Talk:Aonio Paleario

I would not call Paleario a "humanist." nor a reformer
Humanism may have different definitions. IMHO: Humanism is the secular religion and Zeigeist in competition with biblicist Christianity and the reformation-Zeitgeist coming out of the Renaissance; the humanism of the Renaissance was soon countered (thesis - antithesis) by the Reformation (Is there a synthesis?) In addition to the classic Reformation POV (which identifies Israel with the Church and may advocate theocracy in this age), there now exists the competing POV within Christianity called Dispensationalism (which distinguishes Israel from the Church and looks for Christ's return as the time of theocracy). Certain segments of Christianity today do not look to the reformation as their founders or history, but to a "Trail of Blood" going back to NT times, of Christians who never came under the papacy and never sought to reform the Roman Catholic Church, being strangers and pilgrims in this life. Paleario was obviously a Bible-believing Christian, but whether he agreed with Calvin's POV as to Church and Israel, and how to behave in this age, I do not know. I think if he is to be called a reformer, that requires proof. He may have been a Trail-of-Blooder. Probably reformer should be eliminated from the article as well as humanist until there is solid reliable sources to substantiate such claims. BTW, I think that one or more of Paleario's works are found online via the Archive site. (PeacePeace (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC))

Incorporating exact language from the Encyclopedia Britannica requires quotes or indentation, not merely a footnote of acknowledgement
It looks like an editor incorporated exact words from EB without quotes. Regardless of whether the document quoted is public domain, quotations require proper quote marks or indentation to indicate quote. Also as needed insertions require square brackets and omissions elipsis dots. (PeacePeace (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC))