Talk:Thomas More/Archive 2

Works by Thomas More
I´m surprised to noticed that this article, unlike the one about Erasmus, still doesn´t have a list of Thomas More works. This link gives us a list of all of his works:. I will try to add a similar list to the article when I have more time.Mistico (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

More's peerage
As Lord Chancellor, More presided over the House of Lords. He must have been a peer.

Nowhere have I seen a reference to More's peerage.


 * As Chancellor of England, he was not a peer as that position only became the speaker of the House of Lords at a later date. Dabbler (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Campaign Against the Reformation
This section seems a bit unbalanced. It's true Ackroyd does cite how More denied torturing himself, but Ackroyd also presents extensive evidence that More, like many of this contemporaries strongly believed burning at the stake was an appropriate penalty for heresy (such as reading the Bible in English). What justification is there for ignoring this side of the debate and selectively quoting Ackroyd? I've added the section citing from Ackroyd and the Yale edition of the works.

Ackroyd, however, notes that More "approved of Burning" ref Ackroyd P. The Life of Thomas More. Vintage Books. London 1998 p298 For example, after the case of John Tewkesbury, the London leather-seller found guilty by More of harboring banned books and sentenced to be burnt at the stake, More declared: he "burned as there was neuer wretche I wene better worthy." ref The Yale Edition of the Complete Works of St. Thomas More. Vol 8 The Confutation of Tyndale's Answer (Schuster LA, Marius RC, Lusardi JP, Schoeck RJ eds 1973 p 20.121.127.214.81 (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The article did note that burning was widely seen as an acceptable punishment for heresy at the time, even for more moderate people on both sides of the religious divide, and listed the six heretics burned during More's time as Chancellor. However, your addition to the article did seem constructive, balanced, and fair and so therefore I think it should stay. Thank you for your help. FoxOfBerlin (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of material from discussion page
Could someone please explain on what basis material is now allowed to be deleted at will from discussion pages of wikipedia74.2.246.226 (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Below is the comment that is being repeatedly deleted from this discussion page. I agree the language could be moe temperate but it's not much different from other comments above and does appear to have been inserted in good faith. It is a worthwhile point to query why specifications of the books Tewkesbury was reading were removed: "banned" books suggest they could have been treasonous or pornographic-in fact they were simply spiritual works by Tyndale (Wicked Mammon). I agree it does seem to be new research to say More plagiarised from Erasmus, but certainly the similarities between Erasmus prior work and More's Utopia are a matter of record. Overall, despite the last sentence this is a good faith entry and shouldn't be deleted from the discussion page simply because you disagree with it.74.2.246.226 (talk) 02:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that someone has deleted reference to the heretical books Tewkesbury was reading-in this case a religious book by Tyndale. More was treated favourably by history for some time, but eventually the truth will probably come out that his friend Erasmus wrote most of the sections of Utopia that have unfairly given more the reputation as a great humanist. When you examine the actual works we know More wrote he comes across as a deeply tormented and narrow minded man. The fact he was made a saint only highlights how perverse that whole Catholic process is.58.163.111.36 (talk) 01:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

My response to you from yesterday seems to have mysteriously disappeared, so I shall repeat myself once more: the reference to which banned books Tewkesbury had in his possession is entirely irrelevant: if you want to add this fact, go add it to Tewkesbury's page -- this is an article about Thomas More, not the individual heretics he had burnt at the stake. No one thinks the banned books were "treasonous or pornographic", as the Tewkesbury affair is discussed in the section of the article dealing with the campaign against Protestantism, so it is self-evident they were spiritual works.

'''I will repeat my warning from before again: this is an encyclopedia, it is supposed to present neutral facts, NOT OPINIONS. It is a matter of no importance whether you believe Thomas More to have been a good man or a bad man, or whether or not you think his reputation as a Humanist is deserved. It is also inappropriate and irrelevant for you to label the Catholic process of creating saints "perverse".''' Stop using this article and this discussion forum to further your own vendetta against More and his reputation -- if you have nothing credible and constructive to add, I highly suggest you start contributing to an article dedicated to a man or woman whom you admire, instead of trying to discredit a man you don't. FoxOfBerlin (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but all I was attempting to do was ensure due process was followed. The opinions weren't mine, but I objected to them being deleted simply because a group of you appear hostile to them and feel that allows you to subvert wikipedia policies. Bold lettering is a bit of a give away in terms of reinforcing the priority of your own opinion.74.2.246.226 (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if you took what I said personally; much of what I said was not aimed at you, but the original commentator you referred to. Saying that an encyclopedia is here to present neutral facts and not pass judgment on its subject either way is not my opinion, it's one of the founding policies of Wikipedia and all other encyclopedias. Far too many users seem to ignore this policy and are continuing to vandalize this page and abuse this forum by posting assertions that have no historical basis to support them -- that is why my statement was in bold for emphasis. For your information I was not the editor who deleted the opinion you refer to anyway -- I have no idea who deleted it, I only responded to it. The reason why some editors appear, in your phrase, "hostile" to opinions such as the one expressed above is because such opinions are constantly being posted on this page based on dubious, non-academic sources and are meant only to inflame emotions and promote a certain bias against Thomas More. Personally I could not care less whether or not people consider More to be a good man or a bad one, I am only devoting my time and effort to this page because More is animportant and interesting historical figure, and is therefore worthy of a thorough and objective article on his life and works. Although the comment you are referring to was not, as you say, your own, I would also like to point out to you that a comment that refers to a Catholic process as "perverse", or says things like "More was treated favourably by history for some time, but eventually the truth will probably come out that his friend Erasmus wrote most of the sections of Utopia" is not a comment made in "good faith" at all, it is simply promoting an agenda that should have no place in a forum like this. I hope this somewhat clarifies the issue for you. FoxOfBerlin (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The part that was deleted was simply a personal, unsourced, obviously biased anti-Catholic and anti-More opinion. Where are the claims from serious, unbiased persons, that More ever plagiarized anyone? In fact, Erasmus wrote his "In Praise of Folly" when a guest at More's house. Not even remotelly anyone can see these claims as done in "good faith". "Overall, despite the last sentence this is a good faith entry and shouldn't be deleted from the discussion page simply because you disagree with it." All the unsourced biased, useless claims in this Talk Page, are against Wikipedia policies and can be deleted as vandalism. If there is any serious historian who claims that More ever copied anyone then it should be mentioned.82.154.83.178 (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Gross violations of Wikipedia guidelines
Talk page guidelines should not be removed, changed or edited by other Users except in a few limited cases. People deleting comments here are way out of line. See Talk_page_guidelines Dabbler (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you should read carefully Wikipedia guidelines then. Take a look: "Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: / If you have their permission. / Removing prohibited material such as libel, personal details, violations of policy about living persons, or copyright violations. / Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely incivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived."
 * The anonymous user, who I think was both UP58 and U72, post about Thomas More can easily be seen as both trolling and vandalism, it´s simply a personal opinion and it doesn´t mean anything to the improvement of the article. So, I´m deleting again that edit and I will appreciate that it wouldn´t be added again. I will appreciate if also some users in here didn´t wasted their time with trollers.81.193.220.52 (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There have been objections - more than once. Please stop removing others' comments. Frank  |  talk  16:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The posting was NOT trolling and vandalism in the usual sense of the words and as an anonymous poster, your credibility is increasingly in doubt as as an expert on Wikipedia policies and procedures. In addition you have admitted to violating the same policy by deleting a posting against repeated objections. If any one is acting as a vandal, it is you. Dabbler (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

