Talk:English Reformation/Archive 1

Marriage
I think the probs of lack of heir/invalid marriage were said by Henry to be linked: God was punishing him for marriage to Arthur's widow (despite papal dispensation for this). Do your sources say anything on this?

Also, perhaps it would be good if article stuck to phrasing like "Henry claimed he was doing X for reason Y" - the guy was a great politician and superb at finding reasons for changing tack. It's not completely plausible to say that, for example, the dissolution of the monasteries was because Henry suddenly found out there were bawdy monks. Shall I re-phrase, or do you have sources to hand and can do it better? Cheers, JackyR 21:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: divorce; Roderick Phillips's Untying the Knot: A Short History of Divorce (p. 20) claims that Henry thought his marriage to Catherine was 'blighted in the eyes of God' because Leviticus 20:21 said: If a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an impurity; he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless. Phillip's also claims that Henry was 'obessed' with having an heir and securing the Tudor dynasty and that Anne Boleyn was the best way of doing this (Ibid.)
 * Re: reasons for the dissolution; for expected invasion from France and the need for money see . Geoffrey Elton in his England under the Tudors claimed monasticism was 'on its last legs' in England due to them being 'riddled by worldliness and deadened by routine'' (p. 141).
 * Elton claims: Their spiritual value cannot be assessed by the historian, outside whose competence this matter is; what he can say is that contemporaries had largely ceased to care about it [the monasteries], and that the monks were often too few to carry out these duties...From an early date the government realised that it could bind the gentry and nobility to the new order by bribing them with lands which any reversal of policy would force them to restore. (Ibid.) - Johnbull 22:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

--Johnbull 22:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool. So what does this mean in terms of the article? My suggestion for the 1st para (with your approval) would be:


 * By the late 1520s however Henry wanted to divorce his wife Catherine of Aragon. She had not produced a male heir who had survived into adulthood and Henry wanted a son so the Tudor dynasty would be secure. Before Henry's father Henry VII attained the throne, England had been marred by civil warfare over rival claims to the crown, and Henry wanted to avoid uncertainty over the succession. Catherine's only surviving child was the Princess Mary.


 * In 1527 Henry asked the Pope to declare the marriage null on the grounds that, because she had been his late elder brother's wife, it was against Biblical teachings that he should be married to her. The pope refused to do this. Earlier in that year the Holy Roman Emperor, Catherine's uncle, had sacked Rome and kept the Pope prisoner so there was little hope of him granting a divorce.


 * This avoids commenting on what Henry's actual beliefs are. Alternatively, one could start that last para with (something like): According to Phillips [ref], Henry believed that he had no heir because his marriage was blighted because she was his late elder brother's wife etc etc. Which do you prefer?


 * For the Dissolution stuff, I'll try to make a suggestion tomorrow (getting late...)


 * Btw, you may feel I'm dissing your hard work. I'm absolutely not - the article is both impressive and much needed. I'm just trying to polish, because it's good enough to be worth polishing! Cheers, JackyR 01:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I like your alternative suggestion. I think Henry's religious beliefs are worthy of note because he preferred a middle-way between the radical Protestant faction of Cromwell and Cranmer and the religious conservative faction of Thomas Howard, Duke of Norfolk, and Stephen Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester. The Henrician Reformation was more political in nature than on the Continent and in Scotland. Henry's Six Articles were essentially a statement of Catholic beliefs and he restricted the use of the English Bible, but he did not believe in papal jurisdiction either. Both radical Protestants like John Lambert and Roman Catholics like Thomas More and John Fisher were executed for heresy under Henry.
 * I think for the dissolution it could be fair to say Henry wanted to consolidate his reforms by giving the nobility a large stake in it (i.e. land formally owned by the Church) so they would support Henry's policies (as Elton notes). Also that Cromwell was the king's right-hand-man at the time and he was more Protestant-minded so would have held anti-monastic views. The wikipedia article on him claims Cromwell and his supporters had genuine theological issues with the idea of monastic life, specifically on the nature of intercessory prayers for the dead so this would have been a factor in the dissolutions too.--Johnbull 18:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Done first bit - please check/ref. Suddenly busy, will come back to this next week (sorry to run out on you) cheers JackyR 20:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

External and Roman
When the pope exercises his authority on an ecclesiastical matter in the United States, he does not do so as an "external" power. He does so as the competent authority. Prior to the split between Henry VIII, and Rome, it is not proper to call Rome an external authority. The idea that the pope is an external authority on matters related to the Church is post reformation. Also, the matter of annulment is clearly internal to the Church. It was Henry's use of political power to subvert the pope's ecclesiastical authority that was "external" to the matter.

Similarly, to say Henry was a "Roman Catholic" is to use post reformation language to describe a pre-reformation reality. The term "Roman Catholic" only appears in the 1660's as an anti-Catholic slur.

Please do not just revert without doing your homework first. Vaquero100 18:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I will keep reverting your edits which are inaccurate. The Roman Church's authority derives from the Pope, who's in the Holy See in the Vatican&mdash;not in England. The Pope is outside the realm. Also, the Roman Catholic Church does not have a monopoly on who can and cannot be called a Catholic.--Johnbull 19:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think there are two issues involved with the naming convention here. First of all, if we are talking about a pre-reformation chuch, maybe we should wikilink to an article about that chuch? The article's current name is Roman Catholic Church, so to avoid confusion in a reader, it makes sense to use the name currently established by wikipedia (imagine a reader clicking the link wanting to know more about this pre-reformation "Catholic Church", but instead starts reading about the contemporary "Roman" Catholic Church). And secondly, think of a counter example. Would it be ok to refer to the "Eastern Orthodox Church" before that phrase was coined?--Andrew c 22:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Johnbull - despite Vaquero100's one man campaign to reclaim the name Catholic Church for his employer, it is not polite to revert his edits without discussing first. In this case I think he is justified to use Catholic Church, and 'Henry was a devout Catholic' as when referring to 1510 that was unambiguous.  However, I think the "external authority of the Catholic Church" is a very clumsy phrase when all that is meant was the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff.   Many other things changed in the English Reformation, but the only thing that changed as regards external authority over the English Church was that the Pope was replaced with the Supreme Governor (English monarch.)

Dioceses
Should we be mentioning the creation of several new dioceses (Bristol, Chester, Gloucester, Oxford, Peterborough) in the 1540s in this article : also the short-lived Westminster? I think so, but not sure where to put. Morwen - Talk 08:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. The hsitory of the period has generated hosts of books and each gives a different slant and more information. We need to keep to the main lines of the story. the creation of dioceses is not the matter of theological dispute. Roger Arguile 16:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Lack of Balance
This article contains much about Henry but little about the theology of the Reformation and has reduced the reigns of Edward and Mary to very little. It is not about the Reformation but about Henry's politicking. There is nothing wrong with what it says, but much wrong about both its balance and coverage of the subject. Most of what is here could be in the article 'Henry VIII'. Also its scholarship is out of date. I have inserted Christopher Haigh; to be added, both in reference and in the article itself are books by Eamon Duffy, Susan Brigden, Christopher Marsh and Diamaid McCulloch, to name but a few. Elton was a giant but much has happened since his time. I shall have a go it it but there is much to say. (I would also like to cut some of the stuff on Henry, but should probably be cautious. Any comments? Roger Arguile 13:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

To John Bull. I see that you did a huge amount of work in the early states of this article. I hope that you do not feel too miffed at my attempts to rebalance it. As always, views differ and inspite of thoe attempts of those who attempt to outlaw POV; facts are not always either agreed nor their interpretation. I can't find anything to fault in your facts, but felt that some of the material was too detailed unless the material on Edward, Mary and Elizabeth were hugely expanded. I have done some of the latter. I can defend the sources of my statements if you wish. Roger Arguile 18:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think your edits were reasonable and correct. I think it is good to include the viewpoints of those historians such as Duffy to provide varying interpretations. However where perhaps I disagree is that the English Reformation was state-driven and therefore an article on it is likely to reflect "Henry's politicking". Although I do agree that the sections on Edward VI, Mary and Elizabeth do need to be expanded.--Johnbull 18:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Roger Arguile 18:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Response to request for improvement
I have done some tidying up work and attempted to improve the flow. I have also done some work on the Elizabethan settlement though more could be done. Roger Arguile 18:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Have now done more. Roger Arguile 11:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added an introductory section, placing the topic within a wider historical context, and noting contrasting views by historians.

--Train guard 12:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Automated peer review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, PMJ 23:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
 * There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
 * As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
 * Per Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called  ==The Biography== , it should be changed to  ==Biography== .[?]
 * Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Guide to layout.[?]
 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “ All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
 * As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

COTM nomination
The nomination of this article for Anglicanism Collaboration of the Month for March was unsuccessful. The COTM is William Wilberforce. It has been automatically placed in nomination for April. Thanks! Fishhead64 16:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The renomination of this article for Anglicanism Collaboration of the Month for April was unsuccessful. The COTM is Anglican views of homosexuality.  Thanks! Fishhead64 02:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Trainguard
The backgoround that Trainguard produced is a background of scholarly argument not a background of the events. Dickens is interesting but there is nothing to be gained from discussing his views without those of subsequent scholarss as are mentioned. I am sorry to be brusque but the level is wrong, the background unbalanced and the assumptions unhelpful to the general reader. I appreciate that TG may feel unappreciated, but I really think some discussion is needed before this kind of insertion is accepted. Roger Arguile 19:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I cannot follow your reasoning, and think it rather odd.

Firstly, I rather think that in an encyclopaedia entry on the English Reformation it is important to set out contrasting views by scholars. You cannot just recount historical events, for history is an interpretation of said events. My objection to the current article is that it overly concerns itself with the doings of various monarchs, clergy, and ministers, important as they are. It seems that I'm not the only one to think this. There are other interpretations and points of view. This entry already incorporates source material from people like Duffy, so I don't see why Dickens should not feature. It was a short section, and Henry et al still get the lion's share.

Secondly, although I mentioned that it was a 1960s interpretation, it was largely contextual information, with click on references for people to pursue. As it now stands, you now have an entry that goes straight into the divorce, with little context or introduction.

Thirdly, what was unbalenced about it? I mentioned the two approaches by historians. What unhelpful assumptions did I make? I merely set out contrasting interpretations and some context. Fine, I'm more likely to side with Dickens than Duffy, but I defy anyone to see any bias in what I wrote.

Lastly, your actions were indeed brusque. We are invited to improve the article. I submitted the short new section in good faith, and indicated in the discussion page who I was, and what I was doing. Now could you not have debated it with me before reverting? Indeed, are you not supposed to do that?

That said, I am open to any suggestion that you or anyone else cares to make.

I look forward to your reply with interest.

--Train guard 20:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I am sorry if I reacted too rudely. I shall attempt to comment on the material properly today. You might note, in the meantime that it was an annulment not a divorce - as the text makes clear!. Moreover, there is a raft of revisionist material - Scarisbrick, Haig, Bridgen- which makes it inappropriate in my view to quote Dickens alone. Anyway,if I may I shall attempt a reasoned response when I have more time. As for your penulimate comment, Yes, I should have debated before reverting and I apologise for that. That's the touble with a delete button. Roger Arguile 10:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

(I have taken the liberty of interpolating your posting with my comments in brackets, so that I can deal with each point as it arises. I will then say what I think a short introductory section ought to consist of.)

The trouble is that those influences such as Marsiglo of Padua, devotio moderna etc. were some of them European in their influence.

(I see no problem with that in an introductory section After all, the English Reformation did not happen in a vacuum, and McCulloch's book clearly loks at the reformation as a European phenomenon. There is some evidence that Henry, or at least his advisers, were aware of Marsiglio, particularly Thomas Cromwell. As to the spiritual context, I did stress English mystics, and, judging from the printing records that we have, they were quite influential.)

Other influences whose effect is disputed might be the advent of printing, the growing capacity of centralised bureaucracies and so on.

(Why disputed? It is clear that England did possess an educated laity, much interested in spiritual matters. The evidence for the production and possession of religious books exists, and foreign observers commented upon the use of mass books and other devotional reading,in London, at least.)

Why however, some countries remained catholic and others did not is not explained by these influences.

(I am not aware that I made any such inference. It is an encycopaedia entry, after all. It is part of the background, and it has been commented on by historians. It should therefore be stated, and the reader can make up their own mind.)

There is no doubt, from the writings of John Colet - another humanist - that change was in the air, but how that change should manifest itself was not certain not uniform.

In any case the material which Train guard inserts arguably belongs in the introduction which, in very short order, says some similar things. But in an introduction to cite scholarly argument in an unbalanced way - in my view - is not the right place.

(I am still at a loss to see what is unbalanced. I stated that there were contrasting views by historians and stated what they were. I think that the average reader ought to know that.That is all that I did.)

I think, moveover that the characterisation of the revisionist view is unsatisfactory. It is, as I have indicated, much wider

(Wider in what way?)

than Duffy's undeniable point that the pre-Reformation English church was alive, vigorous, flourishing and not even overly clerical. (Actually, the work on gilds, since his book, shows him to be a very conservative observer of lay movements - he does not give them the importance they deserve. I think that what Train guard wrote IS biased; it fails to notice, for instance, Haig, who is not a supporter of Duffy in particular, but who contends that the Reformaion in England was a series of accidents. He cites the case of Richard Hunne, but is not inclined to give the weight that Dickens does.

(Fine. There are several views about the significance of the Hunne case. One is that it results in what is tantamount to a rehearsal for the Reformation Parliament. If you want to mention that Haig has an opposing view, it can be worked into the text. I would be concerned, however, if an entry about the English Reformation ommited at least a reference to this episode.)

It would indeed be helpful to know who Train guard is. It may be that none of us should claim authority, but it helpful to know how editors know what they claim.

(My academic career has been, shall we say, varied. My Doctorate does not relate to history, but my first degree does. I have studied this period at university, and I have taught it at A-Level. I have also taught history at degree level. Religious Studies was also part of my first degree. Having said that, I'm not sure that my credentials are all that important...what I write is more germane to the question.)

Duffy is not on his own and while Dickens in his revision of his book was unrepentant, it is difficult to dispute the conclusion that his arguments now lack coercive power.

(And that is your opinion. I venture to add that Duffy received mixed reviews. But this is immaterial. I am not in the business of pushing a particular line. But I do think that, as encyclopaedia entries ought to be as objective as possible, contrasting views should be stated.)

Finally, I would argue that the sweep of thought that constituted the Reformation is best dealt with elsewhere.

(Why? I can see that readers ought to be referred to such an article, but what is the objection to a brief introductory section....and one angled to the English context?)

