Talk:John Calvin/Archive 4

MOS:Start an article with a right-aligned lead image

 * Contray to the 21 June 2009 comment and others, thiis is not a conflict in the MOS:IMAGES. It is only, at worse, not as clear as could be.
 * The text make perfectly clear "Start an article with a right-aligned lead image" (or an infobox); it does not say "It is often preferable to start an article with a right-aligned lead image." The reason for this (being right-aligned) is that when we place the image on the left the lead text finishes before the bottom of the image and so the right of the lower part of the image and the TOC is all white space.
 * The guideline father down only speaks of preferances for all images in the article, not just (or even so much) the lead image.
 * If "start an article with a right-aligned lead image" and "place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text" were both "often preferable" then could see that a sort of conflict-- or just a licence to go either way as needed; but that is not the MOS.
 * While I would also want the image to be faceing the text-- if all other things (the quality of images) were equal-- the MOS calls on us to place the image (or infobox) on the right, even if on our own browser it seems okay. şṗøʀĸ  ɕäɾłäů∂ɛ: τᴀʟĸ19:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that MOS:IMAGES should be followed in this case. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 06:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Since there is a desire to archive, and there are no objections voiced, we'll regard this as consensus, and I'll fix the image accordingly. şṗøʀĸ şṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 17:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The compromise concerned the infobox, not the alignment of the lead image. The message requested to bring to the talk page first, so for the moment, the original alignment is kept. --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No one ever claimed this was a "compromise"; someone has to disagree first before there would be what you call a compromise.
 * When editors post here and only people who agree respond-- after others are given time to respond-- and any editors that "disagree," opt out to said disscussion or simply find themselves unable post couter-arguments to clear policy, that is call WP:Consensus. Consensus is how Wikipedia resolves issues.
 * If you want to open this disscussion yet again I won't object-- but keep the photo right-jusified as it is until and unless any newer consensus emerges otherwise. Given you have still failed to post any reason to not follow MOS:IMAGES on this issue, even now, and that you also archived parts of the disscussion, leads me to think you don't plan even to do this. şṗøʀĸ şṗøʀĸ:  τᴀʟĸ 23:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Awadewit, TuckerResearch, and I, all said it was a compromise concerning the infobox only. Please see the end of the section,Talk:John_Calvin/Archive2009. At that point, the image was in it's original position, left justified. The consensus for the left justification was achieved and agreed to during the article development and the FA process. If the consensus changes, then fine, but it is up to those who are introducing the new ideas to bring their arguments. That is why I reverted your bold change, following WP:BRD. So please discuss without edit warring please.
 * The arguments for the left justification can be found in the archives. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * MOS is only a guideline, and this image placement was vetted at FAC. There is no problem here; leave the image alone, pls.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 10:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If the arguments in the archive for a left-justified image were so noteworthy then why were you in such a hurry toarchive them yesterday afterthis post of mine? şṗøʀĸ şṗøʀĸ:  τᴀʟĸ21:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I only archived the infobox compromise as Awadewit had requested (and of course previous stuff). I did not archive your post or the thread on the image justification. I left it here and you can see it above. --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * False again. You removed this to here, of which MOS:Start an article with a right-aligned lead image was just a subsection. şṗøʀĸ şṗøʀĸ:  τᴀʟĸ01:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Forget all the arguments over whether having the first image on the left or right is a policy or only a guideline. It's the later, but that is not as important as whether it simply looks wrong. And it does. It looks very awkward. Let's fix this please. Jonathunder (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

From the style manual: I see no good reason to depart from that here, so I've fixed the layout accordingly. Jonathunder (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Start an article with a right-aligned lead image or infobox.

As Sandy stated, the MoS is a guideline. The image was accepted as a Featured Article. There is no "fixing" needed.--RelHistBuff (talk) 07:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The MOS does not call for right-alignment of the first image for no reason. This serves our readers by making the text more accessible on a wider variety of devices. Jonathunder (talk) 05:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I vote we delete the image all together and move on. This topic comes up every 3 months and it's never going to be resolved, so let's just forget it. Aristophanes68 (talk) 06:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The consensus for the image placement was achieved during the FA process. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * RelHistBuff, that is not an argument. You've used this argument before (like here and, and several places on the talk pages).  It is not the policy of Wikipedia that once an article is featured that it is then "perfect" and can't be changed by other editors.  (This is not Citizendium or Nupedia.  Look at the very top of this talk page: "John Calvin is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.")  I think there is definitely not a "consensus" that the right-facing image must be on the left-side of the article.  I think Jonathunder's idea of putting the Titian image on the right solves the problem.  Which brings me,RelHistBuff, to a second issue with you.  Just because you like the image and you've seen it on the cover of Calvin biographies (like you've said several times, like here, and several places on the talk pages), is not a valid argument either.  I have a selected collection of Calvin's writings with the Titian image on the cover.  Does this mean I should argue we lead with the Titian image because I have a book I like with that on the cover?  No.  Here is how I see it:


 * (1) There is a right-facing image.
 * (2) We either:
 * (a) have it on the left-side of the article facing the text, which many say looks funny
 * (b) have it on the right-side of the article facing away from the text, which many say look funny
 * (3) It is disputed as to whether sticking it on the left facing the text is a rule or merely a guideline
 * (4) Every few weeks an edit war begins on right or left side
 * (5) Thus, I think the best solution is to replace it with a left-facing image and stick it on the right


 * Titian's image fits the bill. It is by a well-known painter, it is contemporary, and it is widely-used.  I think it is a great compromise.


