Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:51, 22 January 2014

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.

Template:Vital article

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. 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

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)

I'm baffled by the last two posts. They appear to completely misunderstand what I'm saying. Firstly, I haven't "philosophized" about More, in fact I haven't added a single word to the article. Nor am I proposing to. I'm proposing to DELETE material, because the material in question is opinionated and poorly sourced (or not sourced at all). So I can't possibly be introducing original material. I'm at a loss as to how that misconception arose but it's demonstrably untrue and I hope we can move on from it. The same applies to Saddhiyama's point - I'm not proposing to say anything at all about More. There are sources to substantiate the opinion that More's actions were reprehensible but, as stated above, my proposal is not to enlarge the article but to reduce it, specifically by removing opinions which themselves are poorly-sourced or not sourced at all. For example, the normative statement that More's actions "should" be placed in a mitigating context is not sourced. Similarly, no source is provided to substantiate the opinion that More was trying to "prevent other supposed ills", let alone that he was "clearly" trying to do so, and no source is provided to substantiate the opinion that said ills are "less easily understood by our modern secular and ecumenical world". This is pure speculation, with absolutely no grounding in any external source. In fact it's precisely because the paragraph indulges in so much "philosophizing" and original material that it should be removed.

Perhaps my earlier argument is unclear so let me rephrase the main points, in the hope of bringing this to some sort of conclusion. The paragraph in question makes multiple statements that are opinionated and/or totally unsourced. Even the minority of statements that are "referenced" rely on sources that are either unsatisfactory or used in ways that blatantly contravene Misplaced Pages's guidelines. One of the three sources is quoted incorrectly (Marius does NOT say that More "openly" blamed Luther's writings for the Peasant's Revolt, and more importantly the implication that Marius is trying to mitigate More's persecution of reformers is a grotesque distortion of his book, as anyone who has read it will know). A second source is used in connection with an opinionated and sweeping assertion which it doesn't substantiate (that "the modern Catholic view" of More's actions is "probably" best expressed by a selectively chosen extract from a particular papal statement) and in any case is of questionable neutrality (the Pope's view of the behaviour of one of his saints during the Reformation is akin to Bill Gates's view of Microsoft's business practices in the 1990s). And the third - the prayer - doesn't even begin to substantiate the stated opinion, and indeed barely even seems to relate to it. The prayer makes no mention whatsoever of More's views regarding the Reformation (the topic supposedly under discussion), and any attempt to connect the two is pure conjecture. Certainly, no source is cited to support interpreting the prayer in this speculative manner. Misplaced Pages's guidelines clearly state that references should "support content" - none of the three references do so, and at least one supports the opposite view.

Most importantly of all, the paragraph is entirely one-sided, and makes no reference to the widely-held view (including by Marius himself) that More's persecution of reformers was reprehensible. And it indulges in bizarre counter-factual speculation (which, again, is completely unsourced). In the several weeks since I raised those points, none of them has been challenged. If they can be challenged (eg if someone can explain what unreferenced counter-factual speculation is doing in a Misplaced Pages article), I'd be very interested to hear that case. If not, can we please amend the article so that it meets Misplaced Pages's guidelines. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC) @Brooklyn Eagle: You made three points that I'd like to address:

1. "Marius does NOT say that More "openly" blamed Luther's writings for the Peasant's Revolt" Sure he does.

   "In England, More and the others learned of the Peasants’ Revolt with shuddering horror. They saw it as a direct consequence of Luther’s doctrines and a confirmation of their conviction that the advent of Lutheranism in England would bring violence and revolution. In a royal proclamation, Henry VIII declared that Martin Luther was the cause of all the slaughter."

   — Richard Marius, "Thomas More: A Biography" page 307

2. "A second source is used in connection with an opinionated and sweeping assertion which it doesn't substantiate (that "the modern Catholic view" of More's actions is "probably" best expressed by a selectively chosen extract from a particular papal statement) and in any case is of questionable neutrality..." I can see your point here. The quote from the Pope is identified as such, so it makes the reader aware of potential bias. If you don't like the words "modern Catholic attitude on the issue was probably best expressed..." then it can be changed to something more like during More's canonization ceremony, the Pope said... and leave it at that.
3. "the prayer - doesn't even begin to substantiate the stated opinion, and indeed barely even seems to relate to it. The prayer makes no mention whatsoever of More's views regarding the Reformation (the topic supposedly under discussion), and any attempt to connect the two is pure conjecture." I'll agree to that. I read the prayer and it doesn't seem to indicate what the paragraph implies.

