Talk:George Gervase

Mere
I removed PoV: "merely being a priest" means, literally, "failing to be more than a priest"; the actual intent must be this: "merely for the offense of being a priest". The state had made a judgement that each Roman Catholic priest in England presumptively constituted an attempt to overthrow the state, so calling the offense "mere" -- while expressing the defensible PoV that that judgement was mistaken -- also the expresses the absurd PoV that it was groundless. --Jerzy•t 11:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

(Hopefully this has been previously and more thoroly discussed at a more suitable place, and i'm adding this on the chance that someone will point me to that discussion or guideline, before i struggle further with the issue.) --Jerzy•t 11:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * (I was loath to break off at that point, noting that the CE's glossing over the distinction (among priests whose ordinations were in accord with Vatican requirements) between Gervase and the priests who took "the new [sic] oath of allegiance" would by itself be PoVish, but in the context of the "merely" language and the [whoops, lost the thread, may insert later], and of CE's citation (omitted from the current CE-copied text) of statute 27 Elizabeth -- Blackwell is more specific in citing
 * statute 27 Elizabeth, c.2 (Jesuits, 1584)
 * -- it is something much more inimical to NPoV info: He did not merely possess the status of ["popish"] priest, he had also been personally banished 2 years before; his return to England at about age 35 violated a statute promulgated by the time he had been 14. That statute made it high treason for such a priest to arrive from abroad for more than 3 days without taking the oath in question. Presenting the relation of refusal of that oath ("Having refused...) as being not necessarily more related to his prosecution than if he had been arrested "walking down the street ...", and then invoking "merely ... a priest" is a high order of PoV. I wonder if this article, in retaining so much of the source's language (not COPYVIO, bcz PD) should be considered unacceptable: At the moment, i think it's a case of PRIMARY, i.e. that CE is reliable only on a primary source basis, namely first-hand evidence of what RCC teaches, and not as a secondary source for, e.g., the facts needed by the accompanying bio.