The section on 'Little Germany' gives some clue as to the movements of thought, as distinct from the political machinations, that were at work ,

(Er, no....because it does not refer to popular religion/opinion.)

but given that, according to MccCulloch (yet another commentator) the Reformation needs to be seen in a much wider context, the events are best described rather than highly disputable claims as to causes which seemed OK until Duffy's researches but which are now difficult to sustain.

(For you, perhaps.)

To me,. the Reformation remains a profound puzzle though I have foreborneto say so in the text.Roger Arguile 20:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

(And I have also not included my personal views.)

PS As for the Lollards, McCulloch's epitaph (Reformation p. 36) could hardly be more damning.Roger Arguile 20:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

PPs On alleged activity in Church courts and Simon Fish see Haig (English Reformations Introduction). The last para completely undervalues Duffy's contribution.

(How so?)

To be fair to Dickens he lacked access to original records which their centralisation, rendering onto microfiche and eventual placing on computer, made possible. The first of these gave Duffy access to informatin faster and more accurately than previous historians had.

(To be fair to Dickens, he was one of the first historians, if not the first, to examine the reformation in terms of ordinary people, utilising original and provincial church records. To say otherwise would be a travesty of what he wrote.)

I hope I do not protest too much. Roger Arguile 20:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, I don't want to get into a long argument with you, since you have undertaken a great deal of valuable work in connection with this article. So, perhaps you could look at the following propsitions, and let me know what you think.

(a) The article does need an introductory section, to establish the conyext of the English Reformation. Without going into detail, it should establish the European and political context, referring readers to other, more detailed entries.

(b) To me, the English Reformation is not just a political act or acts, for it operated on two levels. We do need to relate it to what was going on in the minds of ordinary people. Maybe we need a separate article for this, but we surely ought to have a mention of the nature popular religion in England on the eve of the reformation, since historians have written about it.

(c) Lastly, since the reformation, like the English Civil War, can be a controversial historical topic, I suggest that we ought to state contrasting views - about the state of the church, the significance of popular views and anticlericalism, and perhaps the theological views and intentions of Henry. I rather think that, in an encyclopaedia entry, we owe that to the readers.

Now, I think that all tis can be done in a few paragraphs ina short introductory section. That was my intention, though I think it could be refined. I wil redraft the original section, but only after you have replied to this posting.

--Train guard 11:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see your user page.Roger Arguile 12:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed New Introduction
I am suggesting that this draft can form the basis for a debate on what I see as a much needed introductory section. Comments appreciated.

"The English Reformation has traditionally been seen as resulting from a political act, the consequence of the desire of Henry VIII to obtain an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. The subsequent doctrinal changes, largely accomplished within the reign of Edward VI, might be placed within this context. However, some historians have tried to place Henry's actions, and the subsequent developments, within a wider context, attempting to explain why he may have felt that he could proceed in this way, and accounting for the limited opposition that he encountered. This means that, for some people, the term 'English Reformation' has a wider meaning.

In the first place, the reformation might be regarded as taking place at two levels. There are the great acts of state, the liturgical changes, and the evolution of the Anglican Church. But there is also the characterisation of the reformation as a social movement, taking place in the minds of the people. Some historians have noted the existence of a growing urban and literate laity, greatly exercised with the issue of personal spirituality. Influences ranging from English mystics (Julian of Norwich, the anonymous author of 'The Cloud of Unknowing')to the surviving lollard tradition have been suggested.

Secondly, like the English Civil War, the Engish Reformation is a highly controversial subject. Following on from the debate about popular belief and religion, two connected issues are often argued. What was the nature of popular religious attitudes? How widespread was scepticism and anticlericalism, evidenced in the Richard Hunne affair and the pamphleteering of Simon Fish? Or, was this exceptional, the majority religious view (particularly outside London) being highly conservative, as other historians have argued? And if it can be proved that anticlericalism was a significant force, what role (if any) did it play in the political and religious acts of state?

There are other debates. What were Henry's intentions, and the nature of his theological beliefs, particularly in the later part of his reign? The political context, and the motives of Thomas Cromwell and others, have resulted in speculation about a 'tudor revolution in government', and the influence of Marsiglio of Padua.

Any reader who follows up the references to this article will soon immerse themselves in a world of conflicting books and opinions. The English Reformation is a very lively subject."

--Train guard 15:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I have already commented enough, but I can't resist the temptation: I don't think such an introduction is the place for questions, which are not answered, nor for references (as to Richard Hunne) which are not followed up within the articles. I don't think this sort of article should include so many or any!'Some historians' - this kind of expression is sometimes called weasel words in WPspeak. Two levels? say five. What is the relationship between literacy and reformation? I don't think there is one. Aldus Manutius, the great mediaevel printer worked in Italy. What the the Lollards contribute to the process? I trhink the answer is:nothing. There is no evidence that it was otherwise. But it might be fair since I like this so little - couched though it is in elegant prose - I might offer something else for people to shoot at. I agree that there was a movement of ideas, and printing facilitated this, but what this has to say about Reformation? One needs more than scholars' names, one needs their reasons and these are less easy to find. The English Reformation has been called 'a cultural revolution' (as in China); an act of state terrorism; the inevitable process of rational belief emerging from superstition under the influence of humanism; a compromise in which popular religion found a continuity between the old and the new, merely expressing itself in somewhat different ways; the replacement of locally based religion with that imposed by a literate, entrepreneurial class, and so on. Which is it? Roger Arguile 23:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't want this to become the 'Roger and Train Guard Show', so let's see what others might have to say. Then I will respond to your (and anybody else's) points. In the meantime, please remember that this isn't about what we think....I haven't stated a personal opinion. And I have obeyed WP practice by providing a click on link for my references.

--Train guard 09:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

As I didn't like what you wrote, I have made my own insertions. As you will see I have inserted small changes in different places. Apart form Richard Hunne - whom I think highly overrated - I have included all of your points. Perhaps a description of who Marsiglio of Padua was might help. I am sorry we disagree, but we certainly do! Roger Arguile 17:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Without duplicating what is in other articles I have tried to indicate some of the arguments about the origins of the Reformation. It is interesting that the various points of view can be identified with a) a Protestant, b) an agnostic Anglican c) a lapsed Anglican unbeliever d) a practising Roman Catholic e)and an atheist. (I think I have got them in the right order!). Roger Arguile 16:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Henry VIII
I have attempted with background information to make Henry's conduct more explicable by referring to two scholars: Susan Brigden and Christopher Haig who, alone are responsible for the opinions. Roger Arguile 18:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

GA
I have reviewed this article in accordance with the Good Article (GA) criteria. There are seven main criteria that the article must comply with to pass:


 * 1) Well-written:
 * 2) Factually accurate:
 * 3) Broad:
 * 4) Neutrally written:
 * 5) Stable:
 * 6) Well-referenced:
 * 7) Images:

I have concluded that, in my opinion, the article has passed all categories and I therefore award it GA status. --Eurocopter tigre 16:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review
Doesn't meet standards in my opinion. One Night In Hackney 303 13:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Copied from the Good Article Review

It is never about "number" it's about the quality of references and their sufficiency. Whenever interpretation of facts is presented, the source of that interpretation needs to be directly cited. History articles are FULL of interpretation; they present not only dry facts (such as dates, numbers, and the like) but also interpretations as to the effects of historical events upon other historical events. In so far as these interpretations are done by respected historians in reliable sources, those sources need to appear as direct inline (either parenthetical or footnoted) references so that we know WHICH interpretation comes from WHICH reliable source. You wanted examples of "challenegable" statements in need of citations. Here they are:
 * Unlike his father, who was secretive and conservative, the young Henry appeared to be the epitome of chivalry and sociability, seeking out the company of young men like himself; an observant Catholic, he heard up to five masses a day (apart from in the hunting season!); of 'powerful but unoriginal mind', he allowed himself to be influenced by his advisors from whom, neither by night or day, was he alone; he was thus susceptible to whoever had his ear. If someone has psychoanalyzed Henry VII and Henry VIII, we need a reference to WHERE such analysis first appeared. It should not be here.  These beliefs about the Tudors may be widely held, but if so it should be EASY to find a reference where it is held.  These are still interpretations, and thus need references to reliable sources where such interpretations appear.