 * TuckerResearch (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The Titian image of Calvin is completely unknown. It makes no sense to use such an image solely to fit a guideline. The original image is well-known and is the classic view of Calvin.
 * Titian is a major artist and this portrait is well-documented. The image of it that we have on Wikipedia is of much better resolution than the one from a completely unknown source. Those are all reasons to lead with the Titian portrait. Jonathunder (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "The Titian image of Calvin is completely unknown." Says who?  Obviously we know it, we're talking about it.  And, as I said, I own a book with this image on the cover.  "It makes no sense to use such an image solely to fit a guideline."  Says who?  You?  Apparently it makes sense to me andJonathunder.  Right?  "The original image is well-known and is the classic view of Calvin."  Says who?  You,RelHistBuff?  The "classic view of Calvin"?  What does that even mean?  I could make the argument that the "classic" view of Calvin is one of the woodcuts.  I've seen far more of the woodcuts than either the Titian image or the anonymous image.  I believeJonathunder offered a reasonable solution to a perennial problem on this article.  I find your continually apparent unwillingness to change "your" article quite perplexing.  TuckerResearch (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Please stop with the personal attacks, Tuckerresearch. Advice: avoid using the sarcastic "you", "your", etc. and your arguments will go better. As mentioned previously, the Geneva Library painting is on the cover of three major biographies (Gordon, Cottret, and Parker). Others have made copies of this with Calvin in the same position (Selderhuis' Calvin's Handbook). It is a near contemporary. It is owned by Geneva's Library and kept in the Reformation Museum. Which book uses the Titian painting? --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * RelHistBuff, I am not personally attacking you. I am merely pointing out what I perceive are the flaws ("...classic view of Calvin.") and bluster ("The image was accepted as a Featured Article. There is no 'fixing' needed.") in your arguments, thus I will use pronouns like "you" and "your."  And I do not seek or appreciate your condescending advice.  I wholeheartedly admit to sarcasm.  I'm happy you like the anonymous painting.  However, many Wikipedia users find a lead image on the left-side of the text distracting and clunky, thus they place it on the right.  Others find a leading right-facing portrait looking right offscreen to be annoying, thus they place it on the left.  It seems to me the simple solution is to put a left-facing portrait on the right-side of the screen.  Titian's fits the bill.  So do many others.  We could use a different one.  Perhapsthis one?  John Calvin - best likeness.jpg?]]  If you do a Google Book or Amazon search for "John Calvin," you'll see that books use a whole panoply of images for Calvin: left-facing, forward-facing, right-facing, color, black & white, paintings, woodcuts, etc.  Same goes for a Google Image search.  I for one don't care which image leads this article, or whether it is on the left or right.  Since the compromise on the infobox, I've never changed the lead image.  But, I will not stand silent and let you attempt to bully people by telling them they can't change this article because "The image was accepted as a Featured Article. There is no "fixing" needed." or "The consensus for the image placement was achieved during the FA process."  I think such behavior would indicate to a neutral observer that you feel youown this article.  Left or right image, I don't care, but I think it is bad form for you to tell people theycan't change this article because you believe your image is "classic" and because you think it was once perfect as a featured article. TuckerResearch (talk) 09:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I can honestly say I am not "bullying" and I do wonder why you continue with your personal attacks. The consensus achieved at FA is important so the argument to change it to the Titian has to be strong, not simply to fulfill a guideline. I pointed out why the current lead image is better (see above). The Titian is practically unknown. I've read many books on Calvin (and the Reformation in general) and often they have pictures of Calvin (none used the Titian picture). So what book cover used the Titian? I am curious. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This behavior of constantly refusing to accept change in the article, even on something like layout of images, unless there is a "strong" consensus to change, is not consistent with the Wiki Way. It is ownership. This behavior could also be seen as bullying by some of those who have tried to improve the article in the past and have been discouraged from doing so. FA status does not mean unchanging perfection. In fact, if FA status is being used to keep the article unchanged, the article will benefit from removal of that status. Jonathunder (talk) 11:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * RelHistBuff, let us look at some of the criteria for bullying:


 * Asserting ownership, some examples of which include:


 * 1. An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article daily. The editor might claim the right, whether openly or implicitly, to review any changes before they can be added to the article. (This does not include egregious formatting errors.)


 * 2. Article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not. (This does not include removing vandalism.)




 * Making "no-edit" orders, such as "hidden text that would not be missed if one attempts to edit the article or section" telling folks "not to edit at all or in a particular manner, or not to edit a particular page or part of a page at all or in a particular manner." Now there is an exception for consensus, but consensus is neither absolute nor permanent, and it is apparent that there is not consensus on the placement or choice of lead image.


 * Now if a neutral observer were to look at some of your actions on this page, hidden text orders, reverts, claims that your image is "classic," demanding that no changes be made because the article was once a featured article, etc., that same neutral observer would probably conclude that you are asserting ownership of his article and bullying other editors.


 * Now to my supposed "personal attacks." In this conversation I have pointed out the flaws in your reasoning.  Yes, perhaps sarcastically, but nothing I have said concerning the image is a personal attack against you.  Perhaps you may claim my sarcasm is uncivil, but I don't think that I am being uncivil.  I am definitely not attacking you personally.  I defy you to point to anything above that may be regarded as a personal attack.  Read the page: No personal attacks.  Have I called you a name?  Have I threatened you?  Have I disparaged anything but your logic and conclusions?  No.  I quote the page: "However, when there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack. A posting that says 'Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y', or 'The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research', is not a personal attack."  Pointing out an unverifiable claim that your image is "classic" is not a personal attack.  Pointing out that "my image is on the cover of some biographies" is not a suitable argument is not a personal attack.  Pointing out that featured article status does not mean you can keep the page the same forever is not a personal attack.  So please, address my arguments instead of complaining, falsely, that I am attacking you personally.


 * So let's turn to your argument. Listen, I am going to wholeheartedly admit that I've seen your image more than Titian's.  I'll even admit it is probably more "classic" (whatever that means) than Titian's image.  But so are these:


 * All of these have just as much right to be called "classic," all of which I have seen on book covers, all of which should be placed as the lead image to this article.


 * My intention in joining this fray was to support Jonathunder's actions and proposal that the article lead with a left-facing image on the right-hand side. This will hopefully stop the intermittent (and, let's admit, infantile) edit wars on an otherwise great article, as almost everyone can agree that a lead image that is left-facing on the right-hand side is acceptable all around.  You revertedJonathunder's actions, and you've totally ignored my proposal for a third compromise image.  There are several choices atWikimedia Commons: John Calvin, all may be considered "classic" to fit your bill and left-facing to fit the bill of many others.  But no, no, no, no.  You consider your image the best, and it was right-facing on the left as a featured article, thus it must, according to you, stay your way.


