Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:39, 19 September 2013

	Universal Basic Income (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Universal Basic Income, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Universal Basic IncomeWikipedia:WikiProject Universal Basic IncomeTemplate:WikiProject Universal Basic IncomeUniversal Basic Income

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group. This article is supported by the politics and government work group. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. University of Oxford High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Philosophers / Social and political / Religion / Modern Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophers Social and political philosophy Philosophy of religion Modern philosophy Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: Saints / Catholicism / Anglicanism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Saints (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Writing systems Low‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Thomas More. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Thomas More at the Reference desk.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on May 16, 2004 and July 6, 2011.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Vandalism

Someone has vandalized this article and I have tried to undo the revisions but can not at this time. Someone please address and follow up with the IP address responsible. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writetoronny (talk • contribs) 21:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Restored to yesterday's version. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's avoid trying to guess what the Pope meant to say

User:Tlhslobus, I disagree with this edit. You're making an analysis of a primary source which is inappropriate in my opinion. Misplaced Pages's goal is not for you to express the truth as you see it. I think removing this editorializing would be best.Chris Troutman (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair point, but the problem was and is how should the matter be phrased. It seems to me that the publicly stated view of the Pope on the issue on such an occasion is relevant and deserves a mention. I tried to word the introducing of his view as best I could, but quite likely somebody else can do better. Meanwhile I've tried to reword it in the light of your criticism (though I fear I may have made the text unnecessarily anodyne in the process, but perhaps that can't be helped). If you feel you can find some better wording instead, please feel free to do so. Tlhslobus (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

No, your corresponding edit was perfect. I think anodyne is a good goal in a collaborative project. I can see the point you were trying to make (about the persecution of heretics) and I'm sure we can find some scholarly secondary sources that will better explain the issue with St. Thomas More. Thanks again for making that revision. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. Tlhslobus (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Hans Holbein, the Younger - Sir Thomas More - Google Art Project.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Hans Holbein, the Younger - Sir Thomas More - Google Art Project.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 6, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-07-06. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I saw the portrait yesterday and understood why the article (and the other saint-of-the-day, Maria Goretti) fail to meet wikipedia's quality standards. I don't have the time to do all the work needed, especially given the religious politics involved, but did a little to clean up the More article at least. IMHO, the article needs to be cut about 25% -- not only because of the passive constructions (which worsen rather than avoid the religious politics) but also because of the repetition. But then, I'm no philosopher. LOL, sort of. At least cutting the intro brings the TOC into the first screen, as well as enabled me to put the missing cites in the Legacy section.Jweaver28 (talk) 03:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Since More's major works were only published in England after his death, I am moving that scholarly section after that describing his trial and death. Admittedly, that probably will bring the excesses in those sections into focus, but first things first.Jweaver28 (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

One-sided and completely inappropriate content

I note that a concerted effort has been made to prevent my bid to edit the last paragraph of the section on More's Campaign Against The Reformation. This paragraph is entirely opinionated and riddled with demonstrable bias, and as such has no place in Misplaced Pages. It violates the core principle of Neutral Point Of View more blatantly than any other historical article I've read. Nor do I believe that the function of the talk page is to defend the indefensible (we're agreed, presumably, that using Misplaced Pages as a vehicle for promulgating one's own opinions is indefensible, right?). However, life being short, I do not propose to engage in an endless reverting war on this subject. If those who insist on preserving this opinionated content genuinely want a protracted discussion about this then I will (wearily and reluctantly) point out the bias line-by-line but it would perhaps be quicker if the interested parties could perhaps re-read the relevant section in an honest way and then "look me in the eye" (metaphorically!) and try and tell me that the content is unbiased, fair and all the things that (I hope) we all want Misplaced Pages to be.