 * There IS a reference: all of the statements come from Bridgden, as it says Roger Arguile 11:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In 1521 he had defended the Papacy from Martin Luther's accusations of heresy in a book he wrote, probably with considerable help from his Chancellor Thomas More, entitled The Defence of the Seven Sacraments, for which he was awarded the title "Defender of the Faith" (Fidei Defensor) by Pope Leo X, an act which, in the light of what followed, appears very strange. Strange is a POV term, and the fact that his receipt of said title is incongrous with later events is an interpretation presented by SOMEONE of historical events, and needs a reference.

I am fully prepared to rewrite omitting 'strange' Roger Arguile 11:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * By the late 1520s, Henry wanted to have his marriage to Catherine annulled. She had not produced a male heir who survived into adulthood and Henry wanted a son to secure the Tudor dynasty. Are you sure this is why he wanted it annulled? Maybe a young maiden caught his eye who he wanted to marry instead?  Unless this particular interpretation is given a reference, we have no idea that the one quoted here, and not some alternative interpretation, is authoritative.


 * Footnotes 9 amd 11 will give you the answer to this query Roger Arguile 11:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The death of his chancellor Cardinal Wolsey in November 1530 left him open to the opposing influences of the supporters of the Queen and those who countenanced the abandonment of the Roman allegiance, for whom an annulment was but an opportunity. Again, why was Wolsey's death so important in this light. I am not neccessarily saying it wasn't, I am merely pointing out that there is no reference to a reliable source where such an interpretation of the facts IS established.


 * Wolsey's death was so important because of his legatine powers and his role as chancellor. It may be that readers do not know what a chancellor was but there is a link.Roger Arguile 11:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Parliament summoned in 1529 to deal with annulment brought together those who wanted reform but who disagreed what form it should take; it became known as the Reformation Parliament. There were Common lawyers who resented the privileges of the clergy to summon laity to their courts; there were those who had been influenced by Lutheran evangelicalism and were hostile to the theology of Rome: Thomas Cromwell was both. There were those, like Foxe and Stokesey, who argued for the Royal Supremacy over the English Church. Henry's Chancellor, Thomas More, successor to Wolsey, also wanted reform: he wanted new laws against heresy. Again, when we assign motivations to people's actions, we need a source to confirm that reliable historians feel; that such motivations really existed. Again, interpretation of facts requires references to where those interpretations are done.

I will the find references though not being opinion they are not challengeable in the samw way: there are in Bridgden Roger Arguile 11:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Cromwell was a lawyer and a Member of Parliament,an evangelical who saw how Parliament could be used to advance the Royal Supremacy, which Henry wanted, and to further evangelical beliefs and practices which both he and his friends wanted. One of his closest friends was Thomas Cranmer, soon to be Archbishop. Again, this is an open psychoanalysis of the motivations of an historical figure, and we need a reference for it.


 * It may be tedious to put a footnote every yard. I am not convinced that this is the way to proceed. It is not psychoanalysis but simply historical interpretation. Again Bridgen Roger Arguile 11:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Having brought down Cardinal Wolsey, his Chancellor, on a charge of praemunire and probably hastened his death, he finally resolved to charge the whole English clergy with praemunire in order the secure their agreement to his annulment. Where is the source that says that Henry hastened the death of Wolsey? Such an accusation needs a reference.


 * Again I can put it in: the multiplication of references may help some people. Wolsey died, probably of a heart attack in Leicester on his way to be confronted by his king to lose his job.Roger Arguile 11:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The long discussion of the Convocation of Canterbury that follows the above quote is entirely unreferenced as well. Where do such facts come from, as well as the interpretation of those facts?
 * The Act in Conditional Restraint of Annates which proposed that the clergy should pay no more than 5% of their first year's revenue (annates) to Rome proved at first controversial, Controversial according to whom?


 * with the clergy? It's not mine but it's scarcely controversial.Roger Arguile 11:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Consequently in the same year the Act of First Fruits and Tenths transferred the taxes on ecclesiastical income from the Pope to the Crown. The Peter's Pence Act outlawed the annual payment by landowners of one penny to the Pope. This Act also reiterated that England had "no superior under God, but only your Grace" and that Henry's "imperial crown" had been diminished by "the unreasonable and uncharitable usurpations and exactions" of the Pope. Paragraph contains direct quotes that are unreferenced.


 * Not mine but I can look it up.Roger Arguile 11:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In case any of this should be resisted Parliament passed the Treasons Act 1534 which made it high treason punishable by death to deny Royal Supremacy. Finally in 1536 Parliament passed the Act against the Pope's Authority which removed the last part of papal authority still legal; this was Rome's power in England to decide disputes concerning Scripture. Motivations to Parliament's actions are claimed here. Needs a reference.


 * No no. Parliament does not have a motivation; only individuals do. Cromwell was behind it as chief minister.It is all part of a process which is clear if the whole is read together rather than as individual sentences. Cromwell's motivation is stated and now referenced Roger Arguile 11:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This was still not yet a Reformation. That was to come from the dissemination of ideas. Really? According to whom?


 * It may be that Jayron wants articles that are dull. It was not a Reformation because as every book on the subject maintains the Reformation was a, well:a REFORMATION (I normally dislike caps: it looks like shouting), a reforming of the beliefs of the church. I fear that what is wanted is plodding. In fact the reference is in footnote 8 which refers to Scruton above and which has now been repeated. Roger Arguile 11:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The king's councillors, his chief minister, Thomas Cromwell, his archbishop, Thomas Cranmer were part of a loose group of people who had read the works of Martin Luther and had been influenced by them. Where is the evidence of this influence? Reference please.


 * 'Little Germany' is referred to below in the following para. Its existence is so widely known that I didn't think it needed a reference, but you can have one if you want.Roger Arguile 11:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Theological radicalism had always been around. In England its major manifestation was Lollardy, a movement deriving from the writings of John Wycliffe, the fourteenth century Bible translator, which stressed the primacy of Scripture. But, after the execution of Sir John Oldcastle, leader of the Lollard rebellion of 1415, they never again had access to the levers of power and by the fifteenth century were much reduced in numbers and influence. There were still many Lollards about, especially in London and the Thames Valley, in Essex and Kent, Coventry and Bristol, who would be receptive to the new ideas when they came - who looked for a reform in the lifestyle of the clergy; who held the Word to be the more necessary sacrament, the Eucharist but a memorial - but they were not party to the actions of the government. Why is a discussion of these earlier heresies important to the English Reformation? Again, I believe they are, and YOU may believe they are, but neither of US are published historians.  Find me a reference where such connections are established.