 * Which brings me to your curious request, given twice now, that I tell you which book I have with the Titian image on the cover. I think you don't believe me.  That's not really assuming good faith, is it?  But what if I was lying?  Would that diminish my argument somehow?  Would it then mean that we should lead with your image and only your image because you have three books with it on the cover and I have none?  I think not.  But, since you keep asking, I have an electronic collection of writings on my iPad and my LOGOS Bible Scholar software that uses the Titian image as a cover for the Institutes.  True, not a physical book, but a book nonetheless, and a cover nonetheless.  Still, my argument was that an image on a cover does not an argument make.  I was not advocating the Titian image because I have a "book" with the Titian image on the cover, I was illustrating the absurdity of your argument that we should use your image because you have three books with it on the cover.  Does this mean you can argue, "Well, I've got three real books with my image on the cover and he's got one fake book with the Titian image on the cover, we should thus lead with my image"?  That too is not a valid argument.  But, I bet you still don't believe me.  Alas, alas,from Amazon.com.


 * TuckerResearch (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Disclosure: I was asked to give input in this discussion via email. As I stated in the FAC, I was and continue to be opposed to any image leading the article on the left side of the screen. Surely it is much more jarring to the casual reader to see a left-aligned image in the lead than to see an image of someone facing off-screen. I suspect that many fail to notice the latter, but none the former. That said, at the time of the FAC I did not realize that there were images as good or even better than the original lead image (16th century, unknown artist). Now that I am aware of such options, it's clear to me that the Titan image, showing Calvin's entire face and feeling more true than the more stylized previous lead image, is preferable. File:Calvijn.jpg would be preferable for the same reason, if a larger resolution image could be found. The argument that the 16th-century image is more well-known falls flat with me; the purpose of a lead image is to convey information, not to decorate. The image that tells a reader more about what John Calvin looked like is Titan, easily.--Spangineerws (háblame)  00:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Tuckerresearch, you supplied the image of a cover, but what is the book (in terms of publisher, editor, etc.). If one looks at the major books published on Calvin the one that clearly leads in its use among the top publishers is the Geneva Library image. The second most used is likely the Jeune Calvin image. Images of both these paintings are widely-used. The originals are on public display and the source and attributions are well-known. In most of the major books, other images of Calvin are shown on special illustration pages; often both of these are included, but I have not yet seen the Titian. The provenance of the Titian is also a bit mysterious. The image is taken from the Bridgman website (the Bridgman watermark is evident in the image). It is only on the website that the source and attribution given. Does your e-book give this information? If the Titian were as widely understood and used as the Geneva Library image, then it would definitely be acceptable as the image for the lead.--RelHistBuff (talk) 07:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * RelHistBuff
 * (1) Kudos for finally not accusing me of attacking you.
 * (2) Did you not understand the thrust of my argument? It matters not that the Titian is on an e-book "cover" and your anonymous image is on several real book covers.  That was not my point.  Did you read above when I said that I've seen your image way more than the Titian?  And admit it was more "classic" (I assume now you define "classic" as published more often) than the Titian image?  This is not the thrust or point of my argument.  My argument is that I think it best that the lead image on this article be left-facing and on the right side of the article.  This will prevent the needless edit wars that crop up every two weeks or so on the image.  Thus I supported the use of the Titian image byJonathunder.  You, for several reasons, did not.  Okay.  In my past two replies I have offered five, count 'em, five more left-facing images, all which may be considered "classic" (i.e., they are published, appear on book covers, etc.), and all of which could lead this article.  But, you have chosen to disregard them and continue on your crusade against the Titian image.  We get it, you prefer your image because you've seen it more than the Titian.  You like the biographies that have your image on the cover.  Maybe you hate Titian, I don't know.  (That last was sarcasm, by the way.)  We get it.  So how about one of the compromise images?  I get it, your image is much more widely-disseminated than the Titian, but, and this is my opinion, I think any of the five I've offered up as compromise images are just as recognized as Calvin (if not better) and could lead this article.  Do Google book search for "John Calvin" biographies, your image is used far less than several other images.  And just to make a point about the Titian: J. H. Merle d'Aubigné, History of the Reformation in Europe in the Time of Calvin (New York: R. Carter & Bros, 1880), p. 431fn., we read:


 * In the Bulletin du Protestantisme franfais for 1860, p. 170, we read :—' About the year 1840 the duke of Bevilacqua showed to Sir John Boileau the portrait of Calvin, painted by Titian on this occasion, and offered him a copy of it. I have had many opportunities of seeing it at London in Sir John's house.' M. de Triqueti, whose words we have just quoted, speaks of another portrait of Calvin painted by Titian, purchased in 1860, at a public sale in Paris. We ourselves have seen in one of the Italian picture galleries a portrait of Calvin also assigned to Titian. There is one in the public library of Geneva, and several are to be found in various Italian museums (Stahlin : Johannes Calvin, ii. p. 7); but these are rather pictures painted by Titian's pupils and touched up by the master, as was the custom of the teacher and his students in those days.


 * So it seems that there was a copy of the Titian at the Library in Geneva in 1880 as well. Since I've never been, I don't know if it is there now or up on the wall.  But this is not what I want to quibble about.  This matters not.  We should find an image that most of us find suitable, that is left-facing, so we can use it as the lead image and place it on the right side of the article.  This will (sort of) please everyone.