"I noticed that someone has deleted reference to the heretical books Tewkesbury was reading-in this case a religious book by Tyndale. More was treated favourably by history for some time, but eventually the truth will probably come out that his friend Erasmus wrote most of the sections of Utopia that have unfairly given more the reputation as a great humanist. When you examine the actual works we know More wrote he comes across as a deeply tormented and narrow minded man. The fact he was made a saint only highlights how perverse that whole Catholic process is)." Excuse me, but what purpose does this serves in this Talk Page? I don´t think you have any level to be in here, Dabbler, since you refuse to understand Wikipedia policies, and I can call dozens of Users who would agree with me. I quote this user: "Although the comment you are referring to was not, as you say, your own, I would also like to point out to you that a comment that refers to a Catholic process as "perverse", or says things like "More was treated favourably by history for some time, but eventually the truth will probably come out that his friend Erasmus wrote most of the sections of Utopia" is not a comment made in "good faith" at all, it is simply promoting an agenda that should have no place in a forum like this. I hope this somewhat clarifies the issue for you. FoxOfBerlin (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC) 81.193.220.52 (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On balance I would delete it as inappropriate for the talk page, but if people are going to get worked up then leave it there until archived, but please nothing in the article. -- Snowded  TALK  20:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Snowded. There are many serious interesting controversies about Thomas More, Martin Luther, John Knox and other 16th century people that deserve to be discussed, but should have any consistency. I myself will do my best to also had a section of criticism about Martin Luther and John Knox. Thomas More might seem a religious fanatic for modern standards, but the same goes for many Protestant Reformers back then.Mistico (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised at this discussion on a couple of levels. The point of a talk page is to...talk. If we don't have a place to discuss ideas about the article, then people will just come along and put things in the article directly. The statements we are referring to here would be wholly inappropriate in the article itself (at least without sources). But, to remove them from here is also inappropriate...they represent the opinion of one or more editors who, it appears, would ultimately like to modify the article. If we delete the comment(s) without discussion, or call them inappropriate because we disagree with them, then a discussion is not taking place, and the matter will never be closed satisfactorily. It's hard to gather a consensus for (or against) something if the discussion is censored, either while it is taking place or later. In addition, a talk page is not a "talk page for registered users only." Let's keep in mind that behind every single IP edit is a person. Finally, remember that while this is not a WP:DEMOCRACY, people are entitled to their opinions. That doesn't mean we are required to leave them all in place for posterity - there are times it is appropriate to remove talk page comments, but...this doesn't seem to be one of them. There may well be an agenda...but if we don't discuss it and reach a consensus as to whether or not it is valid, it will keep popping up. Better to let the discussion run its course, resolve the point, and then let it be archived in the normal course. By arguing about whether or not to argue and whether or not the opinion is even "allowed", all that happens is the thread gets longer. This has the possibly unintended consequence of taking longer for it to be archived. Frank |  talk  21:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard Marius Quote
"Further, as Marius writes in his biography of More, "To stand before a man at an inquisition, knowing that he will rejoice when we die, knowing that he will commit us to the stake and its horrors without a moment's hesitation or remorse if we do not satisfy him, is not an experience much less cruel because our inqusitor does not whip us or rack us or shout at us." This seems a rather subjective opinion and I have many doubts that it is not a NPOV. The author seems to forget that John Tewkesbury had the chance to recant and to return to the Catholic faith and choose not to do so. It's in that context that the words of Thomas More make sense.85.243.69.189 (talk) 02:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I mantain my opinion that this paragraph is highly subjective and tries to use More as a scapegoat for a common practise at the time. Richard Marius isn't a reliable source because he is biased against More. If the article insinuates that More had a saddistic pleasure in the burning of heretics, I guess the same can be said of all the kings and queens of England of the 16th century, all the popes and intelectuals who supported the burning of heretics. What is new about More is that he opposed torture as a way to achieve recantations, a common practise back then, used against Protestants during Mary I reign and against Catholics during Elizabeth I reign. Peter Ackroyd statement is that of a serious historian, unlike Richard Marius who isn't.Mistico (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This statement is from a biography and is sourced. It is as much a valid statement as Ackroyd's "surmise " in the previous passage. While both are opinions, to delete only one opinion is remarkably POV. Ideally have one NPOV passage or quote from both sides, not just one. Dabbler (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Then, I guess it makes more sense to delete Peter Ackroyd neutral and logical view that Thomas More was against torture. Since torture was widely acceptable back then as a mean to achieve recantations and it was used against Protestants and Catholics, if Thomas More was really a supporter of torture he wouldn't need to hide it. Sorry, but between Peter Ackroyd view and the demagogical and manipulative view of Richard Marius there is no possible comparison. How could Thomas More "rejoice" with the death of a person? That would be unchristian. How does Richard Marius knows that?213.13.245.240 (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This is what the user who mantains the Richard Marius quote answeared in his Talk Page: "Yes I do because by excluding it you are trying to silence a significant minority, not a tiny minority, who consider that Thomas More is not a saint but a torturer and killer of saints. In other words you are trying to maintain your POV at the expense of other people's. Either both should be expressed or a NPOV opinion found. As More is still a very divisive character, otherwise protection would not berequired from time to time to prevent edit warring, I think that both opinions should be included. Dabbler (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)"

