Talk:Proto-Protestantism

Historiography
This article is currently written as if its subject is Protestant groups before the Reformation. That's a fine definition, but not a suitable NPOV topic as "Protestant" is a socially constructed category. We can't say in Wikipedia's voice that any particular group is an example of Proto-Protestantism. Instead, I would suggest that this topic should discuss the history of these historical interpretations in the field of historiography. See also Baptist successionism. Daask (talk) 01:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Allmost all categories we use are "socially constructed". To eliminate these would mean to eliminate almost all categories and the words that there are to describe them. Dan Holsinger (talk) 13:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue is that there isn't evidence (at least in the article) that "Proto-Protestant" is a label that is used by reliable sources in historiographical analyses of Christianity, or that it is an appropriate label for the religious movements described in this article. When writing Wikipedia articles about socially constructed labels, we need to be very careful to not create original research by associating group A with label B just because it appears to be semantically appropriate. Instead, we should follow the lead of reliable sources. If reliable sources describe the Waldensians, Lollards, etc. as "Proto-Protestant", then there is no problem with collecting them in this article...but that hasn't been demonstrated yet. As further evidence that this label may be inappropriate, the current article for Protestantism does not refer to any groups as proto- or pre-Protestant; the Waldensians, Hussites, Lollards, as well as the Arnoldists and Girolamo Savonarola are discussed in a section titled "Pre-Reformation", a similar but distinct label. signed,Rosguill talk 22:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * E.H. Broadbent traces precursors to Protestantism in The Pilgrim Church. There is a Protestant Reformers article which lists Notable precursors, including those mentioned in the Proto-Protestantism article, so perhaps the Proto-Protestantism article could be merged with Protestant Reformers. The article History of Protestantism also mentions Wycliffe and Huss as precursors to the Reformation. - Epinoia (talk) 03:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * - in addition, the article on Protestantism mentions Peter Waldo, John Wycliffe, and Jan Hus in the lead as early reformers -


 * "Protestant" historically describes the Protestation at Speyer. By this definition, Lutherans and Reformed, along with any derivations are Protestant.


 * Beyond that, things get contested more. Anglicans are sort of Reformed by influence, but have for centuries called themselves the via media between Catholic and Protestant.


 * Most Radical Reformation derived groups, which more closely resemble the so-called Proto-Protestant groups claim that they are not Protestants. But in general they are regarded as such and are included on the Protestantism page.


 * Sociologists count all of the Restorationists from the Second Great Awakening as Protestant. However, members of these churches disagree. Lutherans and Reformed count some the ones that accept or at least do not overtly reject the Nicene Creed as Protestant. The state Protestant church in China (three-self movement) accepts the Nicene Creed at least in practical discussion as a doctrinal statement even if they don't completely adhere to it.


 * So who would accept the term Proto-Protestant? Only sociologists and random observers who say something like "Not Catholic & No bishops = Protestant."


 * Who would especially reject the term Protestant? Most of all the Utraquist Catholics (see Utraquism), who were the most successful of the Hussites. Their separate Rite (equal to any of the Eastern Rite Catholics like Maronites today) was ended/absorbed into the Roman Rite later on, but I would imagine there are some Roman Catholics with Utraquist ancestry who would be offended to be called Proto-Protestant, or have their ancestors called as such.


 * Who would also reject the term Proto-Protestant? Waldensians. They joined the Reformed Church later on, so they would like to be called Protestant plain and simple. Calling them Proto-Protestant is almost the same thing as calling them crypto-papist or half-Catholics (as Lutherans and Anglicans deal with from time to time. However, it is one thing to call a Lutheran half-Catholic and a completely different thing to call a Reformed half-Catholic. A Lutheran understands why someone who is trying to contextualize what Lutheranism is would say it like half-way between Reformed and Catholic. But to call a Reformed Christian half-Catholic is like saying someone is treasonous or seditious or insincere.