In short, could those who reverted my edit to this section please consult their conscience and then tell me whether or not the paragraph in question is biased. If you could start with a simple yes or no to that question, it would perhaps make this discussion proceed more quickly. Many thanks. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 04:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because I do indeed think the applicable section is unbiased. You've stated that you disagree with perceived bias in that paragraph. Do you have sources that address either this point of view or Marius's book as a reference? Chris Troutman (talk) 05:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there are many sources and if you absolutely insist I'll dig them up tomorrow (it's late here) but in the meantime, and in a last-ditch bid to prevent this discussion dragging on far longer than it should, please consider the following. The previous paragraph begins by stating what I think we all agree on - that historians disagree about More's actions as chancellor - and then gives a brief summary of the positions of both sides. Then we have a 244 word paragraph that is entirely - entirely - concerned with exonerating More on every charge, and that devotes NOT ONE SINGLE WORD to the other perspective (a perspective that had been acknowledged as recently as the previous paragraph). You can't seriously think that that's unbiased? Seriously Chris, please take a moment to reflect on this in good faith. Why have one paragraph that gives both sides and then another that gives only one side? One solution would be to balance the second paragraph, which would involve making it longer (and, as others have noticed, this section is already becoming bloated) but the quicker and easier option is simply to acknowledge that the "historians are divided" paragraph has already addressed this contentious point, and leave it at that. Especially given the objectionable nature of some of the views expressed (eg the suggestion that executing people for their beliefs is somehow OK because More believed it was for the greater good). Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 05:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, I had hoped to avoid having to spend time laboriously pointing out something that would perhaps seem obvious to any fair-minded reader but evidently that's what's required, so here goes. Apologies in advance for the length of this - the paragraph in question packs a lot of bias and unverified speculation into its 244 words. Perhaps, after considering the length of the arguments below, it will become clearer why I simply decided that the paragraph was beyond salvation and didn't even merit discussion on the talk page. As I said, life is short. Regarding the request for sources to substantiate the opposite POV to that championed in the paragraph in question, I remain prepared to provide them if need be but it occurs to me that that misses the point - the problem with the paragraph is not so much that it is unbalanced but that such a clear example of opinionated content ever made its way into Misplaced Pages in the first place. As such, deletion seems a much cleaner and quicker solution than the messy business of balancing such an unremittingly biased POV. But that's another discussion. In the meantime, here are the problems with the paragraph as it currently stands:

1. To begin with a general point, the paragraph is, by its own admission, an attempt to provide contemporary "context" (which in this case seems to mean mitigation) for More's actions in executing dissenters. As such the paragraph is entirely superfluous, as precisely the same point had been made in the paragraph previously (in which Peter Ackroyd places More's actions within the context of the period). For this reason alone, the paragraph should be deleted.

2. Going into more detail, the first sentence says that More's actions "should" be seen in the context of the claim that More was trying to prevent "100,000 deaths". Why "should" they be seen in such a context? The minute a Misplaced Pages article starts telling its readers what they "should" do, it begins to lose validity. What's more, no reference is provided to substantiate this assertion that context of a mitigating nature "should" be provided. Indeed, this claim arguably violates not just one but all three of Misplaced Pages's core principles. It's certainly unverified, it is clearly not a neutral POV and it's arguably original material.

3. What's more, it is highly contentious and, many would feel, objectionable to put so much emphasis on "context" (or, more properly, mitigation masquerading as context) in circumstances like this. Providing unreferenced context (ie cover) for what many regard as murder is inflammatory to the numerous people who believe that More's actions were abhorrent. (Especially when referenced context has already been provided in the paragraph before.) One could equally provide "context" for Osama Bin Laden's actions (like More, he was a devoutly religious person who believed he was doing God's work). If anyone wants to provide such a context for Bin Laden's actions, be my guest - let me know how you get on. Of more immediate relevance to this article, one could provide "context" for Henry's part in More's own execution (Henry believed in the Divine Right of Kings). However, I note that no such context is provided. (If the article is in the business of supplying "context" to the decision to execute people, it should be applied even-handedly). Apart from anything else, this is an article about events in a medieval court - readers are perfectly capable of putting those events in the context that (as this paragraph essentially argues) "people did things differently back then". Supplying extra and unsubstantiated "context" (over and above the referenced context already provided in the previous paragraph) demonstrably skews the content of the article.