Thomas More a "torturer" and a "killer of Saints"? I don't know if he was a saint or not. What I know is that he was the greatest English humanist and perhaps only second to Erasmus. Some of nowadays Protestant authors don't understand the historical context of back then or even try to understand. What about John Calvin and the three Unitharians that were burned at the stake at Geneva? I still respect John Calvin, despite never having been a Protestant and I understand what he did, even if by modern standards of religious tolerance, that didn´t existed back then, what he did certainly seems regrettable. Excuse me but no serious user would ever refer to Thomas More as "not a saint but a torturer and a killer of saints". He was added to the Anglican Calendar of Saints and Anglican writers like Samuel Johnson and Jonathan Swift expressed a deep admiration for him and I don't need to say that all the Archbishops of Canterbury since Robert Runcie have mantained his presence in the Anglican Calendar of Saints. I would like to know why these passionate Protestants like the user above, who might be the now suspended UP203, aren't so passionate about Henry VIII, who was the greatest persecutor of Protestants in England during the first half of the 16th century, before and after spliting with Rome, creating many of nowadays Catholic and Protestant martyrs from England. I wonder if they would propose adding Henry VIII to the Anglican Calendar of Saints instead of Thomas More? By the way, I can't respect anyone who gives credit to a religious fanatic like John Foxe, who openly supported the torture and execution by hanging, drawing and quartering of many Catholics during Elizabeth I reign. What kind of credit deserves a man that supported torture against the followers of the "Antichrist" and glady despise all the people, like St. Edmund Campion, who were executed simply by their faith? A man like this, who supported torture, doesn't have any moral level to accuse Thomas More of torturing anyone, without any proofs. It should be much more polemical the sainthood of people like St. Pius V, who unleashed the persecution of Catholics in England with is excommunication bull of Elizabeth I, in 1570. It will be interesting also to know of how many Protestants Thomas More in fact saved their lifes by achieving their recantations by persuasion and not by force. The expert tag is still in the article.Mistico (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note AGF. The opinion about More being a torturer and a killer of saints is NOT my personal opinion, but it is the opinion of a good many people who disagree with you. Unlike you with your adherence to one POV, I can see both POVs and I consider that silencing one of them is completely unjustified even if it offends Catholic sensibilities and your view of More. Akroyd's statement is a surmise which is a polite word for guess, albeit perhaps an educated one. In other words it is an opinion not a fact. Let us delete both statements or neither, otherwise you do not accept NPOV. Dabbler (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:WEIGHT applies. Marius is a reputable, but controversial scholar and his views cannot be taken as definitive against the majority view of other historians, however it should be represented in the article.  The various arguments above about the relative acceptance of torture are really not relevant here.  I think this may mean a sentence along the lines of "Controversial historian Richard Marius has stated ...." or similar.  -- Snowded  TALK  05:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be quite happy with that, but not the complete deletion of his statement as was being proposed. Dabbler (talk) 10:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to say that, in my opinion, the Marius quote should be allowed to stay. Marius was a respected historian in his own right, even if his views were sometimes controversial (it should be noted that Marius also criticized Martin Luther for many of his positions and actions too). I might also add that Marius was involved in editing major editions of Sir Thomas More's works, so just because Marius did not approve of More's religious convictions at times does not automatically mean he was prejudiced against all aspects of More as a man and a scholar. Let both quotes stay -- both Ackroyd and Marius -- and allow the readers to come to their own conclusions. Some historians are genereally sympathetic to More, and some are not. It does not make one type of historical opinion more valid than the other. Let both be represented. FoxOfBerlin (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the section in the article a bit more by adding a concluding paragraph contrasting the opinions of both Ackroyd and Marius, presenting both as being credible stances.