 * Solution? Move the article to Reform movements in Western Christianity before 1517 (excluding those more geographically in Orthodox turf. or if you want to include them too, remove the "Western"). This would also allow some mention of the Investiture Controversy, which is appropriate since some Protestants trace it back as an influence for ideas (like for church/state relations) and as an anti corruption issue.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I like this suggestion, thanks for the detailed write up. In the event that this suggestion is put into place, do we think that it would be acceptable to have Proto-Protestantism redirect to that title? signed,Rosguill talk 22:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, mostly because it is less work than changing all the references.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

- Oppose Move - the article does not mean to say that the sects and movements mentioned were Protestant, but that Protestant beliefs existed in some form long before Martin Luther. The three basics of Protestantism are teachings based on scripture rather than on Church dogma; emphasis on faith as a means to salvation rather than faith and good works; and a personal relationship with God. All the groups mentioned in the Proto-Protestantism article held at least some of these beliefs. They all emphasized the primacy of scripture as a basis for faith; they were all anti-clerical; they nearly all advocated a return to the pure Christianity of the time of the Apostles. Over time, the individual's relationship to God changed. Before the 13th century, faith and worship were very much a corporate affair. Things began to change in the 13th century, the time of the Albigensian crusade and the Waldensians, leading to the rise of mystics who advocated a personal rather than corporate relationship with God. After the plagues of the 14th century and the schism of the Avignon Papacy, trust in the efficacy of the Church declined. Hildegarde of Bingen, Marguerite Porete, the Rhineland mystics, Mechthild of Magdeburg, the Friends of God, Meister Eckhart, Julian of Norwich, The Cloud of Unknowing, Thomas a Kempis and many others advocated a relationship with God based on personal faith rather than works. All of these ideas laid the groundwork for the Protestant Reformation. While one of Martin Luther’s immediate concerns was the sale of indulgences, he did not originate many of the ideas that came to be part of the Reformation, they existed long before him and have a long history. Luther praised and translated the Theologia Germanica of the Friends of God. I feel this article is valuable and should be called Proto-Protestantism as it provides insight into the development of Protestant ideas. - Epinoia (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Since last posting, I've done more reading on the Friends of God, and I must agree that Luther was definitely influenced in a strong way from them. Since we don't want to imply that these groups were Protestant, especially because there are people today who identify with some of these groups/churches, I would like to take "Protestant" out of the title. If only Lutherans, Reformed, and Catholics were reading the article, I'd be okay leaving it as is. What about Reformation prior to 1517?--the number 1517 is symbolic enough to imply the influence on Protestantism without labeling the groups/churches Protestant. Nearly everyone who gets to this article would recognize that 1517 implies the Protestant Reformation. Lastly, more people will probably view the article because it will show up when people type in "Reformation" as they type in the "Search Wikipedia" bar.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * - the term Proto-Protestant seems to have gained some popular traction - the earliest reference I could find was from 1999, twenty years ago, in "Where Was Your Church before Luther? Claims for the Antiquity of Protestantism Examined" by S. J. Barnett p. 15, "there had been a de facto succession of true (proto-Protestant) piety from the apostles to sixteenth-century English Protestants." (Church History Vol. 68, No. 1) - I don't see why the article needs to be renamed - the only two groups mentioned that still exist today are the Waldensians and the Hussite churches, but in very different forms from the medieval movements - and there is nothing disparaging against any of the groups - and, sorry to seem obtuse, but I didn't know off the top of my head that 1517 was the start of the Reformation, so the assumption that "Nearly everyone who gets to this article would recognize that 1517 implies the Protestant Reformation" may not be correct - my inclination is to leave the article as it is - Epinoia (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for correcting me about 1517. Maybe only Lutherans and Reformed can be expected to "get" it. I searched the term on Google ngram viewer, Pre-Protestant and Proto-Protestant have been out there for some time though. I would be happier with pre- rather than proto-.


 * Besides the Hussites and Waldensians, the other issue are all of those who trace their heritage to the Radical Reformation, many of which claim to succession prior to Luther. Some years ago I had some meaningful discussions with a Baptist who believed the succession account given in Trail of Blood. Just recently, I looked into it, and it was about what I expected with a mix of more plausible connections along with some obvious historical inaccuracies. While I don't want to encourage this sort of thinking, I am sensitive to the fact that many of the people who care about and identify with the groups/churches mentioned in this article expressly reject the term Protestant and claim not to be Protestant as the author of the Trail of Blood book does. I have some problems with this, as Baptists today are generally considered Protestants and owe some of their tradition to influences from Methodism, Congregationalism, and Pietism, but the flip side is that they were persecuted by early Lutherans/Reformed/Anglicans and so I can see why they would not want to be lumped in the same group.