4. Why is it "clear" that the "conservatives" were trying to prevent consequences such as eternal agony in Hell? It is entirely speculative that the supplied reference (a prayer by More) explains his actions (on the contrary, the line "to think my worst enemies my best friends" would appear to make this particular source singularly ill-suited as an explanation for More's decision to execute dissenters). If pure speculation is to drive this article then one might equally suggest any number of other motives for More's behaviour, such as a desire to crush political and ecclesiastical rivals, or, as some contemporary and modern sources suggest, simple sadism on More's part. (More's own comment on Tewkesbury's execution suggests a strong sadistic streak.) The use of the word "clearly" is blatant editorialising. And who says that the concept of Hell is "less easily understood" by modern readers? (No one, apparently. As usual, no source is provided for this wholly speculative claim.) One could equally argue that modern readers, to whom cinematic depictions of Hell are available (along with powerful modern literary descriptions such as that in Joyce's Portrait of the Artist), are more capable of understanding this than More's peers. Again, therefore, the "less easily understood" assertion is shameless editorialising, and an apparent attempt to shoe-horn in yet more mitigation for More's actions.

5. Perhaps most ludicrously of all, the paragraph then indulges in utterly unsubstantiated counterfactual speculation, implying that if More's attempt to suppress the English Reformation had succeeded, lives might have been saved. Apart from the obvious point that his attempt did not succeed, any attempt to theorise what might have happened if he had succeeded is pure guesswork. (And guesswork that is - yet again - completely unsupported by any source). One might equally argue (as many have) that if the English Reformation had not happened, Britain and the world would not have made the sort of technological and sociological progress that they did make. As such, it is perfectly possible that, had More succeeded, many more lives would have been lost than saved. In short, it is preposterous for a supposedly neutral and factual article to wallow in such blatant conjecture. And, crucially, like everything else in the paragraph, it is conjuecture with an agenda - conjecture that TENDS TO MITIGATE MORE'S ACTIONS. It doesn't even pretend to comply with Misplaced Pages's guidelines on NPOV.

6. The paragraph finishes by quoting the Pope's view of More. Are we seriously suggesting that the Pope can even remotely be considered to have a disinterested opinion on one of his Church's saints?! (Let alone one who acted as a henchman in what many believe to be one of the Church's darkest chapters.) Given that the Church canonised More (literally), one might suggest that the Pope is in fact the last person on Earth to whom one might turn for a balanced assessment of More's actions. Now there, surely, is a moment for a bit of "context"! Better still, his opinion on this subject should be removed as he is subject to a conflict of interest and as such is - on this matter - a textbook example of a questionable source.

7. Above all, the problem with the paragraph in question is that it contains not one word to challenge the uninterrupted flow of excuses for More's actions. At no point in the entire paragraph is there any attempt to point out to the uninitiated reader that other opinions of More's actions exist. It is a total abdication of our responsibility as Misplaced Pages editors to be neutral.

In short, it is my opinion that the paragraph in question is a disgrace to the standards that I think all of us are sincerely trying to uphold in Misplaced Pages. Whether or not that opinion is shared by others I can't say, but either way what is clear is that the paragraph blatantly and repeatedly violates at least two of Misplaced Pages's core principles. As such it should either be extensively rewritten and rebalanced, or (to save everyone further time and effort) deleted in its entirety. Already the section on More's Campaign Against the Reformation is disproportionately long, so if these arguments are to be pursued then perhaps the best place would be in a new article. In the meantime, the paragraph as it stands is totally unsatisfactory, for the reasons outlined at length above. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't say it seems too bad to me, except in rather assuming that More actually controlled policy, which is pretty unlikely - that was Henry, for whom religious dissidence was rebellion (as for most rulers, but he took it personally). More "voss just following orders", as they say. The views of better historians would be helpful. Johnbod (talk) 01:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks John but, with respect, it sounds like you're not particularly well acquainted with this aspect of More's life. If ever anyone took to the task of "just following orders" with passion and zeal, it was More. His various utterances on the subject of what to do with "heretics", and in particular the almost obsessive fervour with which he hunted Tyndale, demonstrate that on this issue More was a man who led rather than followed. Besides, if I understand your point correctly, you appear to be saying that the paragraph in question should provide yet more mitigation for More's actions. If so, you either haven't read what I wrote or are dismissing it in its entirety. (If the latter, some indication of why you dismiss it - ie some engagement with the points I made - would be appreciated.)