Mistico, I too respect Sir Thomas More as a great Humanist and influential statesman and thinker, but that does not mean we should sugarcoat his actions as Chancellor. Six heretics were burned under his watch with his explicit approval. Admitting that fact does not in any way justify the torture and executions of thousands of Catholics in the centuries that followed, but that is not the point: six burnings took place and More approved of them. It is obvious that there have been fanatical Protestants as well -- John Foxe was especially cruel and intolerant, and Elizabeth I had many Catholics tortured during her reign -- but this is not an article about either of them, it is about More. We can't label historians who generally approve of More's actions as credible while dismissing equally eminent historians who happen to disagree. FoxOfBerlin (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't by any means trying to "sugarcoat" the fact that he was responsible for the burning of 6 heretics, I just wanted to put it into his historical context. We also can't forget that it was Henry VIII who ordered him to be chancellor, against is will. From what I read Richard Marius also helds Thomas More in great consideration. My point is that the quote from Marius was manipulative, because it uses a biased language, suggesting that More would "rejoice" with the execution of people. Peter Ayckroyd by no means tries to insinuate that he agrees with the burning of heretics by whom Thomas More was responsible. He simply expresses is opinion about the question if More used or not torture. Unfortunately, the execution of people by burning was used as late in the 18th century, when it was finnaly deemed as a cruel and unacceptable way of execution.Mistico (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I certainly respect your opinion, Mistico, and I agree with you in all that you say regarding the historical context of the time: it was an era in history when people could be executed or severely punished for what we now consider to be rather minor offenses, and religion at the time was taken much more seriously than it is today -- life was tough and justice was often bloody and cruel in ways that can seem appalling to modern minds. Sir Thomas More's detractors often conveniently overlook that fact, and seem to willingly ignore the hundreds of Catholics that were tortured or hanged, drawn, and quartered under Protestant monarchs such as Elizabeth I. So I do feel that the criticism aimed at Sir Thomas More is often done so in total ignorance of the reality of European society at that time. However, Ackroyd does say openly in his biography that Sir Thomas More did approve of burning and was even active in suppressing Protestant books, which is, as Marius seemed to think, not in keeping with Sir Thomas' earlier commitment to Humanism and the often radically tolerant views towards personal religion put forth in "Utopia". The Marius quote is indeed only his opinion, but the article says so clearly that it is an opinion shared by some historians, but not others. Ackroyd does not give Sir Thomas a free pass, either, and does make it clear that More did, in a sense, "rejoice" when heretics were executed, for More truly believed in his heart that heresy was evil and needed to be suppressed at all costs. Again, not an uncommon attitude at the time by any means, and not exclusive to Catholics either, but it does show that Sir Thomas became much more reactionary and intolerant as he grew older, and in comparison to the more moderate Erasmus he does come off the worse for it. Still a great man and a towering intellectual, no doubt about it, but a man with faults like any other, and I think it is good for the article to acknowledge the criticism aimed at him for his actions as Chancellor.

Having said that, the rest of the article is in serious need of help. Perhaps you and I can work together to try and clean it up? I want to add a section devoted to Sir Thomas' family life, especially his campaign for the education of women, and to try to tidy up the religious polemics section, which is an incomprehensible mess and teaches the reader virtually nothing save for the bad language More and Luther used in writing to one another. Let me know your ideas, you and I and all the other editors here could truly make this article something great. FoxOfBerlin (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in the Renaissance History, but I know there are some good sites, like those I mentioned above, about Thomas More time, writtings and his controversies. I think the first step to improve the article will be to add a list of his publishings. I will try to do that latter. Other point, the "Utopia" doesn't reflect by any means More personal beliefs about religion. It describes an idealized pre-christian community, who held many non-christian beliefs. I think both quotes by Peter Ayckroyd and Richard Marius should be deleted, and that part of the article should remain the most neutral possible. Peter Ayckroyd opinion is redundant, it seems quite obvious for any neutral reader that if More hadn't been against torture, he wouldn't have the need to deny so. Richard Marius quote is so inflamatory, demagogical, manipulative and personal, that I don't see why it should be kept in the article. There are two different questions. More opposed torture as a way to achieve recantations but he also approved the burning of heretics. It was a practise started in the Middle Age and it would last until the 18th century. It wasn't More who created the anti-heresy laws, even if he fully supported them, and Henry VIII would continue to persecute "heretics" under them until his death in 1547. There are some interesting facts in More relashionships with Protestants that also deserve to be mentioned. His son-in-law, William Roper seems to have been sympathetic to Lutheranism, but he would latter return to Catholicism. Karl Kautsky work about More also states that he welcomed a disciple of Melanchton, even if I don't know if the information is accurate.Mistico (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Eramus really supported the burning of heretics. If there is need for a source, here it is:. He also always stood by the Catholics dogmas and was even offered the cardinal hat by pope Paul III, but he declined.Mistico (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The only reason why I feel both quotes should stay is because they address both points of view regarding More's behaviour as Chancellor. I felt that including both points of view would help to end the non-stop edit wars that seem to plague this page, and especially this section of the article. Deleting the quotes will only invite more controversy, and perhaps the insertion of biased quotes from more dubious souces. It may be imperfect, but at least it is fair. What else can we do? We can't just say More was against torture without citing an historian with relevant quotes to back it up, right? And would it be fair not to include the clarification that More did approve of burning? I don't think so, and that's the trouble with removing the quotes. I must also add, however, that you are absolutely right regarding heresy laws and the practice of burning people at the stake. Unfortunately there are many users on this site who do not care much for historical context and seem to fail to understand that torture, burning, and even being hanged, drawn, and quartered were common forms of punishment given to both Protestants AND Catholics under various monarchs of the time. But still, I fear that removing the quotes will only start another edit-war, and so I feel that including both points of view is the best chance we have at avoiding it. FoxOfBerlin (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, regarding Erasmus: I agree that he did eventually side with Catholic orthodoxy over the Protestant movement, but he was a much more moderate man by nature than More and even tried to reach out to Martin Luther in the hopes of reconciling him to the Catholic Church. Including that reference in the article may be a good idea, though, as many people might not know Erasmus approved of burning, and it is important to cite such a claim. Regarding William Roper, that is a very good point and deserves a mention in the article -- I will include such information under the "Family Life" section I am working on. Then I will attempt trying to sort out the "religious polemics" section, which is, I think, the worst part of the entire article. Any other suggestions, Mistico? FoxOfBerlin (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

To state insultuous or inflamatory statements is totally against Wikipedia policies. This is a warning for some unmaned users who are trying to start another anti-More rant in here.82.154.85.135 (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. Let's have both quotes to avoid more controversies. One thing that people can't forget about his anti-Protestant campaign is that he knew about John Wycliff and the Lollards movement and he wanted to keep England the free as possible from "heretic" infiltration. Nevertheless, he was without any doubt the European intelectual that Erasmus most admired. It would be interesting to know what was the initial views of More when Luther published the "95 Thesis Against the Indulgences" in 1517. Like it's well known Erasmus was initially very sympathetic to Luther's arguments.Mistico (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad we've reached an agreement regarding the quotes. It may not be ideal but it is certainly the best we can do for the time being. I have inserted the new "family life" section into the article and will try to expand it a little more in the coming weeks. Today I will start work on the "religious polemics" section. I can't remember what More's initial view of Luther's reforms were but I will do some research on the matter today -- I know Henry VIII denounced Luther in a short work and was titled "Defender of the Faith" by the pope for it, a work seemingly created with More's help, but we shall see. How is your list of More's publishings coming along? FoxOfBerlin (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I just added a list of his works and translations taken from this very good site:. It should be noted that he also wrote poetry, letters, latin epigrams, instructions and prayers that I suppose most of them were only published postumously. I suppose they also appear in the best editions of his Complete Works. The next step will be to start new entries about his books. There is also the controversy to what extent More contributed to Henry VIII Assertio Septem Sacramentorum (1521). Due to Henry VIII theological formation it's rather possible that he wrote himself most or all the book. More might have worked as a reviewer.Mistico (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

According to Ackroyd, More basically served as Henry VIII's editor for the "Assertio", helping to tidy it and arrange it, but beyond that, it was largely Henry VIII's work. Henry VIII did not generally enjoy writing, apparently, but he was well versed in theology, a good Latinist, and (at the time)a very ardent Catholic, so I think it's safe to say that the "Assertio" is his, created with some editorial assistance from More. I tidied and condensed the "religious polemics" section, but I might try to add a few more details if I can locate a few more academic sources pertaining to his religious works. I agree with you regarding the next step -- I have been musing over how to best start cleaning up the "Utopia" section, which is not bad but does not contain many citations, and I would like to add more information on More's "Richard III". I was also wondering whether or not you thought we should add a sub-section on More's letter writing; he maintained a very active correspondence with many important figures of the time, and I have access to a collection of his letters available for our use if need be. Such a section could also highlight his friendship with Erasmus, as they corresponded largely through letters because they spent so much time apart. What do you think? FoxOfBerlin (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it makes sense since More and Erasmus friendship spanned for decades and it would be interesting to see their views about the renewal of the Church and how Erasmus reacted to the writtings More did against Protestantism. As a Renaissance man, More interests also included astronomy and zoology, but I don't know if he ever wrote about these subjects. One thing is certain, More and Erasmus friendship, despite the differences they might had, always remained strong until the end.Mistico (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm still working on my draft for the new correspondence sub-section, and I'm wishing that someone would clean up the "Utopia" section of the article by inserting references and tidying it up. In spite of this, I do believe that the article is improving, and that makes me very happy.FoxOfBerlin (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Automatic Archiving
This page is not set up for automatic archiving, I am willing to do so if there is a consensus. I would suggest archiving any discussions that have not been added to after 90 days. Some articles are set for even shorter periods but I think that is a reasonable timeframe. Comments? Dabbler (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd make it 30 -- Snowded TALK  05:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I split the difference at 60 days, lets see how that works. It can be adjusted if necessary. Dabbler (talk) 11:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dabbler: 60 days sounds reasonable.FoxOfBerlin (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The Bible in English
The first paragraph of the article states that More, in addition to opposing William Tyndale’s translation of the Bible, also opposed “others who wished to see the Bible translated into the English Language.”  I don’t think this gives an accurate impression of More’s views. In A Dialogue Concerning Heresies (CW 6, 330-344) More stated clearly his preference that the Bible be translated into English, although he wanted limits put on the distribution of the translation. While More showed some doubt later, in the Confutation (CW 8, 178-179), More did not write against the principle of the Bible in English. I suggest that the phrase be revised to read, “for opposing William Tyndale and his translation of the Bible into the English language” Godfrey London (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The Oath and the Acts
More was originally arrested and sent to the Tower for his refusal to take the oath required by the First Succession Act (25 Henry. VIII, C.22). Refusal to take the oath was misprision of treason, and resulted in loss of property and imprisonment. More was tried and executed, however, for denying the king’s title as the only Supreme Head on earth of the Church of England, which the king was given in the Act of Supremacy (26 Henry. VIII, c.1), and which was made treasonous by the Treasons Act of Henry VIII (26 Henry. VIII, c.13). I don’t think this is made entirely clear in the second paragraph of the article, and so I propose to change the relevant part to read as follows:

“An important counsellor to Henry VIII of England, he was tried and executed for treason by beheading in 1535 for denying that the king was the Supreme Head of the Church of England, a title the king had been given by the Act of Supremacy 1534. More had been in prison in the Tower of London since 1534 for his refusal to take the oath required by the First Succession Act, because the act disparaged the power of the Pope and Henry’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon.” Godfrey London (talk) 10:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

List of works
I have revised the list of More's works. Godfrey London (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

When?
This article really suffers from not telling "when" things happened. It mentions all of his daughters and sons, but does not mention their birth dates (which can be really hard to track down, as in the case of Alice Middleton the Younger) or adoption dates. It also does not say when his term as sherriff ended, etc. I will try to help out on this, but historical articles are not my forte, I usually work on scientific articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.36.218 (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Date of More's birth
I have added a footnote to the date of More's birth.

The exact date of More’s birth is a curious mystery. It should be no mystery at all, as we have a precise record of the day, date and hour of the event written by More’s own father as a formal record of the birth.

On two blank leaves at the back of a copy, now at the library of Trinity College, Cambridge, of Geoffrey of  Monmouth’s Historia regum Britanniae, a fanciful and very popular collection of legends about the early kings of Britain, John More kept a record, in Latin, of his marriage and of the births of his children. The record of Thomas’s birth can be translated as:

Memorandum, that on the Friday next after the Feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary, between two and three in the morning, was born Thomas More, son of John More, gentleman, in the seventeenth year of King Edward, the Fourth after the Conquest of England.

This seems clear enough. People in the 15th Century kept track of time differently than we do, but a little calculation can make John More’s note plain.