 * TuckerResearch (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I see the main point of difference as follows. You put as priority the guideline that the lead image is placed on the right, then finding the image that is left-facing. I put the priority to find the best lead image (full-stop) and placing it either on the left or right depending on the way the subject is faced. If we use your process of selection, then only images that are left-facing would be acceptable. That is highly restrictive. A guideline would outweigh choices based on quality of image, quality of provenance, quality of sourcing, etc. In the extreme case, if only two images were available, one a poor quality scan of a lesser-known painting but left-facing and a high quality well-known painting but right-facing, your selection process would choose the poor quality image. OK, we are not in this extreme case; there are other images. I, myself, do not want to see a left-placed, right-facing image per se. But my argument is that the top two images are the Flemish school and the Jeune Calvin in terms of quality (sourcing, provenance, colour painting as opposed to woodcut, contemporary, etc.). It is by chance that these two are right-facing.--RelHistBuff (talk) 08:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If that's how you see it, you've missed most of what's written above; multiple reasons have been given as to why the Titian portrait is better. Your steadfast insistence on keeping the article the same, no matter how many editors want to improve it or what their arguments are, is becoming a case of WP:Ididn'thearthat. I am serious about moving to delist this article if nothing changes here. Jonathunder (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Look! A unilateral revert, a no-edit order, and hidden text! See Bully and Ownership_of_articles.  And the reason?  "see talk, this is under discussion."  Which I guess means we must go back to his version in the meantime.  So, since it is always "under discussion" it is a perpetual meantime, so it must always stay his way.  Frank Sinatra would be proud, RelHistBuff.  I tire of this, truly.  Perhaps the right-facing anonymous image is "better," but that is entirely subjective, and entirely your subjective opinion.  I thought perhaps an equally "better" image that is left-facing could be the lead image.  Perhaps this would end the innumerable, inane reverts and edits and moves that occur on an almost weekly basis.  But why try?  So RelHistBuff has written, so let it be done!  I suggest we write: "This article owned and maintained by RelHistBuff" at the top of the article and be done with it.  As of right now, I quit.  TuckerResearch (talk) 06:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Good editors are being driven away from editing this page, and this article suffers as a result. This is not the Wiki Way. This has to stop.Jonathunder (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Please note that I have never claimed ownership and my actions do not warrant such accusations. This article has been edited by numerous editors and many contributions made without my involvement. Let's not make this a bigger issue than what it is; there is simply a disagreement on the lead image and its placement. I have made my arguments on why the Flemish school image is better than the Titian. The only argument I have seen for the Titian is that it is left-facing which satisfies a guideline. So what are these multiple reasons? I have seen no response to the fact that the Titian image has a watermark and that its provenance is not solid. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Why all the fuss? It looks wrong (to me) too. Stop with this OWN stuff and simply reverse the image then everyone can relax --Senra (Talk) 17:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Senra, that simply wouldn't be right, it misrepresents both the artist and the subject.


 * Others, apologies for barging in a moving things around, but with image placement that's really the only way to let people see what a proposal would look like. AFAIK, there's no rule against starting an article with a left-placed, right-facing image, and the infobox can be paralleled with the TOC eliminating some dead whitespace. That allows the next right-facing image to be raised to avoid indenting the next section header... it need not be raised to the top, it could be lower down. I also combined two related image using a multiple image template... that often looks better than either left/right alternating or both on one side in a single section.


 * Feel free to tell me it looks terrible and revert. Yworo (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Your proposal looks fine to me. Thank you, Yworo. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. As they say, there's more than one way to skin a cat. Yworo (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus for change
In the discussion above, the following editors have supported changing the lead image: Aristophanes68,Carlaude, Jonathunder, Radagast3, Spangineer,Tuckerresearch. Only one editor continues to oppose. This looks like an "overwhelming consensus" for change to me.Jonathunder (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that we have strong consensus for change on this page, I have tried a brand new solution. If this is blindly reverted, I will be very disappointed. I am hopeful it will not be. Jonathunder (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a vote and in any case Spangineer has disclosed that he was contacted by Tuckerresearch and others were contacted by Carlaude. This is a false consensus. In any case, the weight of the argument is what is important. After you have insisted on (and reverted for) an arguable image (with Bridgman watermark and only a single website giving source info), you now propose another image. This one has more solid source info. But this is simply a woodcut image while the original FA image is a painting. In addition, I still have not seen a response to the argument that the original image is widely used and recognizable as it is on the cover of the three main biographies of Calvin. As I stated previously, the best image should be chosen, not the one that is simply left-facing.


 * Concerning the accusation that the image was "blindly" reverted, this is patently false as I had always put edit summaries asking to discuss it on the talk page. In fact, I can easily point out that it was you who "blindly" reverted as you simply used the undo command without explanatory edit summaries. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * RelHistBuff, how dare you try to besmirch my arguments by claiming, with no evidence, that I contactedSpangineer. I contacted nobody, not Spangineer, not anybody.  You have merely assumed I contacted Spangineer.  Why don't you ask Spangineer?  I have asked Spangineer to disclose now who contacted him on this page (see User_talk:Spangineer), to refute your false assumption that it was me.  I will not brook you trying to smear my arguments by claiming I have been fishing for comments or votes.  How dare you!  TuckerResearch (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I contacted Spangineer, as he had previously worked on this, and asked him to take another look at this. There is nothing sinister about asking for more eyes. In my view, this article would only improve by wider input. Another FA review may also help. Jonathunder (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * RelHistBuff, I hope that with Jonathunder's comment above, that you will retract by strikethrough (seeCIVIL) the statement above that "in any case Spangineer has disclosed that he was contacted by Tuckerresearch." TuckerResearch (talk) 03:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * My apologies to Tuckerresearch; as Spangineer came in on the conversation between Tuckerresearch and me and he disclosed that he was contacted by email, I assumed he was contacted by Tuckerresearch. To Jonathunder: it would have helped if you had revealed here beforehand that you contacted Spangineer via email. Please note that the article itself is not in dispute; it is only the choice of the lead image. My argument still stands. The original image is widely recognizable and is used on three current biographies on Calvin. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