 * About a year ago, I had a chance to talk with a Moravian pastor for the first time. Moravians self-identify as Protestants. Calling them Proto- is the sort of thing a Reformed apologist would say to imply that they need to finish reforming the rest of the way. Since 1517 is not well recognized enough, how about Reformation before Luther?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * - Oxford defines Protestant as "A member or follower of any of the Western Christian Churches that are separate from the Roman Catholic Church in accordance with the principles of the Reformation" and Wikipedia has a policy for using common names, WP:COMMONNAME - creating categories to manage facts is common in academia - for example the French Symbolists were never an organized group or movement, and yet the writers of that time are grouped under that category, even though they did not self-identify as Symbolists - therefore, my inclination is to keep Proto-Protestantism as the article title - Epinoia (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The N-gram viewer results were not that impressive in my subjective interpretation. I don't know if they qualify as evidence for "common name" by policy. Moreover, the term is misleading because some of the people discussed in this article self-identified as Catholic and are still recognized historically as faithful by the Roman Catholic Church. The title as it now stands implies a certain theory of historianship that is inappropriate for an encyclopedia because it is too narrow. It implies that the groups involved are mainly important due to what they led to, rather than interesting enough for what they were/are.


 * In digging through old histories of the Reformation ear, you sometimes get commentary which interprets the Reformation as a "proto-Nationalism" movement, and discusses the virtues or vices of the characters involved depending on their virtues towards nationalistic and democratic ideals. This sort of thing was really popular until maybe 80 years ago. This progressivism was also used in even worse form in other history topics in older books I have seen. For example, minorities immigrating to the US were discussed in terms of their eugenic contribution and Indians in terms of how they deserved to lose. I would rather confine this sort of interpretation to a sub-section rather than let it color the title.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * - Proto means "relating to a precursor" - the opening sentence states quite clearly that the article "refers to individuals and movements that propagated ideas similar to Protestantism before 1517" - I don't see how that "implies that the groups involved are mainly important due to what they led to, rather than interesting enough for what they were/are" or that it "implies a certain theory of historianship" - it's showing that the basic beliefs of Protestantism existed, in one form or another, before 1517 - Epinoia (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * But since most common words using proto- are scientific in origin, it has an obvious implication from either developmental or evolutionary biology. (This is why pre- is preferable to proto-, although labeling this article "Reformation" is better.)


 * Also the fact that we classify things to own them and have dominion over them. Here is an example: If you go to Saudi Arabia and you tell them they are Abrahamic monotheists, don't expect them to listen, even if it is objectively true, because the sort of people who emphasized that classification in relatively recent history are the same people who didn't think Abraham existed, or if so not was very different from the person described in the Quran or Bible. I understand we have to use these academic terms on Wikipedia, but if so they should at least not give misconceptions, like as I mentioned before with calling Catholics proto-Protestant gives a misconception.


 * We don't treat the other Protestants on Wikipedia like this, we label them by the self-identified name for their church and we call their history the "Reformation."--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * - Wikipedia has a number of non-scientific uses of proto: Proto-Cubism, Protofeminism, Proto-orthodox Christianity, Proto-punk, Proto-prog, Proto-techno, Proto-Zionism - there are many more depending on whether you consider linguistics, political science, anthropology, history and other humanities disciplines as science.
 * - "Also the fact that we classify things to own them and have dominion over them" - that's an opinion, not an established fact.
 * - "We don't treat the other Protestants on Wikipedia like this, we label them by the self-identified name for their church and we call their history the "Reformation."" - the individuals and movements mentioned in the article were not Protestants and the article does not say they were Protestants - some of them may have self-identified as Catholics, but according to the Catholic Church they were heretics, condemned by the Church, so they were outsiders or independents - the object of the article is to show that the basic beliefs of Protestantism existed, in one form or another, before 1517 - Epinoia (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * In German, a phrase used for the scope of this article is "Reformatoren vor der Reformation," or Reformers before the Reformation. Would that satisfy you? See the Ngram results here.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * - I think Reformers before the Reformation is too vague, it could refer to agricultural reformers; at the very least it would have to say Religious Reformers before the Reformation, but even that is problematic as there were reform movements within the Catholic Church, such as the Fraticelli, who were religious reformers but not proto-Protestant.