Edward IV began his reign on 4 March 1461 when he defeated the army of King Henry VI and seized the throne. The 17th year of his reign ran from 4 March 1477 to 3 march 1478, at least it does if you ignore, as John More did, the embarrassing fact that in 1470 Henry regained the throne for a year before Edward got it back.

The Feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary commemorates the visit of the Holy Family to the Temple in Jerusalem to fulfill its duties under the Jewish law, as is recounted in Luke 2:22-35. Since the 7th Century, the feast has been celebrated on the 2d of February. In 1478, the 2d of February fell on a Monday, so the Friday following would be the 6th.

Thus, it is clear that Thomas More was born on Friday, 6 February 1478. Or it would be clear had it not been for John More’s desire for precision, because, at some time after writing the original note he added, right after the words “Blessed Virgin Mary,” the following: “to wit, the seventh day of February.”

It is clear that John More got something wrong. There are three possibilities: (a) John got the day of the week right and the date, but the year was wrong, thus 7 February 1477; (b) John got the day right and the year, but the date was wrong, thus 6 February 1478; or (c) John got the date right and the year, but the day of the week was Saturday not Friday, thus 7 February 1478.

I think the last possibility is the most likely. Thomas was born so soon after midnight that the birth was originally entered as having occurred on the previous day, the Friday. The error was later corrected. Both Marius and Ackroyd agree, although Chambers preferred February 6, 1478.Godfrey London (talk) 10:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Godfrey London! Your improvements to this page are great! FoxOfBerlin (talk) 23:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Changes to Early Life
I've made the following changes to the section on More's early life:
 * I've added a note about the possibility that More may also have studied at St. Mary's Hall at Oxford;
 * I've added that More left Oxford early because of his father's wishes, and a supporting reference;
 * I've added the names of the Inn of Chancery and the Inn of Court that More attended;
 * I've added a reference to Erasmus's comment about More's interest in becoming a monk;
 * Following Cresacre More and most modern biographers, I've stated that More did not live in the Charterhouse, but rather lived nearby and shared in the religious practices of the monks, and I've changed the statement that More abandoned the Carthusian way, as we do not think he ever formally joined it.Godfrey London (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Robert Honorr reference
In the section "Scholarly and literary work", the first sentence reads: "Between 1512 and 1518, Thomas More worked on a History of King Richard III, an unfinished work, based on Sir Robert Honorr's Tragic Deunfall of Richard III, Suvereign of Britain (1485),[citation needed], which greatly influenced William Shakespeare's play Richard III."

No source is cited for this statement claiming Honor's book as a source for More. I can find no mention of Sir Robert Honorr or of the book title "Tragic Deunfall of Richard III, Suvereign of Britain" anywhere on the Internet except where the text of the web page appears to be a quotation of this Wikipedia article. I have had email communication with Annette P. Carson, author of ''Richard III The Maligned King" (C) 2008, The History Press, Goucestershire, UK. She reports that she was also unable to find any data documenting Honorr or his book after decades of research work on Richard III..  Ms. Carson further communicated with an academic of her acquaintance in Sydney, Australia who did further research and provided the following comment:

"In the last week or so I have downloaded everything I could find from journal databases on the sources of More's Richard III, and inter-library loaned some nineteenth and early twentieth century books and articles (because I thought it possible that the Honorr source might have been posited to exist in an earlier period of scholarship and now was discredited). I am now entirely satisfied that it does not exist and I have advised the Sydney Branch to upload an amended version of my lecture."

Unfortunately Ms. Carson did not give me this source's name, but I am requesting this information.

Based on the above: (1) The reference in the existing article has no citation for the Honorr source; (2) efforts to verify the Honorr book title have produced no supporting data; (3) inquiries about the very existence of Sir Robert Honorr have produced no supporting data, I conclude that this citation is possibly false and certainly unverifiable. I request input from anyone who can cite verifiable reference sources for the Honorr citation. Absent feedback I will edit the section to remove the (probably) false information. Upton Rehnberg 16:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by UptonRehnberg (talk • contribs) 16:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above, but plead that the reference not be removed, as it does provide a lead for historians. More's "history" contains mysteries, and leads that may unravel them are helpful. Obviously someone knows something here; and this seems an unlikely reference to be bogus. The internet is not the repository of all knowledge, and it may be that such a book exists in a library in Cambridge or Oxford. Leaving the thread with appropriate caveats as to its veracity will serve scholarship better than deletion.ClassicalScholar 21:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClassicalScholar (talk • contribs)

Thomas Cranmer and Thomas Cromwell?
At the beginning of this article there is an unreferenced quote that states, "He was an opponent of the Protestant Reformation and in particular of Martin Luther, William Tyndale, Thomas Cranmer and Thomas Cromwell." Although it has been a while since I did research on Sir Thomas More, I can't recall him having been a firm enemy of either Cranmer or Cromwell. . . can anyone provide more information on this? FoxOfBerlin (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Swift or Johnson?
The quote "A person of the greatest virtue that this Kingdom ever produced" is often sourced from A Man for All Seasons and attributed to Samuel Johnson, yet checking Google Books shows that the quote is actually attributed to Jonathan Swift in the introduction to the play. See here. So where did the Johnson connection come from and how reliable is it? Dabbler (talk) 11:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The phrase occurs in Chapter 14: Concerning that Universal Hatred of Jonathan Swift's "Writings on Religion and the Church, Vol. I." Found on line here. It seems that the Johnson quote, though widespread is not the original as I can't find any Johnson source at all. Dabbler (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The exact quote by Jonathan Swift is: "a person of the greatest virtue this kingdom ever produced".213.13.244.232 (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction?
In 1533, More refused to attend the coronation of Anne Boleyn as the Queen of England. Technically, this was not an act of treason, as More had written to Henry acknowledging Anne's queenship and expressing his desire for the king's happiness and the new queen's health.

More refused to take the oath and furthermore publicly refused to uphold Henry's annulment from Catherine.

These two statements seem completely contradictory. How can More accept Anne as queen without the annulment from Catherine? Had something changed his mind?

Would somebody clarify this as I seem to be missing the point.AT Kunene (talk) 10:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, More's qualms arose from the fact that Henry VIII's Oath included the notion that Henry, and not the Pope, was the true head of the English Church. It was this break with the Catholic Church which made him refuse to take the Oath, as to acknowledge Henry as the supreme spiritual authority in England would have been a betrayal of More's Catholic conviction that the Pope was God's representative on earth, and that no temporal power (i.e, a King) could lay claim to that spiritual authority. I believe it was More's refusal to acknowledge Henry as head of the English Church which brought about the charge of treason, not specifically his feelings towards Anne as Queen. For a long time, it was supposed that the Pope might grant the annulment. . . when it became obvious that the Pope probably wouldn't, Henry declared himself Head of the Church and had the annulment declared independent of the Pope in order to marry Anne. I think More was willing to support an annulment so long as it came from the Pope. When it became public knowledge that Henry had gone against the Pope and broken with the Church to marry Anne -- and refused to return to Catherine even when the Pope ruled in Catherine's favour -- that's when I think More's mind began to harden against taking the Oath, and why he also believed the annulment to be invalid. That's as much as I know about it -- could anyone else clarify the matter? FoxOfBerlin (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Poor sourcing
Ackroyd's biography gets a large number of notes; but I've read it, and in my opinion, it's not reliable. Ackroyd takes the position that More was a saint, therefore, he cannot be guilty of some of the acts attributed to him. But that's not really biography; it's hagiography, and in many cases, when you check Ackroyd's sources, they turn out to be either not there (Ackroyd indulges quite freely in speculation in his book), or contradicted by other sources. I think the whole article needs a thorough going over, first by checking all the Ackroyd references. If an article in substance simply summarizes and reproduces the view of one writer, then it isn't (by definition) NPOV.Theonemacduff (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, Ackroyd isn't a Roman Catholic and never, at any time in the biography, seems to accept that Sir Thomas More is a "saint"in any literal sense -- it is doubtful whether or not Ackryod even believes in the concept of sainthood to begin with. Although I think Ackroyd's biography takes a generally respectful view of More, he is quite blunt in stating the facts regarding More's fiery debates with Luther and his persecution of what More saw as "heresy". I don't know why you get the impression that Ackroyd thinks More isn't "guilty of some of the acts attributed to him", unless you're referring to the claims that More tortured people, as spread about by John Foxe. More did deny all accusations of torture during his lifetime, and Foxe is hardly an impartial source himself as his "Book of Martyrs" was written many years after More's death and is rabidly anti-Catholic. So I am genuinely confused at to what makes you think Ackroyd is so biased or unreliable. He is a highly respected author and historian. But I do agree that there should be a better variety of sources. I don't currently have access to the biography of More by Richard Marius, which I think would be helpful, so it would be nice if someone could add more of Marius' information. And of course, if you can find some material from other academic historians to add to the article, that would be really great. This article has really struggled to come together in a lot of ways, and it has a long way to go. FoxOfBerlin (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Peter Ackroyd was educated at St. Benedict's, Ealing ..." (our bio) - he certainly is or was a Catholic, though not I imagine a very conventional one. I agree he should be treated with some caution, as essentially a "fictionalizer", not that I've read his More book. Johnbod (talk) 10:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've not read it either (though I'd like to), but where Ackroyd was educated is irrelevant. You don't have to be Catholic to go to a Catholic school. If this is the only reference for Ackroyd's catholicism, it's invalid. paxman (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ackroyd is a leading British intellectual with many awards and honors. His More biography won the James Tait Black Memorial Prize award--a top British award for scholarship. For a thorough review of the historiograny on More, see André Gushurst-Moore, "A Man for All Eras: Recent Books on Thomas More" Political Science Reviewer, 2004, Vol. 33, p90-143 [full text online] Gushurst-Moore praises Ackroyd's scholarship and writing style and explictly says it is NOT "hagiographic" (p 122) and "has no axe to grind" (p 124). Rjensen (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

No Controversy
My understanding is that among secular figures, humanists and academic Thomas More is an incredibly controversial figure, representative of much of the intellectual and religious oppression of the Middle Ages (to paraphrase Christopher Hitchens and others). As the former president of a University secular society, I can confirm there are universities around the world where his name in invoked when talking about intellectual oppression and at least one Australian university has declined to name a building after him.

These claims, of course, require sourcing before publication to Wikipedia, however, it begs the question: why no criticism or controversy on this page? Rotovia (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but did you even bother to read the entire article? There are references to authors critical of Thomas More.85.243.69.170 (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

G. K. Chesterton Quote
This is the exact quote of G. K. Chesterton about Thomas More: "May come to be counted the greatest Englishman, or at least the greatest historical character in English History." It is taken from "The New Encyclopedia Britannica", Micropedia, vol. 8, 1995.Mistico (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Opinion masquerading as fact
The opening section states "In 1535, he was tried for treason, convicted on perjured testimony, and beheaded." Is this not merely opinion (of the truthfulness of the testimony of Richard Rich)?