I can agree that we can massage the text to elucidate less on what the reader "should" conclude about the context and perhaps only communicate what the sources wrote about the context. At no point have I accused you of publishing original research. I'm accusing you of deleting referenced material based solely on your own perceptions, which is demonstrably true. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. You did accuse me of attempting to publish original research but I've dealt with that on your talk page.

Re: the More article, I think we're making progress. We agree that the prayer doesn't indicate what the paragraph implies. We agree that the text accompanying the Pope's quote should be amended along the lines you suggest. We agree that it's inappropriate to be spouting opinions about what the reader "should" think.

Where we still seem to disagree is regarding Marius. I think I can now see where the confusion lies. You've asked me to provide academic sources to challenge Marius. The whole point is that I'm NOT challenging him! I agree with him! I've read his biography very closely and, for the record, I think it's excellent. My whole point is that the paragraph I'm attempting to amend is MIS-quoting Marius, and not merely misquoting but entirely misrepresenting his attitude to More's campaign against the Reformation (the topic supposedly under discussion in the paragraph). Marius is scathing about this aspect of More's life. The paragraph as currently written implies that Marius thought More was trying to save lives, when in fact what Marius actually states is that More took great relish in ending them.

I'll get back to Marius in a moment but the same applies to the rest of the paragraph. I am not challenging any sources, academic or otherwise. I'm saying that THERE ARE NO SOURCES for most of what is being claimed, and that such sources as there are are inappropriately used or simply don't say what the paragraph claims they say. I've no problem with the sources (where there are sources); it's the way the sources are being used that I object to. In a nutshell, I'm the guy who's on the side of the sources. It's the person who wrote the paragraph in the first place who seems to have a total disregard for sources.

Going back to Marius, with all due respect, he simply does not say that More "openly" blamed Luther's writings for the revolt. There is a reason why I put quotation marks round the word "openly", both on this occasion and previously, and that is because Marius does not use that word - as the extract that you yourself cited makes clear. Henry VIII blamed Luther, and Marius OPINES that More did so too but, having read Marius closely, he does not say that More specifically expressed said view, much less that he did so "openly". In short, Marius is speculating. He's fully entitled to do so, and Wikipedians are entitled to quote him, but only if he is quoted accurately. What's more, he should be quoted in context, and anyone who has read the extracts in full, or indeed the rest of Marius's book, will find it hard to reconcile the paragraph's repeated contention (that More executed reformers in a bid to SAVE lives) with what Marius actually says.

In short, I'd have no problem with that sentence if it read, "More's biographer Richard Marius believes that More blamed Luther for the deaths in Germany, but Marius does not see that as an excuse for More's behaviour; on the contrary, Marius sees More's attitude to the reformers as 'vindictive', 'intolerant', 'authoritarian' and motivated by a desire to 'exterminate' them." But as you know, it says something very different.

Furthermore, the paragraph as it stands implies that More HIMSELF stated that Luther's writings caused the deaths. This is totally misleading. It's only if you click on the link that you discover that More himself didn't say that.

To sum up, the paragraph makes at least seven claims. Only three of them are sourced. One of those sources does not substantiate its claim (we agree there). One of those sources is quoted in a way that needs to be re-written (we agree there too). And the last one (Marius), is at the very least misquoted, and at worst is used to advance an argument that is the polar opposite of that advanced in the source itself.

Lastly, can we once and for all agree that there is absolutely no place for the counterfactual gibberish about what might have happened if More had been successful in his bid to stamp out the Reformation. Firstly it is unsourced, and for that reason alone should have been deleted long ago. Secondly it is ludicrously unencyclopedic (what on earth is this speculation doing in Misplaced Pages?). And thirdly, it is highly objectionable. To illustrate why, imagine how African-Americans would react if the same sentence appeared in the article about Martin Luther King's assassination, only with word "reformation" changed to "civil rights" and the words "Protestant" and "Catholic" changed to "black" and "white".