 * The book by Rügert cited in the article is subtitled Wegbereiter der Reformation translated as Forerunners of the Reformation, but that too is problematic, like "forerunners of the airplane" gives the impression that there were people working specifically on the development of manned flight, but the individuals and groups mentioned in the article were not working towards developing a Protestant theology, it was more nascent than that, they each had their own agenda, but some of their beliefs later emerged as Protestant principles. Precursor is also problematic as a precursor "is usually related to what it precedes" and there is no demonstrable straight-line influence. Therefore, Proto-Protestantism is the best description as it states most clearly and succinctly what the article is about. - Epinoia (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Utraquists were recognized by Rome, and were not supposed to be considered heretics, although I expect some did. And while the Waldensians were considered heretics, they aren't anymore because Pope Francis visited them and apologized. Not sure if that counts or not though for the purposes of this article. Luther admired the wandering repentance preachers of his day and the past centuries. He was of the opinion that had they carried the day, they would have reformed the church without his efforts. It seems that the Fraticelli were such preachers, although I haven't heard of the group before you mentioned it. Any group with an anti-corruption bent could also be considered Reformers with potential influence on both Humanists and the Protestant Reformers, even if they were more Catholic like Savonarola. And even the more Gnostic ones might count somehow--Luther had some influence from Johann Reuchlin and read his Kabbalah influenced humanism early in his life before he went down the Jews and their Lies deep end. Also, Reuchlin was Phillip Melanchthon's nephew, and Melanchthon did dream interpretation for the Luther household and also was an astrologer.


 * "that's an opinion" comment--in terms of naming heresies after their supposed founder, there is a long history to that in this subject that is well documented. How many of the groups listed in the article got to name themselves? We know them by the name used against them in argument. We don't need to make Labelling even worse by calling Catholics Protestant. Even if you and I don't think that way, there might be someone reading it with prejudice who will take it in a wrong way. This is not the major reason to name it, though. Accuracy is more important.


 * Just as Wikipedia has decided to make the "Roman Catholic Church" article "Catholic Church" instead, it has moved the "Protestant Reformation" article to just "Reformation." So Pre-Reformation Reformers or Pre-Reformation movements in Western Christianity could work. I agree that Forerunners of the Reformation is too linear because as you say, there is no demonstrable straight-line influence. Reformers before the Protestant Reformation could work, and the breadth of the term Reformers should not be problem, and here is why:


 * You could even add the "Roman Catholic Church" as a proto-Protestant body, although of course Trail of Blood fans would not go for it because they would say it was the Great Apostasy for being crypto-Pagan. Here is why:


 * A factor that I don't think is mentioned in the article are local variations in enforcement and general bad communication between geographically and ethnically separated Catholics during the middle ages. The history of when the priests in Germany were subject to mass draconian enforcement of clerical celibacy following years of non-enforcement was still in recent enough memory be significant to Luther, Chemnitz, probably others. Another minor example of this was the Nicene creed in Germany reading "Holy Christian and Apostolic Church" instead of "Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" even prior to Luther


 * Yet another factor was forced conversions leading to different levels of observance or indifference. What I mean is that crypto-Muslims and crypto-Jews did not just lose their influence just because they converted, or maybe sort of converted. In Table Talk, Luther describes their effect on church culture in Spain. And some of the Protestant reforms seem Jewish, such as not counting the Apocrypha as canonical, being more decentralized in authority, placing more value on the Hebrew text than the Latin, and iconoclasm. The Protestantism and Islam article discusses some of these similarities with respect to Muslims, but in Germany at the time Judaism was more of an influence than Islam. Possibly that was reversed further east; I don't know.