 * I will find the reference in Dickens and Duffy. Duffy doesn't think that Lollards matter; others including Trainguard, see above, and Dickens, do. Roger Arguile 11:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Much of the rest of the section titled Theological radicalism is filled with challengable statements about who influenced whom, and what events caused what other events to occur. Again, I am not doubting the truth of this analysis, but merely noting that such analysis isn't currently verifiable as existing in reliable sources, since we have very few references.
 * Dissolution of the Monastaries has the same problems as above. I am going to stop quoting individual assertions, since you should by now have the idea.  Insofar as this and every other section presents an interpretation of the motives and effects of historical events, it is challengable and needs REFERENCES.


 * I am not trained in the ways of WP. It may be that the article needs to be like a pincushion: covered with references. However, some of the time, Jayron fails to read ahead before making his comment. Anyway, see below. Roger Arguile 11:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Reformation reversed same issues.
 * Edward's Reformation same issues.
 * Catholic Restoration ditto.
 * The Elizabethan Settlement yup...
 * Legacy again, same issues. Insofar as this section attempts to establish lasting impact of the reformation, it DEFINITELY needs more references.


 * See below Roger Arguile 11:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, if you are counting the number of references, you are missing the point. An article needs sufficient reference to establish where any interpretations or analysis comes from, since analysis is ALWAYS challengable. Heck, half a dozen books would be enough to probably sufficiently reference this article, as long as the references were made to specific page numbers, and enough different viewpoints were presented to ensure neutrality. As it stands now, the article is insuffient in the way it is referenced, and should be delisted.--Jayron32| talk | contribs


 * Thanks Jayron. David Underdown 09:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The contention is offered that more references are needed. Since I wrote most of it I can offer twenty or more references. I am not convinced that this is the way most of the Featured Articles are written; indeed they are not. I am grateful for the attention that Jayron has devoted so much time to the work, but unconvinced of his arguments. However I am very cheerful if the article is delisted. Its major function after all is to inform people not win awards. The former I believe it does, but I can add references, if this will please people. Before I do I would be interested to know if anyone thinks that Jayron is expecting more than appears in most well regarded books, more indeed than is found in many Feature Articles, but if this is the way the game is played, I am happy to remove to GA status myself. Roger Arguile 11:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

PS I have come across Featured Articles which have no footnotes at all. the one of the Virtutu Militari is historical and has no footnotes. Nevertheless, I shall get on with it.Roger Arguile 12:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

PPS I nowe noticee that I made these points briefly in the posted quality box at the top a long time ago. It is frustrating when people do not read material before making comments.Roger Arguile 17:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your prompt attention to this. And with regard to finding FAs or GAs that are not being held to the current standards: Over time standards change, sometimes a lot.  Many articles whose featured or good status was granted a LONG time ago no longer merit inclusion in that status and that is why a review process exists for them.  The issue with referencing is fairly clear in the criteria not just for "featured" or "good" articles, it is a standard upheld for ALL wikipedia articles.  I don't feel that I am in the minority viewpoint at Wikipedia in asking for these kinds of changes; spend some time at WP:GA/R or WP:FAC or [{WP:FA/R]] or WP:PR to see what kinds of scrutiny MANY editors will put an article under for its referencing.  I am not calling for the article to be treated like a pincushion.  However, in places where we are reporting the opinion of others, even EXPERT or WIDELY-HELD (and most of historical reporting is just that, opinion) we should CITE that opinion so others may check it out.  If an article is NOT clearly referenced, than other editors can come along and add spurious and downright incorrect information, and there is no way to spot that this information DOESN'T come from the references at the bottom of the page.  Also, you note above that there is a disagreement between expert historians over an issue in the article (the influence of the Lollards).  In this case, it is important to clearly report BOTH opinions, and cite who holds them, so that the article clearly does not misrepresent scholarly opinion by stating only one side of the viewpoint (see WP:NPOV).  Thanks again for your attention to this; though you say that you are not familiar with WP ways and standards, it is clear you are a good editor and your writing in this article is largely exemplary and should be commended.  If you have any further questions for clarification about ANY Of the points I made above, drop a line by my talk page.  Happy editing. --Jayron32| talk | contribs  19:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Convocation-reference
An editor inserted the following some time ago: "In Parliament, bishop John Fisher was Catherine's and the clergy's champion; he had inserted into the first article, the phrase 'as far as the word of God allows'. In Convocation, however, Archbishop Warham requested a discussion but was met by a stunned silence from the Convocation; then Warham said: 'He who is silent seems to consent' to which a clergyman present responded: 'Then we are all silent'. The Convocation granted consent to the King's five articles and the payment on 8 March 1531. That same year Parliament passed the Act of Pardon." I do not know where it is from. Can ayone provide the reference. It seems a good story and it would be a pity if it could not be retained. Roger Arguile 14:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This mereley says he had the amendment included, and that this was then carried in default of opposition, without including the quote.  David Underdown 14:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * the DNB article on Warham supports the Fisher part of the para, but again does not contain the explicit quote, neither does the Fisher article there, and that is in fact softer on whether it was Fisher who was responsible for the amendment. David Underdown 14:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Good Article review results
By a vote of 5-1, the GA status of this article has been delisted for failure to meet GA criteria. The full review can be seen here. Once issues have been addressed and the article is brought up to standards, it can be renominated. Thank you for your work so far, and good luck with future edits. Regards, Lara Love  T / C  06:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a fascinating process to read one's work being discussed, especially without references (!). My main beef is that no one seems to have noticed a) my replies to Jayron32 and b) the fact that alterations had been made follwing his comments. I do think that those who make the judgments would help by being specific WHENEVER they make a judgement. Otherwise their opinion is, how shall I say?, unreferenced. Moreover, there is a tendency,noticed by David Underdown, to read sentences without noticing the context. Sometimes what is needed is to read the paragraph. Finally, I remind myself of a principle which, if it is not in WP, ought to be: that the purpose of WP is not to give glory to anyone but to serve the readership. Nothing else really matters. Roger Arguile 08:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now made a large number of edits, almost all of which are the addition of references. They are, in my view, largely superfluous, but they have enabled me to check another of facts which I have, in some cases, modified. It may look as if the only book I have read is Haigh. It was just simpler to refer to his account than check my other sources of the same information Roger Arguile 11:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Renominated as a Good Article Candidates
I have renominated the article at the Good Article Candidates page WP:GAC. This article has undergone extensive fixes which, in my opinion, have made it so that it now meets the Good Article Criteria (WP:WIAGA). It would be nice to get another review now, especially from someone who wasn't involved in the WP:GA/R discussion or its delisting.--Jayron32| talk | contribs 17:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I quickly looked over the article per an editor's request to check the talk page. I see Jayron has beat me to my recommendation that it be renominated. I'll note some minor issues I noticed when glancing over the article that should be addressed.