Here's how it would read: "It seems unlikely that white people and black people could ever easily agree on how many eventually died in America as a result of the Civil Rights legislation that King's assassin was unsuccessfully trying to prevent, and whether or not this cost could be justified by arguable offsetting benefits."

Such a statement would cause riots, and understandably so. So why are precisely the same sentiments allowable in the Thomas More article? Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The article's statement has not caused riots, and is unlikely to do so, presumably because the sentiments are not 'precisely the same', once the context is taken into account. Whether fairly or otherwise, the English Reformation is widely believed by many to have resulted in large numbers of deaths, including More's own death, although it would be almost impossible for everybody to agree on how many deaths, etc. (Incidentally, although this may or may not be slightly beside the point, More and others also believed, rightly or wrongly, that the German Reformation had already caused huge numbers of deaths in the German Peasants' Revolt, and were at least partly motivated by a desire to prevent the same happening in England). There is no similar widespread belief regarding Civil Rights legislation causing large numbers of deaths. The deaths carried out under More's Chancellorship were legal executions of the kind which had been standard throughout Europe for centuries, and were thus approved of by a substantial proportion of 'mainstream' Europe at the time. The assassination of King was an illegal murder condemned by all sections of mainstream society at the time. More did not personally kill anybody, but was one of a number of people encouraging the courts to apply what was then the law of the land. King's assassin personally killed King, an act completely contrary to what was then the law of the land. A man is said to be entitled to be judged by the standards of his times, and More's behaviour is very much in accordance with the standards of his times, while the behaviour of King's assassin is not. The executions in More's day happened a very long time ago in a completely different climate of opinion. King's assassination occured well within living memory (including my own memory) in a climate of opinion very similar to our own. More is a canonised Saint in both the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England (which the English Reformation created). King's assassin is not similarly honoured by both black and white mainstream organisations (unless somebody wants to claim that the Ku Klux Klan is mainstream and both black and white).

I should perhaps add that I am saying all this despite the facts that I stopped being a Christian over 40 years ago, that I am broadly sympathetic to the English and other Reformations (which ultimately helped lead to my being free to stop being a Christian, albeit after religious Wars that caused great suffering on all sides for decades or centuries, with today's religious tolerance arising mainly as a reaction to all that suffering), and that I would expect to be burned at the stake for my views if I expressed them in More's England, and that the same fate might have befallen other people I love.

The paragraph to which you have been objecting (as well as the last sentence of the preceding paragraph) were added by me last May in an attempt to present an explanation of why many disagree with the Marius quote in the preceding paragraph (which back in May appeared as a sort of conclusion to the section, a conclusion which I expect misrepresents the majority of so called 'reliable sources' on the issue). It is largely based on my recollection of one or more scholarly works responding to similar criticism of More, which I read many years ago, and which I would have included if I could remember their name(s) or if the relevant snippets could have been quickly found online (instead I had to make do with what I could find, on the basis that Misplaced Pages is a work in progress, while expecting that others would in due course find better sources). Given More's canonisation by both Catholic and Anglican churches, it should be obvious that some such quotes are available (and I have every reason to expect that they are actually the 'standard' view of the issue among so-called 'reliable sources', both because of the canonisations, and because of the common view among historians that a man is entitled to be judged by the standards of his time), but I don't have the energy or inclination to go chasing for them through various libraries. An alternative might be to get rid of both the Marius quote and the stuff I added to try to balance that quote, but I don't think that would improve the article. I think a better approach would be to try to improve the sourcing for the response to Marius, and then reword the response in the light of such sources once found. But somebody other than me would probably have to do the work, as I'm not sufficiently interested to bother - apart from anything else, I don't much like More, partly because I find it hard to much like somebody who, as already mentioned, would have had me and many people I love burned at the stake, and also because I vaguely resent being taken in long ago by the whitewashing propaganda of the movie 'A man for all seasons', though that's hardly More's fault, and I also dislike him because of my own views concerning the relationship between his Utopia and the Amerindian Holocaust, but I doubt that my views on that would find any support in 'Reliable Sources' (but I still think Marius's view is both over the top, and probably a minority view among 'reliable sources').

On the other hand I shouldn't have to do the work, because there should be plenty of Catholic editors out there who should be willing and able to go chasing the relevant sources, as a reply to Marius remains needed, but ideally needs to be improved as already mentioned above. But as for me, it's probably a mistake on my part to have allowed myself to get re-involved by writing this answer to you, and I hope to try and stay out of the remainder of the discussion, though I'm not entirely sure that I'll be sensible enough to do so. Tlhslobus (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for your reply. I very much appreciate your sincere effort to resolve this issue. I think your post raises some new questions, which means that this will drag on still further, but I have no doubt at all that you genuinely wish to improve the article. That comes across very clearly in what you write.

I think the most helpful thing is your acknowledgement of what motivated you to write the paragraph in the first place. I very much appreciate your candour on this point. It makes matters much clearer. It has always seemed to me that the paragraph in question was written with an agenda in mind, and what you say seems to confirm that. Presumably, you would argue that your agenda is the "correct" one, which is where we'd have to differ, but I'm grateful for your confirmation that that there was an agenda in the first place, and your explanation of what it was.

Leaving aside for a moment the rights and wrongs of your agenda, the most pressing question is whether you've gone about implementing it in the right way. My own view is that, with all due respect to the obvious sincerity of your efforts, you have clearly gone about it the wrong way.

You state that your intention was to "balance" what Marius wrote, and you go on to suggest that he's not one of the sources that are, in your opinion, "reliable". You further state that you're "not sufficiently interested to bother" to find other sources to back that opinion up. I think that's where you're going wrong. If you don't want to find sources to substantiate your opinion I would question whether it's appropriate to alter the article. Especially not if you're altering it based purely on your own personal viewpoint (a view that itself is, as you also say, based on a distant recollection).

You're entitled to disagree with Marius but the only academic source you've found to challenge him is ... Marius himself. If you think he's not reliable, it's somewhat baffling that you've cited him. And even then you've misquoted him, and what's more you've (no doubt inadvertently) implied that the quote in your source is from Thomas More himself.

And your assumption that More's sainthood somehow means that Marius is at odds with the "standard" view among historians simply doesn't follow. There are plenty of saints whose lives, or aspects thereof, have been roundly condemned by historians. This has been the case since St Ambrose in the 4th century, now perhaps best known for his antisemitic rants, up until at least as recently as Padre Pio, whose canonisation hasn't stopped many observers (apparently including at least one pope) from regarding him as a total fraud. As for your point that More is also an Anglican saint, I would point you in the direction of the Archbishop of Canterbury's remarks about More in 2006, when he said that his church had canonised More for everything he did EXCEPT his persecution of reformers. (Don't forget, the section of the More article we're trying to edit is about More's persecution of reformers, not the other aspects of his life.)

I think your fundamental impulse - to balance the article - is reasonable and one we all share, but I would question whether you've made the article more or less balanced. There are (broadly speaking) two views on Thomas More's persecution of the reformers: one holds that More was merely doing what any man in his position in those days would have done; the other holds that he was a book-burning zealot who derived personal satisfaction from having reformers executed. Both those views are expressed in the preceding paragraph. Your paragraph only expresses one of those views. The view you're expressing (that "a man is entitled to be judged by the standards of his time") has already been expressed, very clearly, with the reference to Ackroyd above. By expressing that view again, this time without any reference to the opposite point of view, and by further adding other (mostly unsourced) mitigating factors for More's behaviour, you're unbalancing what was previously balanced.

As a footnote to the question of balance, I'd note that the rest of the article is largely devoted to eulogising More's actions (with some justification - I think we all admire his willingness to die for his principles, even those of us who don't share those principles). So it seems doubly important to ensure that the one section of the article that examines an aspect of More's life that has drawn criticism should give due weight to that criticism.

With regard to the counterfactual stuff, again we should perhaps agree to differ whether the parallel between More and King's assassin is appropriate. What I meant by "precisely the same" is that the principle (of speculating about whether a violent attempt to suppress social change might, had it been successful, actually have saved lives) is identical. Which it undeniably is. Where of course you're right is that the context is different, one being an event within living memory, the other being an event that happened centuries ago that, thankfully, no longer arouses riotous behaviour. I never thought otherwise, and if I gave the impression that I did then I'm sorry.