After a week, there are no counter-arguments. As can be seen, there is no consensus to change the image. The original image which passed FA was fine; I have pointed out why it is the superior image to use for the lead. The original FA version has been reinstated. --RelHistBuff(talk) 05:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You even put back the HTML instruction ordering editors not to change the layout unless they talk. And not just talk, but keep talking, endlessly. Your dogmatic insistence that the article not change from the layout it had in the old FA review has simply driven most editors away in exhaustion. See the comments of Tuckerresearch above, who is no longer editing this article, and those of others in the archives. Spangineer was another; I contacted him because I had some hope he and others could be brought back to work on and improve this article. But this has become hopeless. I have never seen such dogged ownership by a single editor on a featured article. Jonathunder (talk) 12:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * A lack of counterarguments to your argument does not imply a lack of consensus. You are suggesting that your primary criterion for choosing the lead image is more valuable than that of other people, regardless of how many others there may be.  You claim that the most important criterion is that the "best" (in your opinion) image is used.  Others claim that given the availability of images approximately as good, the most important criterion should be that the MOS be followed and the style of this page be made to conform with virtually ever other page on WP.  This is clearly a case of simple disagreement over the criteria for making the decision, and thus some semblance of majority-based consensus is required.  Even if you reject my involvement, Jonathunder's count is 5-1 and the lead image should be changed.--Spangineerws  (háblame)  12:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I do not accept the accusation about ownership. As I stated many have edited this article without my involvement; the issue is simply a disagreement of the choice of lead image. Secondly, consensus does not mean a vote. I already pointed out that bringing in "voters" is not the right way to achieve a consensus. The result of your argument is to raise the MOS (a guideline) to the level of a policy which would result in excluding all right-facing lead images. That was not the intention of the MOS. If a policy had been broken, the article would not have passed FA. Instead, the FA vetting recognized the contradictions in the MOS and the choice and placement of the lead image was accepted. In these rare cases (including theJoseph Priestley article), the best image is a right-facing image. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You have repeatedly put a notice, in HTML, at the very top of the article ordering editors not to change your arrangement unless they talk here, where you keep repeating your insistence on one format. Do you realize how discouraging that is to others? Look at the editors who were good contributors here who have left in frustration. I emailed Spangineer, who commented here in the past, simply asking him to have another look, and you call his participation invalid. In your edits, you act as if you have veto power on this page. You say you do not claim ownership, but your actions do. Jonathunder (talk) 13:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No, this is not merely a discussion of which image should be the lead image. It is a discussion over the appearance of the lead.
 * The result of my argument is not to raise MOS to policy; it is to accept a widely accepted guideline when consensus judges the drawbacks to doing so as minimal. If Joseph Priestly does not have as many quality images as Calvin, his article's current lead may be satisfactory.  But here, with the number of excellent image options available, it is ridiculous to treat the MOS as of no import.--Spangineerws  (háblame)  18:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The note on the alignment was originally placed so as to avoid well-meaning passers-by-editors from changing the alignment. There is no insistence, in fact it just simply says to discuss on the talk page first. The message is exactly the same as the one used in the Joseph Priestley article. There are many images of Priestley just as there are many images of Calvin. But a certain few are outstanding which is why the FA contributor of Priestley chose that image. The same applies for Calvin. I do not treat the MOS as unimportant; on the contrary I have always tried to follow the guidelines. But as I said previously, the best image just happens to be a right-facing image. In both cases (Priestley and Calvin), and I repeat these are rare cases, the images are left-justified to satisy the contradiction in the guidelines and they were accepted as such through the FA process. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This article owned by RelHistBuff, all others need not edit
It appears boys, that some animals are more equal than others. We're obviously not equal toRelHistBuff. Thus, this is his article. A majority of editors preferred a left-facing image to keep edit wars from happening. A left-facing image was chosen. Nobody came along to change it. RelHistBuff waited a week, to keep away from that peskythree revert rule, changed it back to his featured article version, because despite what Wikipedia is all about, I guess a featured article means nothing must ever change from the featured article version. And, just like we've been discussing, someone came along, moved the right facing image to the right side of the article, RelHistBuff changed it back, even adding his dictatorial, but softened this time, hidden text no edit order. The article was changed back to the consensus left-facing image, but, we forgot that RelHistBuff's consensus is more consensusy than ours. He is more equal than us. Thus back to the right-facing image. How dare we proles, we simple peons, deign to change RelHistBuff's mighty consensus? All hail RelHistBuff and his John Calvin article!TuckerResearch (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This is true, but I am beginning not to care. I was trying to remember why I had this article on my watchlist at all, and now I remember. RelHistBuff asked me to look over the writing style. Ironic, isn't it? This is not a featured Wikipedia article, as far as I'm concerned; it's an Article of Faith which must not be changed. Jonathunder (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I thanked you at that time and I still appreciate your help in looking over the article. But I disagree with your insinuation; in fact, many editors have changed the article since it reached FA and in my opinion it has improved. Again, this is simply a disagreement on the lead image.--RelHistBuff (talk) 09:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that is his game. Keep doggedly reverting back to his personal version until everyone else gets tired of arguing with him.TuckerResearch (talk) 17:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Man, am I prescient. TuckerResearch(talk) 21:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette alerts
I have posted a notice concerning RelHistBuff at:


 * Wikiquette_alerts.

TuckerResearch (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Legacy: adding Guy de Bray as the Author of the Belgic Confession
Quote from Legacy Section:
 * Due to Calvin's missionary work in France, his program-(me)[spelling of 'programme' is old fashioned] of reform eventually reached the French-speaking provinces of the Netherlands. Calvinism was adopted in the Palatinate under Frederick III, which led to the formulation of the Heidelberg Catechism in 1563. This and the Belgic Confession were adopted as confessional standards in the first synod of the Dutch Reformed Church in 1571.

I intend altering these sentences to read: Due to Calvin's missionary work in France and his production of the Gallic Confession (1559), his program of reform eventually reached the French speaking provinces of the Netherlands (den Nederlanden). Calvinism was adapted in the Paltinate under Frederick III, which led to the formulation of the Hedielberg Catechism (1563). These and the Belgic Confession (1561), authored by the Flemish (Vlams) Pastor, theologian and martyr Guy de Bray (Guido de Bres), were adopted as confessional standards in the first synod of the Dutch Reformed Church in 1571.17:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ieuan Sant (talk • contribs) Ieuan Sant (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)Ieuan Sant (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Ieuan Sant (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The spelling "programme" is standard British English; it is not old-fashioned. Please do not change this. The information in the current paragraph is sourced to Holder and McGrath. If you add any additional clauses (i.e., references to the authorship of the Belgic Confession), please also add a citation to the source of the information. Thanks. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello RelHisBuff Ok I will leave the spelling alone, do you approve of my intended addition (in blocks) otherwise? I intend to insert in a about a week if no one complains.Ieuan Sant (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If the new text has a citation to a source, then no problem (see WP:BURDEN). If you don't have a source then please do not add it until you have the source information. Otherwise it will appear that your addition is credited to Holder and McGrath which is not correct.--RelHistBuff (talk) 15:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, wikki articles cite the author of the Belgic Confession as De Bray and I have sourcesIeuan Sant (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Please cite the source (book, journal article, etc.) directly. Note that wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources (see WP:CIRCULAR). --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, the Belgic Confession source is: J. van Engen, Walter A. Elwell (ed.), 1985, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Avon, Marshall Pickering, p. 132 and the Gallic source is: N.V.Hope, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 1985, page 438.Ieuan Sant (talk) 01:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)Ieuan Sant (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

So I will leave it a few days before insertion.Ieuan Sant (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Ieuan Sant (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Opening Sentence
I am not happy with the opening sentence on this excellent article.


