Talk:Luis de León

name
There should be no "Ponce" in the name title. Also, there is a religious stub on this guy that this should be mereged with, but I don't know how to do that.
 * The page Fray Luid de León was merged into here and turned into a redirect. Also, I verified with Ency. Britannica and the Columbia Ency. that Ponce did appear in the gentleman's name. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The addition of "Ponce" was an old English academic error that was passed on for generations. Fray Luis de León is the way he is referred to in Spanish (Ponce never appears in any Spanish source). It should be removed or at least put in the secondary position in parenthesis "(sometimes mistakenly 'Ponce' is added to his name)"

===ABSOLUTELY AGREE!!65.206.122.30 (talk)

Recent edits
To User:Akzink - your edits have removed the existing structure and format, to the extent of making the article quite unclear.

Charles Matthews 10:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Luis de León. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060217213106/http://www.bartleby.com/65/le/Leon-Lui.html to http://www.bartleby.com/65/le/Leon-Lui.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

New Christians and Conversos
Removed "Both of his parents had Jewish ancestry, so he would have been considered to be of converso lineage." Since no WP:RS are cited at all for this claim. IZAK (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Commentary on Job
The article states "In other words, he wanted ordinary people to be exposed to the Biblical message." This is probably true, but it seems kind of out of place, and, the way it's worded, it sounds to me like it's implying that the Inquisition wanted to prevent ordinary people from being exposed to the biblical message, which simply isn't true. Also, were "ordinary people" even his target audience? I am not familiar with this commentary, but, generally speaking, I am pretty sure that reading was not a mainstream leisure activity until centuries later. In his day I'd think the only people who'd be reading his commentaries would have been clergy and scholars and the upper crust, not "ordinary people". 73.133.224.40 (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)