 * Minor errors with references. Basically, spaces between punctuation and citation, as follows:
 * The break with Rome, eighth paragraph, ref 27.
 * Theological radicalism, first paragraph, ref 29 and 30; last paragraph, ref 32 and 33.
 * Reformation reversed, second paragraph, ref 42.
 * Catholic restoration, fourth paragraph, ref 52 and 53.
 * The Elizabethan Settlement, second paragraph, ref 57 (space and period); last paragraph, 66.
 * Legacy, first paragraph, ref 67.
 * I recommend that the notes section use or
 * I didn't have time to look over it in detail, but I figured I would list what I did notice. Good luck with the next review. Regards, Lara Love  T / C  18:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

GA review
I am doing the GA review, but it would be nice if someone fixed the references first - something is amiss there. Thanks. Awadewit Talk 19:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Just in case no one saw this the first time - the footnotes are still all screwy - you can't read anything after the first few - please fix so that I can review the article. Awadewit Talk 02:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Done now, I accidentlaly caught the opening angle bracket of a close ref tag in my previous tidy, and then compounded by seeign that the first few references were fine, but missing the fact that the rest were a mess. It was night-time here in the UK between your first and second posts on this page... David Underdown 07:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I kind of thought my little comment was poorly placed, so I just redid it. Please don't think of it as some sort of US-centric thing. I keep strange hours myself, as you can see, so I never assume anyone is online when I am. Will get to reviewing. Awadewit Talk 08:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

GA pass
I am passing this article for GA. In my opinion, it amply fulfills the criteria. Here are my suggestions for improvement:
 * To me, the lead promises a very different article. It suggests that large sections of the article are going to discuss alternate interpretations of the English reformation, but nowhere does that happen. If so many elements of it are disputed, why is that not brought out in the article itself?
 * This was still not yet a Reformation - because it had not yet broken with the doctrines of Roman Catholicism? This sentence, because it is so stark and because it opens a section needs to be quite clear.
 * In many ways, this is a very top-down history. I noticed that you have used the "Stripping of the Altars" as a source. I wonder if you could use some of the examples from that book to flesh out the popular reactions. Right now, the "commoners" and the "people" seem to act as an undifferentiated mass while the upper crust act as individuals. At least a mention of individual congregations or local curates would be nice. One of the great strengths of that book is its attention to minute detail.
 * Thereafter, the determination to prevent any further restoration was evidenced by the more thoroughgoing destruction of roods, vestments, stone altars, dooms, statues etc.,  - It is generally considered bad form to use "etc" because the reader is usually reading the article to find out information. Using an "etc" only omits information and implies the reader should already know it.
 * If you eventually want to take this article to FA, I suggest an outside copyeditor; there are a few little oddly phrased sentences that someone who hasn't been poring over the article for weeks could probably help out with.
 * What do the editors think about an introductory section that outlines the overarching narrative of the page so that readers know where they are going as they are reading? Right now, one occasionally gets a little lost in the details.
 * What about a timeline on a separate page or in a separate section (depending on how long it is)? Awadewit Talk 07:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

As a major recent editor I am grateful for the remarks. Adding material on parish reactions would take up more space and, of course, Duffy, largely deals with the pre-Reformation church; but I shall try. The variety of views partly reflected the discovery of new material, but I have tried not to be controversial. I have probably taken too much the Haigh view, and whereas Dickens is much older, MacCulloch's line is not so much at odds with Haigh as a more nuanced version of it. People don't differ much about the facts or the opinions of those they describe. It is the overview (and the theology) which makes for much of the difference. Even if pre-Reformation religion was flourishing, Duffy is more likely to approve than Dickens. So it seems to me. but I shall have a go. As for 'etc.', that is done.Roger Arguile 10:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That is true of Duffy, but I think there is some useful material there. There may be better books to look at for Reformation detail itself - I just remember that one having a stunning number of examples (it's been a few years since I read it - it is a bit outside by period). I just wanted to make the larger point about lack of plebeian detail. I am not suggestion major additions here. Just, when you say the masses rioted - give a bit more detail, for example. Or, when you say they hid plate - give an example - where did they hide it? Who did it? These kinds of details are interesting and add a personal side to the non-noble classes. Awadewit Talk 10:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If it is really true that there is very little dispute over the interpretation over the English reformation, which I must say I am a leetle skeptical of, then I think that the lead should be drastically altered. Awadewit Talk 10:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I've now linked to the praemunire article, and removed the html comment requesting a definition - is that sufficient, jduging by the state of the article it doesn't seem that easy a topic to sum up quickly (I think the article could do with some work, being entirely 11th ed Britannica..., but it's way outside my field). David Underdown 11:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you summarize in a brief phrase in the article the first time the word appears? It was an important concept to know for the article. Awadewit Talk 11:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, looking at again, there is a one sentence summary in the praemunire article "praemunire was to appeal to a power outside of the realm for resolution of a situation within England that was under jurisdiction of the Crown" - possibly add "(especially to the Pope)" after "outside of the realm". Does that seem alike a reasonalbe summary of that article, and sufficiently explanatory for here? David Underdown 12:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, there is a huge difference of opinion over its significance but much less over the information. I must have expressed myself clumsily. The idea that it was a 'good thing' (1066 and All That) or a a 'bad thing' is hugely disputed. Churchill thought it was good because it turned the attention of Britain to what was to become the Empire (which included the American colonies! but that's another story.) Roger Arguile 13:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC) PS I have added a little about Morebath in a footnote but I can easily find some examples of what you seek. Roger Arguile 13:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC) I have put some examples in the footnotes Roger Arguile 16:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Pope, Papacy and Catholic church
Nomenclature is important; but while the Catholic church is the institution, decisions within it are not taken by democratical process, but as in this case, I think, by his Holiness. the Pople. I wonder if those who have been making the changes could clarify their reasons for so doing. Was the pope not involved in the refusal to countenance occasional conformity? Roger Arguile 09:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Henry's death
Having tried to take seriously the comments of Awadewit I have been looking at some differences between scholars, not just their opinions but their evidence. Thus:

"Quietly playing out his calling as royal chapolian, Cranmer had wond a final victory in his years of argument with the King on justification. No last rites, for Henry; no extreme unction: just an evangelical statement of faith in a grip of the hand." That's MacCulloch in his biography of Cranmer (p. 360);

But:

"Henry VIII had died a Catholic, though a rather bad Catholic. In any individual and eclectic preamble, his will asked for intercession by Mary and the saints, and insisted on the rality of Christ's present in the eucharist." Haig ''English Reformations' p. 167)

What is interesting is not merely the conclusions of each but the omission of information. Historians (unlike WP editors) are entitled to express their opinions; but the inclusion and omission of different pieces of information makes our life hard. I have included both opinions in a footnote. Roger Arguile 09:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Ordinal
Mr. Jones quoted Dix. I am not sure what Dix is saying. There is much evidence in Duffy that the pastoral nature of the priesthood needed no emphasis. Moroever, the statement before alteration is not mine, but, I think, Haig. Dix was a liturgical scholar, not a historian one rather out of date. I am not sure that quotation from the Preface is quite enough. If Mr. Jones is saying that Cranmer wished to preserve the historic priesthood, he has a mountain to climb. McCulloch in Cranmer says that it was another case of 'Cranmer's opportunist adoption of mediaeval forms for new new purposes'. Roger Arguile 11:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC).

I am pretty sure that Cranmer did not believe in the historic priesthood or the mass ,although I have encountered people in the Continuing Anglican Churches who tend to regard him almost as an early Tractarian. Incidentally,why quote P & Frere elsewhere on historical points,as they are much more out of date on matters of history than Dix? However I concede your point. Thank you for the correction. I agree with you about evidence, perhaps we should have more footnotes. Frederick Jones The Supreme Headship

According to Tanner p 17, the first form of words giving the Supreme Headship without qualification was what the King required of Convocation, they amended it to as far as the law of Christ allows version. The Emperor' s ambassador pointed out however that this was an empty phrase as no one would venture to dispute with the King where his supremacy ended and that of Christ began.

Please help us by atdding your name and telling us which of which Tanner's works we should seek to read. Roger Arguile 14:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Elizabthan Settlement
Would someone please tell me where this 'Reformation Bill' can be found> I know of the Act of Uniformity and of the Act of Supremacy but we seem to have errors creeping into this article which do it no good.Roger Arguile 09:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The Reformation bill did not pass, I will cite or delete in the next day or so. Work is clearly on-going. -- SECisek 17:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Wording of lead
There have been several attempts, most recently by to update the wording of the lead, in my view these have all either misrepresented events, or been grammatically poor, in particular "severed it links from the authority of the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church. " is nonsense.