 * John Calvin (Middle French: Jean Cauvin) (10 July 1509 – 27 May 1564) was an influential French theologian and pastor during the Protestant Reformation.

I am suggesting an insertion as follows:
 * John Calvin(1509 -1564) along with Luther, was one of two leading Church Fathers of the 16th Century Reformation. His name has entered the English language and his doctrine known far and wide. He tutored national Church leaders, theologians and martyrs, and like His master Jesus Christ, changed the world for the better, forever.

Ieuan Sant (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The lead section is a summary of the article (see WP:LEAD). Additions should be placed in an appropriate section in the article first (with citations) and then possibly the lead could be edited (citations not needed there). The three sentences make strong statements that could be challenged. For that, you would need to show a good survey of high-quality sources making such claims. Otherwise this would fail the FA criteria, (see criteria 1c and 1d of WP:WIAFA). Do you have sources that can support these statements? --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The citations are already inplace in this article, it is certainly true that Calvin was a near genius holding as he did two licentiates and had been offered two doctorates and had a phenonemal mememory. It is also true that he taught many of the national church leaders and some of those ended up martyrs. As rgerds Calvin's nam enetering the English langigae I have four quotations regrding the use of that name. Parker T.H.L., gives a full list of what Calvin studied from his ten years of University and he was declered an advanced student by his pears, (Bucer from memory.)

I just think we do Calvin and Wikki an injustice by defining him simply as an 'influential French theologian', that's not to say he wasn't influntial but it typical English undertsatement. I think most readers will be suprised that that is the best we can do. It's true to say Calvin was french but to limit him to being just a French Theologian is again understatement, the article itself pormotes his univeral respect and acceptance. He changed the face of Europe and took over from Martin Luther's work and refining it and writing  a complete new systematic theology.

The Wikki policy is to be bold and I have been bold. I think the existing sentence is mealy mouthed and limiting. I think my take is better and should be included. Of course I undertsand that a lot of work has gone in to this but I am a memebr of the Calvin project, whatevr that means and I assure you I have great respect for Calvin's work and would hate to do him an injustice.

If you don't agree with my 3 sentences I will not persever but I can provide the sources but you already have them in the articel. He was universally respected in the Reformed community, a near genius in intellect, know world wide even in secualr circles. He taught many of the national church leader, De Bray (holland), Knox (Scotland) et al.

regards Ieuan Sant (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, I agree with the gist of your three sentences (perhaps I would have used different words). But note that I said "in my opinion"! Here on wikipedia, however, my opinion does not matter. One could believe that he was a near genius, but that would only be one's opinion. What we have to put down on wiki are summaries, paraphrases, reports of the analyses of experts. Let's examine your three sentences:
 * He was "one of two leading Church Fathers of the 16th Century Reformation". In my opinion, this is obvious. But as this is a bold statement, this would be better off to be cited. Do you have a source that makes this statement? Then it would be possible to put this in the Legacy section and the lead.
 * "His doctrine known far and wide" might be controversial. How deep is his theology known? Most people have only the slightest understanding of Calvinism. Also with certain exceptions, Calvinism largely centers around Western Europe and North America.
 * He "changed the world for the better". This is definitely controversial. Many might argue the other way.
 * Multiple sources will be needed to support the latter two statements. And they have to be of impeccable quality. --RelHistBuff(talk) 22:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, good points, far and wide covers Reformed Churches in the Antipodes, North America, Argentina (Welsh Colony of Patagonia), Khasiland (Welsh Calvinistic Methodist Churches set up in 19th Century), India, UK and Northern Europe.

The thing about quoting exact statement is that they very much look like copying, don't we have any leeway to make a statement that can be grleaned from the historical facts? I notice 'French Theologian' is taken from T.H.L. Parker back cover ad it seems so trite that we have to copy trite remarks from Authors and not make a BOLD statement based on the evidence before us and actually in our own Wikk article. But I can supply statement from parker's book to supoort his near genius, although the quotes will not use those axact words.

Changed the world for the better means to spread the Christian doctrine world wide and free certain countries from say slavery and canibalism. But I can leave that out and put: caused vast upheavlas in Europe and eventually lead to the dilution of power of the Roman Catholic Church or leave this last part out alltogether. I will get my sources ready and post them on here. Ieuan Sant (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe that the opening sentence is fine as it now stands. TuckerResearch (talk) 06:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Opening Sentence Weak Working
My whole thrust in the preceding section regarding the opening sentence' is that Calvin was not just influentious, his publication of the Institutes of the Chrsistian Religion was a charter for change on a massive scale, he took the Reformation to new level. Here we have a man in Geneva recognised as one of the top acedemics, pastoring a church, writing commentaries on scripture that were earth shaking and not just that but free from Popish superstition and the fables of men. Here was vision, clarity and the truth of Christ presented so all men could see what the Bible meant. The ethos of Wikki demands we be bold, why be mealy-mouthed about him? why not say he was great, and a massive influence - which he was. He wasn't just an inflentious figure he was revolutionary in his thinking and wrote the first ever systematic theology.Ieuan Sant (talk) 09:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)Ieuan Sant (talk) 09:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the weakness of Wikki, despite a meaniful conversation one guy just plants an opinion with no back up whatsoevr QUOTE:
 * I believe that the opening sentence is fine as it now stands. TuckerResearch

So that nothing can be changed without a war ensuing, I can change it and just about anyone can come on and reverse it it. And all this just to change one sentence. The only one who win are the ones who are prepared to fight it out to the bitter end.Ieuan Sant (talk) 09:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ieuan Sant, You asked folks what they thought about a change to the first sentence. Then you say my opinion is not "meaniful" .  I agree that Calvin was "influentious," but I believe that this article is very well-written, balanced, and the intro adequately and forcefully summarizes the article.  That is my opinion "with no back up whatsoevr."  Here's my argument, I think it is fine as it stands, I thinkRelHistBuff thinks so too.  Change it if you want, but other people can come by and change what you've changed.  You write above: "I can change it and just about anyone can come on and reverse it it."  Um, I sort of think that's the whole point of Wikipedia.  Is it not?TuckerResearch (talk) 03:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, so you have an opinion, so why do you think Calvins was just an influence when the rest of the world seem to think of him as a revolutionary thinker and leading Protestant Church Father? What good are opinions and original research on here, who cares what you think when we want facts. The fact is he was an earth shaking event to 16th century Europe.Ieuan Sant (talk) 09:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Ieuan Sant (talk) 09:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC) From the Catholic Encyclopedia: John Calvin from their website http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03195b.htm

