should be short and very much to the point, i.e. what are we talking about? why is it worth doing so? and how is the full article structured?. (For a fuller explanation see WP:LEAD). Therefore any information about the origins of the word "reformation" and literal meaning of the Latin are out of place.

So far as the information that "the (Protestant) Reformation" is sometimes referred to as "the Protestant Revolt/Rebellion" is concerned, editors are bound to follow standard, responsible academic sources and while I have a large number of books on the Reformation and have read a great deal about it, I know of none which uses either of these nouns as an alternative name for it. The mere fact that some people have used these names is not enough, one would need a significant minority of reliables sources.

I therefore propose that the opening sentence should read as follows:

The Protestant Reformation, often referred to simply as the Reformation was a schism from the Roman Catholic Church initiated by Martin Luther and continued by other early Protestant Reformers in 16th century Europe.

Jpacobb (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Here are a few sources to get us started on "Protestant Revolt":
  • here
  • here
  • here
  • here; this one deals with the fact that the term may "grate on Protestant ears"; published by U. of Missouri Press
Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Also, the line including rebellion/revolt was edited out and then reverted. It should not have been un-reverted until this discussion took place and was settled, per the convention of every edit war I've ever been involved in / witnessed. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
@Jpacobb: Do you find the RS's given above (particularly the last one) satisfactory for inclusion of "Protestant Revolt"? Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 06:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
@Jujutsuan:. In answer to your question, I do not consider the references adequate or sufficient. Number 1 (an anthology of texts) was published in 1906; number 2 in 1960 but it may be an update of N° 1; number 3 is a 24 page pamphlet from 1929 and I cannot identify the author; number 4 is more modern but a quick search reveals nothing about the author. This last is the only reference which might be claimed as "RS" since we are required to provide up-to-date sources. There are probably thousands of potential RS books on the Reformation so a mere handful of examples of the use of other labels is insufficient. Until authors such as MacCulloch or O'Day who are acknowledged authorities in the field give some sign of considering the phrases worth considering, I can see no real case for their inclusion. — Jpacobb (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, we would need more references than the last one - we should only include it as an alternate designation if Langan's label catches on. Obviously, it doesn't have to be neutral (this is very different to discussing an article title), and if it's included it should be something like "called the Protestant revolt by some Roman Catholic writers". But I haven't seen enough evidence that it is seriously used as an alternate name. StAnselm (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jpacobb and StAnselm: In light of this NGram, how about this?: "The Protestant Reformation, often referred to simply as the Reformation (Latin: reformatio)[discuss] or historically as the Protestant Revolt, was a schism from the Roman Catholic Church initiated by Martin Luther and continued by other early Protestant Reformers in 16th-century Europe." Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 00:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I looked at the scholarly literature and it is very rarely used by the RS. Historical abstracts covers the journals & has 3300 citations to articles since 1955 with an abstract mentioning "Protestant Reformation" and only 4 with "Protestant revolt" --and none of the 4 deal with the 16th century . I am very negative on inclusion. Rjensen (talk) 02:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Jujutsuan:I don't know what percentage of the Google Ngram books should be considered RS (see Rjensen's comment for a thought-provoking statistic) but, even if they all were RS, the highest occurrence of "revolt" is only about 2% of "reformation" and that was some 60+ years ago and the percentage falls noticeably before the year 2000. I am therefore at least as negative as Rjensen. (Btw I have my doubts about saying that the Reformation was a schism initiated by Luther since he was excommunicated after trying to reform the church, but that's another issue!) — Jpacobb (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I concede. On the subject of Luther, I don't think anyone would say he didn't initiate the Reformation (beginning with the 95 Theses incident), and I also don't think anyone would say it wasn't a schism in the end. Ergo it was a schism initiated by Luther, regardless of his excommunicate status or his (early) intent to simply reform without splitting. (For perspective, the Orthodox were placed under a Catholic anathema as well (which the Orthodox reciprocated), and no one denies that the East-West Schism of 1054 was a schism.) Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 02:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Renaming: "Protestant Reformation" => "Reformation"[edit]

Reformation redirects here anyway. Articles in other languages also simply use Reformation (German: Reformation, Polish: Reformacja, etc.). Why not rename it?Ernio48 (talk) 06:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 18 February 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Consensus to move per WP:CONCISE, and the fact that the target already redirects here, so PTOPIC is established.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Protestant ReformationReformation – "Reformation" already redirects here, this is clearly the primary meaning, it is normally just referred to as "the Reformation". Looking at Reformation (disambiguation), the alternative meanings just refer to the Reformation in a specific country, or are rather obscure, and in one case referring to the Counter-Reformation as the "Catholic Reformation" seems rather odd. PatGallacher (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Support, per nom. I usually pipe, that would then be unnecessary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. StAnselm (talk) 10:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Merriam-Webster gives the name as simply "Reformation." Great scott (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose The term "Reformation" is used by scholars to refer to the multiple reformations of the 16th century. MacCulloch explains his use of the 'shorthand term "Reformation" as often intended to embrace the Catholic Revival/Counter-Reformation together with the varied protestant reformations. (Reformation p. xix). Hillerbrand's The Reformation in its Own Words has a long section on "Catholic Response and Renewal". (I could extend this list to include many other authors) Logically there ought to be an overview article "The Reformation" with links to two main articles, this one and Counter-reformation. — Jpacobb (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
    • "Counter Reformation" is an unfortunate term because it implies that Catholics locked the barn door in response to the bolting of the Protestant horse. But that issue remains regardless of what this article might be titled. Great scott (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
    • It is possible that some histories of the Reformation include a fairly lengthy section to the Counter-Reformation, but that is not the same as saying that "Catholic Reformation" is a widely used term for the Counter-Reformation. PatGallacher (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, whether or not the counter Reformation is a Reformation, this topic is what one means by "Reformation" on its own, so we should be WP:CONCISE. --JFH (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. So long as it redirects here, there is no point in the disambiguation in the title. One can usually just say/write "Reformation" and be understood. Srnec (talk) 03:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Let's see, you have the English Reformation (which is arguably Protestant, but unique), Catholic Reformation is actually a alternative title used for the Counter-Reformation, and has been on the rise in recent year (though Counter-Reformation still being prefered [1]), and all the lovely reformations in different countries and religious movements as described at Reformation (disambiguation). Keeping it here is WP:PRECISION which is useful for the readers who are redirected here and are looking for something else. The hat note sends them to the DAB page, but they also immediately know what article they are reading because the title is different than the one they may have expected. Protestant Reformation is still a term that is used in major publications, and is not incorrect. The advantages to being precise outweigh the disadvantages here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
    • WP:PRECISION actually states "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that." PatGallacher (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Right, and per all of the examples above and the dab page, I do not think Reformation does that. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment, surveying reliable sources: there are 16 OUP reference works, including the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church and the World Encyclopedia, with entries on the "Reformation", but only one with an entry on the "Protestant Reformation" (the Canadian Oxford Dictionary). Some of the most important books on the subject are The Reformation (MacCulloch), The European Reformation (Cameron), The European Reformations (Lindberg), The Reformation (Chadwick) and The Reformation World (Pettegree). Hillerbrand is an outlier with his The Protestant Reformation, and it is over forty years old. Using Google books I can see a large number of reliable sources with "Reformation" in the title, but not nearly as many promising looking sources with "Protestant Reformation" in the title. --JFH (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.