This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Devon, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics connected with Devon. If you would like to participate, you can visit the WikiProject Devon project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Now, about one thing... Richard was from "good family"? I've never known exactly what that means (I haven't heard the phrase in over 30 years), but in context it looks as if it has to do with money and/or status, or being respectable in some way. Whatever it means, it sounds a bit snobbish, saying in a backwards way that some people are *not* from "good families" and are therefore not as worthy. Maybe it could be said in a kinder way.
Anyway, thanks for the info and the painted portrait. I'm trying to learn more about Hooker, so this was a helpful place to start.
I didn't understand a thing from the section about the Laws of Ecclesiastical Politie. Could somebody who has read the work rewrite it so that it becomes a bit more comprehensible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs)
I am working on a full rewrite/expansion of this article as I type this. -- SECisek 12:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Travers was officially "Lecturer" at the Temple Church. In general terms, the post of "Lecturer" was a stipendiary office for an ordained minister to be nominated by the parish, or a municipal corporation, or at times by an individual layman and financed by endowments, levies, or voluntary contributions to give lectures at certain times: these were a puritan invention and designed to provide sermons acceptable to their way of thinking. Travers had presbyterian orders and defended his the tenure of his position on those grounds. Lay readers date from the middle of the 19th Century and the link is simply misleading.--Jpacobb (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
This started out as an attempt to tidy a up a few details, but it quickly grew into a more extensive rewrite. Since there has been almost no movement here in the recent past, I went ahead without discussing things here. My apologies in advance to anyone who has been upset by this.Jpacobb (talk) 19:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Although the amended version by 22.214.171.124 is correct (except that the [ ] are not in the quotation as Neill gives it), it introduces an unnecessary complication for the reader: the need to explain "that art [of controversy]. The earlier version avoided that by simply supplying the subject of the following verb 'had involved' & picking up the direct quote with the verb itself. I consider this to be the more "reader-friendly" way of presenting this section of the article. Jpacobb (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
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: Not moved. Consensus that he satisfies the long term significance criterion for primary topic. — Amakuru (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose, this is a clear case of long-term significance. This article understates his impact on the English language and his political and philosophical significance. --JFH (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Support per nom. No clear primary topic in terms of usage, and both can reasonably claim long term significance. Historical age is not generally considered as a good indicator of primary topic. PC78 (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The standard is "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic". This topic is the subject of many high quality books (also see this bibliography), but I can't find a single book about the novelist. Even if MASH had been written in the sixteenth century, the writer of the Lawes of Ecclesiastical Polity has much more enduring notability. --JFH (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Fair point, consider me swayed by your argument. :) PC78 (talk) 11:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. --JFH (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. The theologian has a place in intellectual history that the novelist can never rival. Here is a list of books from Britannica s article on this subject. (No, they don't mention either the novelist or MASH.)
C.J. Sisson, The Judicious Marriage of Mr. Hooker and the Birth of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity (1940); Peter Munz, The Place of Hooker in the History of Thought (1952); John S. Marshall, Hooker and the Anglican Tradition (1963); Robert K. Faulkner, Richard Hooker and the Politics of a Christian England (1981); and Stanley Archer, Richard Hooker (1983).
Update If the theologian gets a majority of the relevant page views, as he does, that alone justifies making him primary topic. It's 85 views a day for the theologian compared to 65 for the novelistFernando Danger (talk) 09:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. This is a case for which the guideline is specifically designed to allow us to ignore pageviews. Srnec (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose, 58% is enough in a two-horse race, especially when the other PT criterion is in favor, as well. RedSlash 16:56, 5 August 2016 (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.