 * Other pre-Reformation Protestant influences: Fourth Council of the Lateran, which on the Lord's Supper was not epistemologically Aristotelian like Trent. Catholic doctrine had not yet evolved enough in that direction by the time of Luther, such that the Lutheran Sacramental union was a possible interpretation at the time.


 * Termists--the schola moderna--early in his career Luther explicitly identified as a Termist, but that changed quickly; for most of his career he was less of a Termist and more of a Thomist than his opponents and some of his friends. Also, his concern about the effect of voluntarism from the schola moderna made him stick out for sola fide and the bondage of the will using Thomist type arguments although not openly affiliating with the schola antiqua. So one could also add Thomists to the list as well.


 * The whole "New Rome" being equal to the old Rome thing from the First Council of Constantinople, and this being disregarded by the Catholic side. Hence at the Augsburg Confession you get the Lutherans trying to present themselves as something similar to the Eastern Orthodox, that is, Christians legitimately outside of the authority of the pope. So the "Great Church" would be proto-Protestant simply because there isn't one pope over everything.


 * In worship, sequences were being written... these were hymns, 5,000 of them by the time Trent came and banned all but four. Also, vernacular hymnody was being used, the leisen, so worship was not completely in Latin even before Luther, and all of this was Catholic even though we associate vernacular hymnody with Protestants.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As this discussion has stalled, I'm going to unilaterally rename the page "Pre-Reformation movements" and see if it sticks. Rationate: 1. It seems that consensus is against the current name. 2. It seems that the term "Pre-Reformation" is closer to what Epinoia would prefer. 3. The term "Pre-Reformation" is commonly used, perhaps more common than the current page name 4. It avoids calling Catholics by the name "Proto-Protestant" and so it satisfies my main objection.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

- this move was made without consensus- WP:RM - Epinoia (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I understood that you preferred the proto- name, but this was my estimation as to what your second-best choice might be based on your comments to the other names I put out. I stand corrected on that. As for consensus, Daask and Rosguill both put out comments opposing the proto- name, which would make consensus three-to-one against it. I will message them and see if they approve of pre-Reformation movements. If the responses come back as a tie or a majority against, I will move it back to "proto-" myself. I will also message Dan and Grassynoel, who previously commented on the talk page, although their positions are unclear.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ngram viewer results for "pre-Reformation," "pre-Reformation," "Proto-Protestant," and "Proto-Protestantism."--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I like the new and current title. A concern I have with it though is that while it makes sense to me as someone who has been following this discussion, to someone who is just looking up the topic, it may be missing context: "pre-reformation movement for what?" signed,Rosguill talk 17:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, Rosguill, I did not see your post until after I moved it back. I moved it back because you, Daask, and I are only three editors, and there are three editors who prefer the proto- name. Moreover, for controverted page moves, as discussed below, you are really supposed to follow due process, which I did not follow. I had previously stated that I would move the page back to Epinoia. As for right now I think the most prudent thing to do is wait and see if anyone else responds.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Why was my edit reverted?
A secular authority, i.e. one not informed by religion, would never burn anyone for heresy. "Secular" is the wrong word here. Grassynoel (talk) 09:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * - your edit was made without an edit summary explanation and without a citation - "Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes." - the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Inquisition uses secular, as in, "Heresy, in consequence, was a crime which secular rulers were bound in duty to punish." - and also uses civil as in, "Thereupon the guilty were turned over to the civil power" - the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Jan Hus simply says, "At Constance he was tried, condemned, and burnt at the stake, 6 July, 1415." - I removed the reference to secular authority from the article in accordance with the Catholic Encyclopedia entry and to reduce confusion - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * This is still a matter of dispute among historians/pundits. Some (including Catholic leaning ones) would like to place the blame on the secular authorities and wash the churchly hands like Pontius Pilate. Others, noting that papal deposing power was a real threat not only to kings but also lesser officials, would consider all Christian governments sort of a theocracy. The exact same thing still happens today, where if church officials and lobbyists are given a say, the secularist crowd cries out against "theocracy"--even if the officials in question as potential "theocrats" were democratically elected.