>>This man, undoubtedly the greatest of Protestant divines, and perhaps, after St. Augustine, the most perseveringly followed by his disciples of any Western writer on theology<<

From the website: http://www.answers.com/topic/john-calvin

>>Few theologians have had more influence on Western Christian thought and culture than John Calvin, one of the fathers of the Reformed branch of Protestant Christianity. Born to a Roman Catholic family of means, Calvin was schooled in Latin, Hebrew, Greek, philosophy, and law<<>>Best Known As: Geneva-based leader of the Protestant Reformation<<

Tim Challies says:

>>Historians, by contrast, know that John Calvin was one of the most remarkable men who lived in the last five hundred years and that his influence on the development of the modern western world has been immense.” Indeed, Calvin’s influence is felt in the rise of democracy, capitalism and even in modern science. From: http://www.challies.com/book-reviews/john-calvin-pilgrim-and- Ieuan Sant (talk) 10:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I refuse to even attempt at talking with you further. TuckerResearch (talk) 16:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Status
This article suffers from ownership problems. If this continues, we should pursue removal of FA status. Jonathunder (talk) 11:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, classifying Calvin just as an influence' is a major understatement of fact and does the reputation of Wikki no good. It is also rediculous when viewed by Wiiki's article's on Calvin, a massive amount of fact and information that he was much more than just infleunctial. Even if you put that Calvin has been 'major influence' you would still be undertsating his contribution. If you put John Calvin has been a major leading influence you would not be doing justice to the facts of how his doctrines changed the Religious world of Europe and hence the world. I will say this about Wikki that it is an amazing free portal and does invaluable service to millions. There are shortcoming however and they need to be addressed. But not by me, I don't know the Wikki way of doing things and cannot comprhend the rules and regualtions at this stage.Ieuan Sant(talk) 09:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Two Suggested Changes from Ieuan Sant.
I have posted two suggested changes to the present article on John Calvin, the one to do with De Bray is unchallenged the other change is challenged by Tuckerresearch but he doesn't give any reason other than he likes it as it is. So unless anyone else puts forth a valid argument or questions my sources I will insert the two proposed changes in the next few days.

I have read the earlier posts concerning the photograph entry and don't want my suggestions to become as heated or prolonged. So in the spirit of goodwill necessary for Wikki to function can I have considered argumenet with quotes to oppose my two changes.

Once the time is up and the posts made it would look very bad if the two antagonists then organised a revert, because I would be bound to take it to a reverted revert and a furthe revert would then break the rules. I have given my reasons with references, does anyone disagree that Calvin was not just an influence in the Reformation? If anyone does I would like to see considered argument in full with back references.

We are trying to improve the article, yes? so does my input improve the article or not? Does anyone seriously suggest De Bray was not associated with Calvin and worked closely with Calvin?

So in a few days barring severe and qualified arguments against I will insert my suggested alterations to this fine article.

Ieuan Sant (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC) P.S. Could anyone explain what this post means >>If this continues, we should pursue removal of FA status.<< Tanks you.Ieuan Sant (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ieuan Sant, so far you have proposed a text for the lead sentence. As I stated previously, the lead is a summary of the article, so it is best that you propose text for the article and then later changes to the lead could be discussed. I also mentioned that for your three clauses (that may go somewhere in the article), you will need to produce outstanding sources to back the claims, in particular the last two clauses ("doctrine known far and wide" and "changed the world for the better"). These two will need more than a single scholar's backing. You will need to show that there is a consensus among major historians of the Reformation which support these statements. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. If you would like comments, then I would suggest that you put your proposed text and proposed location in the article on this talk page. Please include the citations.--RelHistBuff (talk) 06:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * My apologies, but I just noticed that you have proposed in another section some web sources to support your statements. I will comment on these sources. Firstly, the Catholic Encyclopedia is a tertiary source. Wikipedia, especially FA articles, relies on secondary sources. Secondly, the quality of the source is poor as it is very old. Scholarship on Calvin has advanced quite a bit since this turn-of-the-century publication. On the second source, answers.com is not a reliable source as it is self-published. In addition, an anonymous writer wrote the article. On the third source, Tim Challies is a blogger, not a scholar. His opinion is an opinion of a layman and cannot be a credible source for those claims. I would suggest that you do some research in the library. Take a look at the References section for examples of the type of books and articles that you will need. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I realize this too is a tertiary source. However as mentioned in the article you pointed out. Policy: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources. In that case another source besides the Catholic Encyclopedia is the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Their concise academic encyclopedia article on John Calvin with the second sentence begins "He was the leading French Protestant Reformer and the most important figure in the second generation of the Protestant Reformation. His interpretation of Christianity, advanced above all in his Institutio Christianae religionis (1536 but elaborated in later editions; Institutes of the Christian Religion), and the institutional and social patterns he worked out for Geneva deeply influenced Protestantism elsewhere in Europe and in North America. The Calvinist form of Protestantism is widely thought to have had a major impact on the formation of the modern world. This is not a far stretch from some changes proposed by Ieuan Sant.--Rchaplin1 (talk) 09:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The execution of child and adulterers in Calvin's Geneva
Doesn't that belong here? 67.243.7.245 (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion
Thank you for listing your dispute at Third opinion. Your request did not follow the guidelines for listing disputes. These guidelines are in place because they make sure that the editor who writes the Third Opinion is not biased, and that (s)he can easily see what the dispute is about.

The description of the dispute should be concise and neutral, and you should sign with the timestamp only. A concise and neutral description means that only the subject matter of the dispute should be described, and not your (nor anyone else's) views on it. For example, in a dispute about reliable sources, do not write "He thinks this source is unreliable", but rather write "Dispute about the reliability of a source". To sign with only the timestamp, and without your username, use five tildes instead of four.