What is wrong with the long-standing wording anyway? David Underdown (talk) 10:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Third paragraph
The third paragraph uses to much ambiguous creativity 3,4,5,6,7,8... I just wish to observe Wiki's basic facts about English reformation. I need it to be be left simple. What are the objectives of the references used? What do you feel the objectives of the authors are and are they consequentially being carried out on this site? Does Wiki share the same objective across all topics or is it being affected by possible creative writing styles used in it's referances?

"Different opinions have been advanced as to why England adopted a reformed faith, unlike France for instance. Some have advanced the view that there was an inevitability about the triumph of the forces of new knowledge and a new sense of autonomy set over-against superstition and corruption;[2] others that it was a matter of chance: Henry VIII died at the wrong time; Mary had no child;[3] reform did not inevitably mean leaving the Roman Communion[4] for others it was about the power of ideas which required only moderate assistance for people to see old certainties as uncertain;[5] others have written that it was about the power of the state over vibrant, flourishing popular religion;[6] it was a 'cultural revolution'.[7] Some, on the contrary, have argued that, for most ordinary people there was a continuity across the divide, which was as significant as any changes.[8] The recent revival of scholarly interest may indicate that the argument is not yet over."


 * We are not here to give simple answers to difficult topics. Neither is Wikipedia for orginal research, we're trying to give an overview on all views on the topic, th efootnotes are there so that the views are obviously attributed to the orignal author, rather than appearing to be those of editors here. David Underdown (talk) 08:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Decisive turn towards Protestantism?
To make a dogmatic claim in the introduction that the Church of England made a "decisive turn to Protestantism" during the English Reformation begs all sorts of historical and theological questions. Comments about the extent of Protestant influence on the English church need to be articulated in a responsible and nuanced manner - not just stated as an accepted fact. This issue is complex and such a claim is not adequate. Anglicanus (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ""decisive turn towards Protestantism" please! In an article covering at least up to the Elizabethan Settlement this seems a minimal statement. The rest of the text of the lead, which hints vaguely that the ER might just possibly have, somehow, in a very complicated way, have had something to do with the Continental Reformation, really will not do by itself. This is the lead, and these issues are dealt with more fully below. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I see Anglicanus has reverted me again. I will wait for others to comment, but in the meantime would ask him to refrain from describing other editors (not me) as "papist"s in edit summaries. This really is not acceptable. Johnbod (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

My 'papist' comment was purely tongue-in-cheek. Your contentious comment about Protestantism will be unacceptable to many who have an informed understanding of Anglican history and identity. Anglicanus (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I suspect that part of the problem with using the term 'Protestantism' in this way is that the word has some significantly different nuances of meaning for Americans than, often, for English people - especially many Anglicans. For Americans the term might seem historically neutral and correct but, for many English people, it is not only historically incorrect but also quite contentious.  Anglicanus (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No that is not the problem. This discussion would be regarded with total amazement and incomprehension by Elizabethan Englishmen (or women).  Johnbod (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It does seem a rather bald statement - even in the time of Elizabeth, the puritans didn't see it as Protestant enough. It doesn't really seem necessary in the lead.  David Underdown (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly - not Protestant enough, but at least partly Protestant. The word is used continuously in contemporary Anglican discourse. The previous, now again current, version of the lead leaves anyone with no knowledge of the subject completely unclear as to what was going on in terms of doctrinal alignment until a coded and unlinked reference in para 3:"Different opinions have been advanced as to why England adopted a reformed faith...".  This just won't do. My phrase "towards Protestantism" ought to be sufficiently indefinate to satisfy all sides on this delicate issue.  To object to that seems clear POV.  I notice you don't seem to object to Anglicanus's "tongue-in-cheek" offensiveness either.  Johnbod (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Decisive seems to be rather over-stating it to me, and to what extent it was decided, and to what extent it was pushed by events, particularly the excommunication of Elizabeth, and the encouragement of attempts at "regime change" by the papacy (which may of course also have been overstated by the reformers). It also ignores the position of those like Richard Hooker who was alredy setting out the idea of the via media, and also of Lancelot Andrewes.  I've been trying to comment on the issue, not the people, though I don't think some of the edit comments have been particularly conducive to the collegial atmosphere we need here.  David Underdown (talk) 08:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Decisive means the issue was decided, which it was, and there was no going back. How or by who it was decided is a different matter. "towards" encompasses those you mention, although Andrewes is rather out of the period covered by the article. I see from his article " In a great sermon (during Easter week) on 10 April 1588, he stoutly vindicated the Protestantism of the Church of England against the Romanists and adduced John Calvin as a new writer, with lavish praise and affection.", so I am not sure who is ignoring his ideas here! Johnbod (talk) 10:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just shows how complicated the issue is, since he's also described as being of the High Church party, although arguably at this point that had more to do with the relationship of Crown, Church and State than later Anglo-Catholicism. As Anglicanus has mentioned, we today when talking about Protestantism don't necessarily mean the same as in the 16th century.  David Underdown (talk) 10:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it shows the High Church party regarded themselves very comfortably as Protestants, as all the contemporary writings show. Protestantism has always meant different things to different people; that is not a reason to be scared of the word. Johnbod (talk) 11:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The Shires
In the section Act of Uniformity 1559, there is the sentence: There had been opposition to the settlement in the shires, which for the most part were largely Roman Catholic, so the changes were made in order to allow for acceptance to the Settlement. I'm American and so "the shires" doesn't really tell me what part of the country this means. Is it the whole country, all counties ending in shire, or some other grouping? I'm sure it isn't where the Hobbits live. If it is known, it would be better if there were percentages: In 1559 the people of England were divided into - 35% Church of England, 60% Catholic and 05% Buddhist. Nitpyck (talk) 02:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The shires just means rural areas (almost all counties end or ended in shire in those days). Obviously (?) there was no army of opinion pollers in hose collecting statistics, so there effectively are none for the whole population. Nobody cared much what they thought anyway. Johnbod (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps
This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Though generally in a good state, there are still a few things that could be improved, including:
 * Historiography - this is briefly touched on in the lead, but it should be given its own section and expanded.
 * "Elizabethan Settlement" - this section is a bit low on inline citations. Statements like "many felt that a woman could not rule the church" need references.
 * As noted, use of "ibid." in references is discouraged. Lampman (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Pope
This article looks more a vision from the church of England point of view than a balanced approach, but I like to point a single aspect that somebody will have a better information about it.

It is my understanding that the Pope also produce a edict_? that remove the Enry VIII from the post of king..... maybe it is not true, but if somebody have some information......

91.98.195.68 (talk) 10:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

A Vandalization
I don't know much about Wikipedia editing or etiquette, but the first paragraph has quite clearly been vandalized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.111.183.19 (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

... the English Reformation was at the outset more of a political than a theological dispute ...
How can we reflect the way that politics and theology were not separated then in the way they are now? Springnuts (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The whole opening needs rethinking, starting with the 1 sentence 1st para - "The English Reformation was the series of events in 16th-century England by which the Church of England first broke away from the authority of the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church." - no, that was Henry's break with Rome, over before the English Reformation had hardly begun. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Reformation reversed.
This seems a little awkward to me:

"Many parishes were, in any case, reluctant to set up English Bibles: now the mood of conservatism, which expressed itself in the fear that Bible reading led to heresy."