 * The bottom line is that it is often impossible to know just what went on behind closed doors during medieval and renaissance church/state negotiations. So we don't know if political rulers were pressured by church officials to condemn the heretics, although it seems safe to say that the reverse did not happen. The flip side of this is that in the last generation, popes have apologized for the Catholic Church's role in these executions, even if it is obvious that individual rulers had differing tastes for bloodshed. Nationalist apologists would like to make the Catholic Church guilty so that their nation can be considered pure. while Catholic apologists would like the state to be responsible. Still, as this article and the Reformation articles are evidence of, many secular rulers didn't follow through on their so-called "duty to punish" heresy. One aspect that most do not consider is that the modern nation-state did not exist yet, but was still developing, so you cannot make a strict analogy between a secular ruler back then and a secular ruler today, because the meaning of the terms are different--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Grassynoel is quite incorrect here. Heresy was tightly connected with sedition: in order to justify a regime change, you had to show that God was not on the side of the current regime, and so you roped in some convenient theology: the Lollards using Wycliffe's Domonium theory etc. or the European Wars of Religion. Indeed, heresy had such strict and horrible potential penalties because of the sedition angle: people were rarely executed for what they thought but for the political implications of what they promoted and espoused in public.


 * The less that a heresy was connectable with real or possible sedition, the less that execution would be the legal remedy.


 * So the notional legal flow was that a secular ruler would declare that public heretics should be killed (for the stability of the state,) and then allowed the Church to have its formal inquiry process: if that process determined that the accused was in fact faithful to the Church's teaching (Catholic or Protestant or Anglican) or had credibly recanted (or were not obstinate or dangerous) then they could protect that person: sometimes this inquiry process took years. Otherwise, if the person had refused to place themselves under the protection of the church (or had previously escaped but gone back to heresy) then the inquisition process handed them back to the secular authorities to carry out the secular punishment, potentially after a trial. In the real word this was often complicated because sometimes the secular authority was also a spiritual authority (for example, were you had a regent or Prince-Bishop running the state); and priests were not supposed to get involved in anything to do with shedding blood directly (hunting, executions, etc) so there was sometimes a facade of separation that was not real. By Tudor times, some laws actually allowed the state to determine if someone was a kind of heretic (Lollard) without the interference of the Church inquisition process getting in the way.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 05:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Pre-Reformation and Proto-Protestant are words for quite different things!
I strongly support the position of Epinoia and strongly oppose the move of the page! Most of the article was written by him and by me.

Pre-Reformation literally means "before the Reformation", nothing more. There were various movements in the Catholic Church and in Christianity in general before the Reformation heading into quite different directions, some into directions totally opposite of the direction of the later Reformation. Even the conditions in the Catholic Church before the Reformation can be described as Pre-Reformation like the "sale of indulgences" which was a Pre-Reformation custom widespread in the Catholic Church.

Proto-Protestant literally means "before Protestantism and somehow like Protestantism but not Protestantism proper". If you try to find out what Epinoia examples mean (Proto-Cubism, Protofeminism, Proto-orthodox Christianity, Proto-punk, Proto-prog, Proto-techno, Proto-Zionism) and also Proto-fascism, proto-human, proto-mammals, proto-state you will find out that the standard meaning of "proto" is "before X and somehow like X but not X proper".

"Pre-Reformation" is used much more widespread than "Proto-Protestant" because the category "Pre-Reformation" is much wider than "Proto-Protestant".

