This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
John Wycliffe article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
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)
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 173.70.208.82 ( talk) 19:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
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. 76.218.104.120 ( talk) 03:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
This section in John Wycliffe is very clear in its meaning and implication, so clear that I even wonder if it is spurious.
While I agree with the positions expressed as more than merely consistent with Wycliffe's teachings, a reference to the source of these claims would be highly desirable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.116.82 ( talk) 15:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Lollardy which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 20:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica says Wycliffe was born c. 1320 ( here), but the current Encyclopædia Britannica says c. 1330 ( here). In the absence of other reliable sources the year of birth should be changed to c. 1330 as per Britannica. - Epinoia ( talk) 04:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
It says, "Wycliffe was 64 years old" at the time of death. How do we know this if we don't know when he was born? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.176.231.124 ( talk) 23:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
A link was added to the "Anti-Wycliffe synod" section to the website for WebTruth.org - is this a reliable source? Their "About Us" page says,
We believe in the divine inspiration and infallibility of the Bible, creation in six days, mankind under condemnation because of the fall, eternal judgment for unrepentant sinners, justification by faith alone, the Trinity, the virgin birth of Christ, His full deity, sinless humanity, atoning death, bodily resurrection and His pre-tribulational, pre-millennial return.
Because the source is biased doesn't mean that they get historical facts wrong, but the WebTruth article on Wycliffe is anonymous and cites only one source, and that's about Wycliffe's exhumation 30 years after his burial, so it seems rather sketchy as a source for the Wikipedia article on Wycliffe - I feel we need a better source - Epinoia ( talk) 22:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
"From his frequent references to it in later life, it appears to have made a deep and abiding impression upon him.". I have a feeling that means Bradwardine's book, not the plague. Is that right? 82.69.198.222 ( talk) 16:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
John Wycliffe article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
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)
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 173.70.208.82 ( talk) 19:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
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. 76.218.104.120 ( talk) 03:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
This section in John Wycliffe is very clear in its meaning and implication, so clear that I even wonder if it is spurious.
While I agree with the positions expressed as more than merely consistent with Wycliffe's teachings, a reference to the source of these claims would be highly desirable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.116.82 ( talk) 15:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Lollardy which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 20:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica says Wycliffe was born c. 1320 ( here), but the current Encyclopædia Britannica says c. 1330 ( here). In the absence of other reliable sources the year of birth should be changed to c. 1330 as per Britannica. - Epinoia ( talk) 04:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
It says, "Wycliffe was 64 years old" at the time of death. How do we know this if we don't know when he was born? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.176.231.124 ( talk) 23:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
A link was added to the "Anti-Wycliffe synod" section to the website for WebTruth.org - is this a reliable source? Their "About Us" page says,
We believe in the divine inspiration and infallibility of the Bible, creation in six days, mankind under condemnation because of the fall, eternal judgment for unrepentant sinners, justification by faith alone, the Trinity, the virgin birth of Christ, His full deity, sinless humanity, atoning death, bodily resurrection and His pre-tribulational, pre-millennial return.
Because the source is biased doesn't mean that they get historical facts wrong, but the WebTruth article on Wycliffe is anonymous and cites only one source, and that's about Wycliffe's exhumation 30 years after his burial, so it seems rather sketchy as a source for the Wikipedia article on Wycliffe - I feel we need a better source - Epinoia ( talk) 22:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
"From his frequent references to it in later life, it appears to have made a deep and abiding impression upon him.". I have a feeling that means Bradwardine's book, not the plague. Is that right? 82.69.198.222 ( talk) 16:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)