May I suggest:

"Many parishes were, in any case, reluctant to set up English Bibles. The mood was now a conservative one and some feared that Bible reading led to heresy."

Richard Ong (talk) 02:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Edward's Reformation
"historic succession" -- succession of what, please? If it refers to the replacement of Catholic priests with protestant ones, why is it significant that the Preface explicitly mentions this? This surely was a momentous change that would have REQUIRED mention in the Preface, though it would surely have been obvious without this mention.

The thought "but it has been described . . ." seems to be unrelated to the fact of mention in the Preface. Mention of the succession wouldn't establish that Cranmer was not opportunistic. Failure to mention it wouldn't be evidence that he was.

What would a non-opportunistic provision for priests for the Church look like? If Catholic priests were on the way out, why would provisions for the only other priests available be opportunistic? The English Reformation seems to be nothing BUT adaptations, amendments, revisions, and rejections of prior practice. What made Cranmer's efforts opportunistic?

No sarcasm intended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Ong (talk • contribs) 03:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Catholic restoration section
Could someone who knows, please reword the middle of the first paragraph of Catholic restoration. It currently reads, "Mary could have had Cranmer imprisoned as he was tried and executed for treason – he had supported the claims of Lady Jane Grey – but she had resolved to have him tried for heresy". (My Ital). Should the bit in italics be replaced with 'charged with'? Also, if anyone has good sources for that and the rest of that paragraph, that would improve the section too. Thanks, RobinLeicester (talk) 11:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Roods, vestements, chalices, chantries, etc. - describe or just link?
User:Facts707 made six edits, five of which were not improvements. Various consist of parenthetic explanations of terms which are already linked to articles in Wikipedia eg " Roods (large crosses or crucifixes depicting Jesus Christ)": this leads to clutter on the page which reduces readability. The explanations are sometimes inadequate or misleading, eg vestments are not simply "ornate clothing worn by the clergy" but are for specific situations, mainly sacramental rites. Finally the Dickens referred to in the text is not Charles Dickens as the inserted link supposes but A.G. Dickens and academic usage favours the use of the present tense "contends" not "contended" unless the expert changed their opinion later. &mdash; Jpacobb (talk) 18:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) Sorry for causing excessive concern. I was trying to make that part of the article more undestandable to the average English speaking reader. "Rood" is not a common word in modern English and the explanation in parentheses was meant not only to spare the reader of having to go to another article, but also to show that the players in the Reformation were concerned with reducing the idolatry of the church at that time. If you feel strongly about not mentioning what roods are in the article, perhaps we can ask for the input of others.


 * 2) I'm OK with "vestements" being linked but not explained, although again this is not a commnon word in modern English outside certain churches.


 * 3) I'm OK with "chalices" being linked but not explained, but again this is no longer a common word in modern English outside certain churches.


 * 4) "Chantries" - please allow me to at least restore the link to Chantry. I do find "the means by which the saying of masses for the dead were endowed" to be rather poorly worded, so that it is why I edited it to "the means of raising funds for priests to facilitate masses for the dead".


 * 5) Dickens - my apologies, at first reading I thought the article was referring to A Child's History of England (1851-1854) by Charles Dickens, which has several passages relating to the English Reformation. Please allow me to at least link the first occurrence of "Dickens" to Arthur Geoffrey Dickens. I'm OK with "Dickens contends" rather than "Dickens contended" although A.G. Dickens died several years ago.


 * 6) Thank you for your most recent edit summarized by "Restore one edit by Fact707 which was an improvement...", although the part of the edit restored was just a change of the section name to ===Act of Supremacy 1558=== from ===Act of Supremacy ===. The lead sentence "The Act of Supremacy 1558.." was changed by you to just "This Act...".  I'm not quite sure why you de-linked and de-named the act in the lead sentence, although you't don't appear bothered by the same situation in the following section "Act of Uniformity 1558".


 * In summary, thanks for your input and good faith edits. Perhaps I can delay my suggested changes above until you or other editors can review them, although I think they are quite in keeping with good article standards and common practice. Facts707 (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your courteous and sensible replies. I'm afraid that I was interrupted while editing and had to close the session sooner than I expected and therefore failed to polish the edit as much as I should have done. I'll take your points in order:
 * (1) I fully agree that articles should be intelligible and that I probably tend to expect readers to know more than can reasonably be expected of the average reader, but even so there is a tendency for articles to creep towards undue detail and bits of information and s become less readable. The question of when this happens in any specific case is difficult to decide and is a matter for consensus. So far as "rood" is concerned, there is a further point to be kept in mind: although the dictionary definition is that of a large cross or crucifix, the word is apparently used much of the time to refer specifically to crosses/crucifixes placed on the "rood-beam" or in the "rood-loft" of the rood screen with images of Mary and John one on either side.  This was set in a highly visible place (normally between the nave and choir). At times, the word seems to cover the rood itself, the two (or more) images surrounding it and the beam. (2) & (3) Thank you for you willingness but see my point #1. I am open to definitions being reinserted provided they are very carefully worded and as short as possible. (4) I agree Chantries should be linked (my bad for not spotting that the linkage had been caught in the roll-back!). The definition given in the original text is very poorly worded but unfortunately your revision could be misunderstood to mean that the chantries after they were established were the means of raising funds when in fact the basic funds had already been given to establish and endow the chantry.  Chantries were in many ways a trust administering capital. ?Try "a means of providing stipends for priests to say masses for the dead"?  (5) Please link Dickens as indicated, I didn't have time to do it. (6) The de-linking of Act of Supremacy 1558 was an accidental consequence of my more extensive edit.  As a general rule, I think it is poor style to repeat the exact words of a section title as the start of the following lie (It is however an understandable and useful convention at the beginning of an article.)  I'll deal with this one. &mdash; Jpacobb (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, I have linked historian Dickens as A.G. Dickens as you requested. I took the liberty of adding "Modern historian" in front of his name since all other persons mentioned prior in the article were from the 16th century. I also took the liberty of linking modern Irish historian Eamon Duffy. I note his article has a link to his book The Faith of Our Fathers, chapter 2 "Confessions of a Cradle Catholic" which states:"There seems to be something fundamentally dishonest in a Catholic of my generation and background pretending to offer a detached, universally applicable account of the power or attraction of the Church. I did not choose to be a Catholic; for me, Catholicism is bred in the bone, as fundamental a part of my identity as my name or (especially) my nationality." Duffy has ten references in the article as well as an entry in "Further reading". I'll leave it to others to decide if he is overrepresented in the article based on his "confession". Facts707 (talk) 05:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Duffy is a standard authority and the individual facts he states are entirely reliable in themselves. Current opinion is probably that taken as a whole The Stripping of the Altars presents the best face of late medieval Catholicism in England. Duffy tells the truth, but how close is it to the whole truth? &mdash; Jpacobb (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

"So called" does not belong in the article, per Wikipedia's Manual of Style.
As per the Wikipedia Manual of Style's "Expressions of doubt" the term "so called" is not to be used. Please use care when writing. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ditto - the MOS seems to have no such section. Johnbod (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:ALLEGED &mdash; Jpacobb (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Move
This article should probably be moved to Protestant Reformation in England per WP:Consistency. Chicbyaccident ( Please notify with (Talk) 11:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC) Chicbyaccident ( Please notify with  (Talk) 11:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)