Wikipedia is not the place to find new names for certain phenomena but a place where knowledge normally produced by scholars is gathered. I admit that also some scholars may use "Pre-Reformation" where "Proto-Protestant" would be the appropriate term. But this is not a reason to change the term here. Is there any consensus or even discussion among scholars of that field which advocates to give up the term "Proto-Protestant" and replace by "Pre-Reformation"? Dan Holsinger (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You're actually in a good position here, because the original move was done out of procedure. WP:RM states one can only move a page without wider discussion if, and that is not true in this case. This leaves you with two options for furthering the discussion by following the procedure detailed at WP:RM:
 * Create a requested move from "Pre-Reformation movements" (the current title) to "Proto-Reformation movements". Restate your case in an arguments under the requested move section.
 * Revert the previous move and create a requested move from "Proto-Reformation movements" to "Pre-Reformation movements" (even though you disagree with the move, it's the good faith option to have a proper discussion). Then state your arguments against the move below the request.
 * I would recommend the second option because it acknowledges the status quo, and is perfectly valid because the original move was done out of process. The only disadvantage of doing it that it may annoy editors in favor of the original move. eπi  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 18:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Even though only one of the respondents from my messages has answered, I will revert it back, as the tally is now three opposed and three for the Proto- name. As you say, for controverted moves you should follow the formal procedure. I was hoping that more people would respond, but this has been a slow discussion, with the first objection from 2018.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, it is moved back. Just so you know, I had not changed any wikilinks on other pages, as I was waiting to see if anyone would object or if the move would stick. Lastly, for the record my position remains that the page name is poor because certain groups mentioned self-identified as Catholic at the time, and are still recognized by the Catholic Church today as being Catholic.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I am late here in this discussion, but I came upon this page today and wondered why it is called "Proto-Protestantism" with such an eclectic group of people/groups. Yes, some of the positions taken by people/groups in the list were also taken by the later Protestants, but on the other hand an early Waldensian would have probably shriveled at some of the ideas of Luther or Calvin. To be succint with my opinion here, the list appears to be a grab-bag of about anyone who wanted church reform or revival, even if their vision or goal of that reform/revival did not align with later Protestantism. I would think a good name for this page could be "Pre-Reformation reformers" or "Pre-Reformation Non-conformists." This would leave the option of the intended reform going in any direction, not specifically towards Protestant ideas.
 * The bottom line, from my perspective, is that in almost every generation there have been those who wanted church reform and revival. How that was to be achieved and where they wanted the reform to ultimately end up is as varied as the names in the list. Mikeatnip (talk) 12:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You are right, Mikeatnip! This article shouldn't be this "grab-bag of about anyone who wanted church reform"! Proto-Protestantism mainly refers to three reformers and their followers: first of all to John Wycliffe and the Lollards, then to Peter Waldo and the Waldensians and Jan Hus and Bohemian Reformation. Of these groups the Lollards were absorbed into Protestantism during the English Reformation and the latter two movements finally merged into what today is called Protestantism. Among scholars it is mainly these three men and their followers who are seen as Proto-Protestant. The list "Claimed to have prefigured Protestantism" in more than one case have not much in common with the Protestant Reformation. In my view there should be two articles: one about Proto-Protestantism in its scholarly and narrow sense and one about the long list of ""Claimed to ...", all the same how it is called. By the way, I'm Dan Holsinger. 2A02:8071:B81:DA80:5591:E601:B653:907D (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2022 (UTC)