Your request for a Third Opinion may have been edited by another editor to follow the guidelines - feel free to edit it again if necessary. If the dispute is of such a nature that it cannot follow the guidelines, another part of the dispute resolution process may be able to help you. For example, Wikiquette alerts is a good place to alert others to a particular editor's behaviour. Thank you for opting to use the dispute resolution process. 18:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette alerts
I have posted a notice concerning RelHistBuff at:
 * Wikiquette_alerts.

TuckerResearch (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Adjusting the template size
The reason is that if the template is too large, it creates white space before the start of the first section "Early life". If the template is the same size as the TOC, then it is optimised (100px makes the template just slightly larger than the TOC). In any case, the image in the template is supposed to be a thumbnail. If the engraving needs to be presented, then it could be placed somewhere in the article as a separate image with a caption and another thumbnail image should be used for the template. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * So now the person that insists on having his lead image on the left side of the article, messing up presentation on countless devices and creating loads of needless white space is worried about presentation and needless white space! Where does it say "the image in the template is supposed to be a thumbnail"?  Does it say that anywhere?  But then again, according to you I'm "not a real editor" (seediff) and infoboxes are only for those with a "marginally literate eye" (see diff), right?


 * So, since I'm a marginally literate not-real editor, I hereby recommend again, that we move the right-facing image down into the body of the article, and move the infobox up to were it properly should be, so this article begins with the infobox, like it begins the articles of several other theologians on Wikipedia, such as Martin Luther, Jacob Arminius, Karl Barth, R. C. Sproul, and et cetera. Let's overthrow the RelHistBuff government!  Wikipedians of the world, unite!  TuckerResearch (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have already given the reasons why the current lead image was chosen so I won't repeat them. As for the image size, a thumbnail would suffice as an infobox's main raison d'être is to provide info. The image is secondary. If you believe that the image is needed for illustrative purposes for the article, then I would recommend that you make it as a regular image with a caption and put it in an appropriate section. A different thumbnail image could then be used in the template. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Currently, this article is a complete mess when viewed on a mobile device. I am going to try one more time to revise it to one that serves the reader. Jonathunder (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I support. TuckerResearch (talk) 06:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * On my mobile device it looks fine. In any case, the article layout should not be tailored for one or a few devices. Serving most of the readers means--at least at this stage of browser development--serving computer users using standard browsers. In any case the engraving does not have enough image description info to satisfy our requirements concerning copyright. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The copyright issue is clearly a red herring, it's marked copyright expired on Commons and that's good enough for me. If you think it's still under copyright, then nominate it for deletion on Commons. Otherwise, it's a good compromise if there is a problem on some mobile devices.Yworo (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is that images can easily be uploaded with a claim of copyright expired status. That looks good to an individual, but it cannot be backed up. As no vetting is done within the upload process, the FA process includes this vetting via criterion 3 of WP:WIAFA. The 70 years requirement needs to show that the original is older than that and if the date of the engraving is unknown (at least an approximate date that would exclude the possibility that it is less than 70 years), then the image would not be accepted by the FA process. This is not a red herring; I had to remove an image in another article during WP:FAC for the exact same reason. The source of the description information is also not given, so the validity of the description can only be taken at face value of the uploader (equivalent to no citation of the description info). But the real issue is the choice of the lead image. As I stated, the original lead image is the best and most recognized image of Calvin. In fact the engraving was likely created at a later date, inspired by the original Library of Geneva painting. The original painting ought to take priority over a later inspiration. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but these things are determined by consensus, not a single individual. The lead image should be left-facing, so that we can put it on the right. I'll be collecting the left-facing images and opening an RfC on the topic. Thanks for sharing your personal opinion.Yworo (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead image
A number of editors have complained that leading with a left-placed, right-facing image causes problems on mobile devices. Fortunately, we have a number of left-facing images that could be put on the right, possibly in the infobox, which could be raised to the usual position. I've collected the [18] potential lead images here for a poll, numbered for easy reference: Yworo (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Please only image numbers and reasons in the poll responses section, please place any further discussion in the discussion subsection.Yworo (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Poll responses

 * 18 - Used on the featured article on the Hungarian Wikipedia. Yworo (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC) 13 is my second choice. Yworo (talk) 23:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion not the best representation of thoughtfulness, but good color. Binksternet (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * 4 - Left-facing, contemporary, often used in literature on Calvin. 1 and 13 are runners up.  TuckerResearch (talk) 20:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 13. Good composition, contemplative attitude. I like the finger holding a place in the book. Binksternet (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a nice one, perhaps my second choice, now that you've pointed it out. Yworo (talk) 00:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * 2 - Good composition but the face is cropped closer. My runner up choices are 13, 4, 1, 18, and 6. şṗøʀĸ şṗøʀĸ:  τᴀʟĸ02:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 13, per Binksternet. Several others are good, too, especially 1 and 4. Jonathunder (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 13 looks best to me.Daniel Benweathers (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 13 first choice, 18 second choice. Lamorak (talk) 00:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 18 - first choice, if displayed large enough to see detail. Numbers 2 & 4 are second choices. These three seem most similar to a majority of Calvin images I have encountered. Recognition of Calvin upon future encounter with a Calvin image is more likely when one's mental image is formed by a popular image. Jared82ca (talk 07:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Page Layout
It looks crap on my browser. Why on earth is the image on the left? The infobox should take precedence over the image on the left. I mean just accepting the layout as per the other several million articles on English Wikipedia, this one look naff.
 * OMG I just started a new section and then took time to read the page lead. This nonsense has been going on for ages, I can't believe it. What makes John Calvin page any difference from any other bio page on here? If you can decide that, then this ridiculous orientated age might be changed to fit the standard layout seen everywhere on this site. It still looks frankly ridiculous and makes my browser push the contents box down and the infobox is completely out of kilter. 86.171.17.74 (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear reader, I am sorry. The page layout is bad. We are trying to fix that. Jonathunder (talk) 23:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest, as I do above, that if we decide to begin this page with a left-facing image, we put it in the infobox, move the infobox to the top (as per many Wikipedia biographies and even other theologians; Wiki readers have come to expect infoboxes), and move the right-facing image to a prominent location in the article itself. TuckerResearch (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Saints
I could have missed some point, but at the moment I cannot understand what Calvin has to do with WikiProject Saints. He has not been canonized by the Roman Catholic Church. --Blacklake (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I remove links to the project and to the portal as well. --Blacklake (talk) 13:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)