I'm more than happy to play the counterfactual game, as long as we agree that it's pure speculation and has no place in Misplaced Pages. The article is supposed to be a fact-based assessment of what happened, not conjecture about what might have happened if things had turned out differently. For what it's worth, my own view is that it's highly debatable that More's persecution of dissidents saved lives. All the evidence seems to me to point the other way. Eg you mention your theory that More's attempt to crush the English Reformation was motivated by a desire to avoid a repeat in England of the German peasants' revolt. The glaring flaw in that theory is that there was no repeat in England of the German revolt. The only peasants' revolt in England happened two centuries earlier, at at time when More's beloved Catholic Church was unchallenged.

Not only was there no revolt, it seems to me that the English Reformation was a relatively peaceful affair. For example, its final consolidation (at least in political terms) was in 1688, which is known, with considerable justification, as the "Bloodless Revolution". Furthermore, the most significant outbreak of religious killings to follow the Reformation in England (apart, of course, from More's own campaign of violent suppression) were the executions that took place in the reign of Queen Mary, which of course were, like More's, an attempt to SUPPRESS the Reformation. So the suggestion in your paragraph, namely that future deaths were "as an arguable result of the Reformation", is completely back to front. You appear to be placing responsibility for the deaths on those who were killed, rather than on those who did the killing. Perhaps that might help you to see why I find that line of reasoning somewhat objectionable.

But it seems pointless to debate this because, like I say, counterfactual history (especially unsourced counterfactual history) surely has no place in this article. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

And yet, Brooklyn Eagle is ready to write 10,000 words of debate about it. I had intended to let this issue drop but Brooklyn Eagle thought it wise to incite my response.

Brooklyn Eagle points out Tlhslobus's admission that he inserted the segment from Marius but declines to perform further research on this issue of executions of heretics. Misplaced Pages is a volunteer effort so I don't blame anyone for indicating they've had enough, although I don't think it's fair to point at Catholic Misplaced Pages editors to be the parties chiefly responsible for defending one of their saints. Brooklyn Eagle also points (on my talk page) to this deletion by Spoonkymonkey, questioning why I didn't revert that edit as I had reverted him. I noticed Spoonkymonkey's ill-advised edit but I didn't revert it because I didn't want to get into another talk page battle as I had with you. At this point I'm content to revert vandalism and leave the content wars to someone else, at least until I have time and better sourcing. Brooklyn Eagle made the statement I look forward to you delivering the same lecture to him as you did to me. I'm not sure if that was meant for Tlhslobus or for Spoonkymonkey but I'm not in the habit of giving lectures. I'm making an honest effort to make a better encyclopedia. Meanwhile, Brooklyn Eagle continues to expound on their theories without a single academic source cited. I made a point by point critique (see above) and I agreed in some cases where the sourcing didn't support the text. My biggest critiques addressed the facts that one, we can't just cut sourced material without having academic reason and two, Brooklyn Eagle has yet to provide a single source. I don't think I've ever seen so many words in one assemblage that said absolutely nothing. This hurts my head almost as much as the last time I read Chomsky.

For example, this foolishness: Eg you mention your theory that More's attempt to crush the English Reformation was motivated by a desire to avoid a repeat in England of the German peasants' revolt. The glaring flaw in that theory is that there was no repeat in England of the German revolt. Well, Brooklyn Eagle, there wasn't another Peasants' Revolt because More and company executed the troublemakers. More gleefully executed Protestants to maintain order, which he did successfully. Nobody (not even Marius) is saying that executing Protestants is a good thing on balance, just explaining why More is seen by some as a saint despite everything else. You've assembled this rant against More on the basis of a quote from Marius that you have only your own opinion for credibility. Go find a reputable source and then make the change.

Finally, I don't want to be included in this debate anymore. Conduct like this is what's wrong with Misplaced Pages; why editors are being driven away. I don't have the time or inclination to continually argue with partisans. I took Catholic Church off my watchlist some time ago because of bickering. I may remove this article, too, simply because one editor with no academic references is lonely on Monday night. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:51, 22 January 2014 (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)