 * III, H. W. Crocker (2009-02-25) "In technical terms, he went into schism as a Montanist, a proto-Protestant sect.", Siebeck, Mohr (11 March 2016) "Berengar of Tours (c. 1005-1088), Bernand of Clairvaux, the Waldensians in the twelfth century, the Albigensians in the thirteenth century and John Wycliffe (x. 1330-1385) and Jan Hus (c. 1370-1415) in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries They all become forerunners of Luther and Calvin", "Philip Schaff: History of the Christian Church, Volume VI: The Middle Ages. A.D. 1294–1517 – Christian Classics Ethereal Library". ccel.org. Retrieved 2021-11-14. "John Pupper, 1400–1475, usually called John of Goch from his birthplace... His writings were not published till after the beginning of the Reformation. He anticipated that movement", the list quite is of people that have been claimed to have been protestant forerunners, and the sources themselves claim them to be forerunners of the Protestant reformation, any move would contradict the sources of the page.  --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 11:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Gnostics
Why are Gnostic sects included in this page since they aren't close to any protestant thologies --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 07:19, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Because the category is an incoherent grab-bag of historical factoids, not an elegant summary of some grand intellectual tradition. Which is not to say that the term is not useful as far as it goes, just that it does not go very far: there is little to no commonality between the different proto-protestant/dissenting sects over the years, just that they each superficially featured at least one idea that later was associated with some form for Protestantism. I mean: Dante as a proto-protestant??? Augustine??? Rick Jelliffe (talk) 05:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Proto-Protestantism
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Proto-Protestantism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ODCC": From Council of Trent: "Trent, Council of" in Cross, F. L. (ed.) The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford University Press, 2005 (ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3). From Transubstantiation: Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford University Press 2005 ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3), article Transubstantiation From Peter of Bruys:  From Latin Church:  From Mysticism: Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford University Press 2005 ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3), article contemplation, contemplative life From Richard Hooker: The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church by F. L. Cross (Editor), E. A. Livingstone (Editor) Oxford University Press, USA; 3 edition p.789 (13 March 1997) From Anglicanism: The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church by F. L. Cross (Editor), E. A. Livingstone (editor) Oxford University Press, US; 3rd edition, p. 65 (13 March 1997) 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ This appears to have been fixed Rick Jelliffe (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Definition
a sourced "Definition" section should be created to define the scope of the article properly. Veverve (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC) you seemed so eager to keep this article and so knowledgeable about its subject; maybe you should also work on it instead of paying lip service. Veverve (talk) 11:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * - remember to be civil WP:CIVIL and avoid personal attacks WP:NPA - you know nothing of my life situation or what I am going through - Epinoia (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * - Towards a Definition: one of the problems is that Proto-Protestantism is a new term so it won't be used by older writers, proto-protestants are usually referred to as forerunners of the reformation - the article on Protestantism in Encyclopedia Brittanica names pre-reformation reformers, such as John Wycliffe, and Jan Hus. From my research in the past, there are three things that older reform groups more or less shared, from at least the 10th century: rejection of corrupt clergy and the worldliness of the Church, rejection of the sacraments and a desire to return to a simpler form of Christianity, such as the Church of the Apostles. Unfortunately, due to life circumstances, I don't have any of my reference books with me so I am unable to provide references. In The Pilgrim Church, E.H. Broadbent says, "Even in the first three centuries there were numerous bodies of Christians who protested against the growing laxity and worldliness of the Church, and against its departure from the teachings of Scripture" and are characterized by "a desire to return to some New Testament truth." Of groups in the early middle ages he says, "They all claimed to draw their doctrine from the Scripture and to continue the Apostolic tradition." So those are basically the characteristics of proto-protestant groups, but finding sources that actually call them proto-protestant will be difficult. - Epinoia (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Arnold
this source places Arnold in the context of "reformation in italy" and The History of Protestantism: ALL 24 Books places Arnold as part of "history of Protestantism". --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 11:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Being mentioned is not enough; Arnold is mentioned as a background information in both sources, not as a proto-Protestant. Veverve (talk) 12:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Works of the mentioned people

 * you removed a part "the source does not link those acts to him being a Proto-Protestant", however in my opinion everything mentioned about these people doesn't necessarily need to be related to their efforts at reform but just to explain major parts of their work, even if it doesn't directly relate to their reform efforts, such as one of the most famous things Wycliffe is known for is the bible translation and I figured it would be good to be shortly included as that was a major accomplishment of his. (I might have made typos as I typed in a hurry) --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 11:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Another thing is I am curious why that one source is not RS, I thought it would have been as it's in www.academia.edu? --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 11:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)


 * academia.edu is a host that anyone can use to host anything, despite what its name could make one think. Veverve (talk) 05:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Beliefs and acts
you tend to add beliefs and acts of those in the list even if the sources de not link said beliefs and acts to the person being proto-Protestant. Examples here and here. I think only beliefs and acts which sources clearly state make the preson a proto-Protestant, i.e. not simply adding such and such acts and beliefs simply because it fits with some historic or current Protestant denominations. Veverve (talk) 11:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)


 * My intent was not that every belief I added (like Savonarola being interested in Thomas Aquinas) was ment to be related to their proto-protestant acts, but only for the article to have more general information of what they have done. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 11:21, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I strongly believe you should not add those information as they are unrelated to the topic of the article. Veverve (talk) 11:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay then I will only add things the sources mention as proto-protestant, from now on --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 16:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Jerome
I think the addition of church fathers such as Jerome who did not have a direct influence on the reformers on an equal level as Augustine should not be added to the article. However if sources can be found which identify him as a proto-Protestant exist it would be perhaps a fitting addition, but the sources used say the opposite and attack the claims. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 06:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. Adding Church Fathers is heavily POV. Veverve (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)