But thank you for reminding me that I forgot to mention the key point, which I have now added (Point 7 above). Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Well enough, but he was just part of the Homeland Security of the day, chasing someone he thought was pushing deliberately misleading translations of the Bible, and who was widely regarded as a significant threat to the peace of the realm. Calling it "almost obsessive fervour" seems well over the top, and the evidence it was More pushing that is I think weak. He was used as a court polemicist and was never restrained in in his statements - that wasn't his job. Neither Ackroyd nor the American are the best RS available, and we should use better. Johnbod (talk) 01:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, your opinion appears to fly in the face of the one incontrovertible thing that we do know about More, namely that - in fairness to him - he was prepared to die rather than countenance any form of what he saw as heresy. (I presume you know how the story ends.) As such I can't think of a person who could LESS be accused of meekly following orders. Regarding his pursuit of Tyndale, I'm not the only one who thinks this was an absolute fixation of More's - "obsessive ferocity" is the phrase I recall from Moynahan's book. Anyway, it's hard to imagine anyone in Henry's reign who demonstrated more determination to stand up to him (and on a point that was of far more importance to Henry, and one that was therefore far more likely to get More into mortal danger). As such, your view seems somewhat perverse, to put it mildly. Nonetheless, you're obviously entitled to it, and I'm more than prepared to agree to disagree. But none of that engages with the central point that the paragraph in question is utterly one-sided. Do you dispute that the points in the paragraph that I highlight above all serve to justify or at the very least "explain" More's actions? Can you find anything in the paragraph to balance this mitigating "context"? Because I certainly can't. Therefore, whilst I fully respect the position you've outlined, it doesn't at all address the issue under discussion here. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I notice that not a single secondary reliable source has been mentioned in this entire section, except a vague reference once. Perhaps it is time to list some to support various claims, preferably including page numbers, after all we all know that it is the sources that matters, Misplaced Pages editors are not considered reliable sources for whatever interpretation is proposed. --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

@Brooklyn Eagle: tldr. Perhaps you should learn about Misplaced Pages before you attempt further edits. It is not the job of editors to philosophize about St. Thomas More. It is our job to assemble sources and regurgitate their analyses. Please bring your reliable sources if you want to challenge that paragraph. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• C-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class University of Oxford articles
• High-importance University of Oxford articles
• C-Class University of Oxford (colleges) articles
• WikiProject University of Oxford articles
• C-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• C-Class philosopher articles
• Mid-importance philosopher articles
• Philosophers task force articles
• C-Class social and political philosophy articles
• Mid-importance social and political philosophy articles
• Social and political philosophy task force articles
• C-Class philosophy of religion articles
• Mid-importance philosophy of religion articles
• Philosophy of religion task force articles
• C-Class Modern philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Modern philosophy articles
• Modern philosophy task force articles
• C-Class Christianity articles
• Mid-importance Christianity articles
• C-Class Saints articles
• High-importance Saints articles
• WikiProject Saints articles
• C-Class Catholicism articles
• High-importance Catholicism articles
• WikiProject Catholicism articles
• C-Class Anglicanism articles
• Mid-importance Anglicanism articles
• WikiProject Anglicanism articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class Writing system articles
• Low-importance Writing system articles
• Selected anniversaries (May 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (July 2011)