There are a fair few other references of this ilk scattered around e.g. "However, the jury knew where their own best interests lay".

paxman (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * the "perjured testimony" bit is the consensus of the RS (reliable sources), it is not the opinion of a Wiki editor. Rjensen (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Titles and Honorifics (Saint vs Sir)
We seem to have a continuing sequence of people wanting to change the name of the article to "Saint Thomas More". My understanding is that articles about historical figures are named by the titles they had in life (that at some point someone might have used to describe them), and their canonization is mentioned separately. Does someone have available an official pointer to a policy for Wikipedia on the matter? The existing examples I can find show such a pattern (e.g., Thomas Aquinas), with only articles about people whose notability is purely canonical being named "Saint xxx" (e.g., Saint Joseph). Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 05:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've worked on a fair number of Saint-related articles, and generally the way it's handled is that the article title is of the name without the honorific, but then the full title can be in the top of the infobox. Examples: John of the Cross, Raphael Kalinowski. See also WikiProject Saints/Style Guidelines. --Elonka 05:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that references Naming conventions (names and titles), which no longer exists. It redirects to Royalty and Nobility. The quote from there makes sense, but I can no longer find the original context. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The objections are also to the article beginning "Sir..." not "Saint..." and, in my case, to having an honorifics line at the top of the infobox that gave "The Right Honourable" but not Saint, which is simply silly. It should have Saint, or both as I added, or just be removed, as the cruft it is. If we are getting into matters of precedence Saints obviously outrank knights, though I don't see why the two can't be combined. Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you come up with a reference of Thomas More ever being referenced as "The Right Honourable Saint Sir Thomas More"? I've only seen two styles - "Saint Thomas More" (where evidently "Saint" makes all other styles irrelevant) and the various styles he used in life. I've never seen them combined. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably not; I think you'd have difficulty referencing "The Right Honourable Sir Thomas More" in any case. Johnbod (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like "The Right Honourable Sir" is fairly common: John A. Macdonald, Wilfrid Laurier, William Thomas White, ... I note that "Sir" seems to be placed in the name, not as an honorific. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course it is, but for More specifically? Johnbod (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure - http://www.oxford-shakespeare.com/Chancery/C_1-685-22.pdf, page 3. An interesting search in Australia's library shows the dichotomy - referred to as either Saint or T.R.H.S: http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/5518819 . Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * IMHO the best option is simply to work out a local consensus here. I'm in favour of retaining the present arrangement in the lead, with no view on the infobox. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 20:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure when the honorific even came into use. Has anyone got a reference to its use at the time of Henry VIII or earlier? Dabbler (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Follow-up to my immediately previous comment. I did some searching around and found evidence that More actually was addressed as the Right Honorable Sir Thomas More in various documents quoted in later books. Dabbler (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well my main point was that it was ridiculous to have "Right Honorable" in the infobox but not Saint, so I propose to remove the crufty line altogether - most biographies don't have it. Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Disagree. See e.g., John A. Macdonald, Wilfrid Laurier, William Thomas White. It's hyper-formal usage, but it does get used in formal documents and when high personages get announced. The point I was trying to make is that it made no sense to mix the style used in life with posthumous designations which are almost always used stand-alone. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is very common on British and Commonwealth political and government figures (or officeholders as they are described in the infobox) to have the Right Honorable honorific at the top of the infobox, though it is less common for Tudor figures possibly becasue so many of them were enobled than contemporary politicians. More was known as Sir Thomas during his life and the next few centuries, only becoming a Saint in 1935 more than 400 years after his death, so Sir is the most appropriate primary usage in the officeholder infobox in use. After all More wasn`t an officeholder because he was a saint. Dabbler (talk) 11:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Consistent capitalisation
Over time, inconsistencies have appeared in the article. In cleaning these up, I've adopted the OUP standards. I.e., generic king or kings, pope or popes, etc, is l.c.; King Henry and Pope Leo (title) take cap inits; "the King" and "the Pope" take the cap init only when the referent is understood to be a specific king or pope. Sometimes, where the distinction is blurred, I have reworded, e.g., "the power of the pope" to "papal power", making it more clear that the term is generic. The Bible is capitalised, but not "biblical". I follow Hart's Rules in other cases, e.g., "(Lord) Chancellor", but "chancellorship". Questionable capitalisation within quotes is, of course, not changed. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 04:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Reduced justification for 'Expert' template
An itemised 'expert required' template was placed in the section Campaign against the Reformation by 1ForTheMoney (talk) on 13 January 2010. This followed the action of IP editor 58.163.110.145 (talk) who inserted a cite check template on 12 January 2010, and IP editor 81.193.189.85 (talk) who boosted that to three templates on the next day. This dominant request has been present and unanswered for over two years.

There was some minimal discussion at the time, mainly about alleged bias of writers including Foxe and Moynahan, but the 'Expert' template has done little other than, maybe, act as a sort of caution to editors. In any event, the article is by its nature a controversial one which brings out strong POV on at least two adversarial fronts, each of which has its 'experts'. Absence of more recent discussion on the issues would indicate that it's time to dispense with the template. However, I would still like to see greater rigour in citing some of the statements in this article. If there is continuing concern, since some of the sources can readily be assumed to be less than impartial, it might also be useful to have a section on Historiography of sources through which the detached reader could perceive something of the affiliations of these writers. Alternatively, such affiliations could be footnoted in the References section. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, all I was doing was replacing a deprecated template. I have no opinion on it whatsoever, but if there's no good reason for tagging then I encourage its removal. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The Expert tag was added as a way to dissuade the attempted bias the long disappeared anonymous user was trying to give to that part of the article. I agree that the tag is not needed anymore.Mistico (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism
Someone has vandalized this article and I have tried to undo the revisions but can not at this time. Someone please address and follow up with the IP address responsible. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writetoronny (talk • contribs) 21:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Restored to yesterday's version. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's avoid trying to guess what the Pope meant to say
User:Tlhslobus, I disagree with this edit. You're making an analysis of a primary source which is inappropriate in my opinion. Wikipedia's goal is not for you to express the truth as you see it. I think removing this editorializing would be best. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 17:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Fair point, but the problem was and is how should the matter be phrased. It seems to me that the publicly stated view of the Pope on the issue on such an occasion is relevant and deserves a mention. I tried to word the introducing of his view as best I could, but quite likely somebody else can do better. Meanwhile I've tried to reword it in the light of your criticism (though I fear I may have made the text unnecessarily anodyne in the process, but perhaps that can't be helped). If you feel you can find some better wording instead, please feel free to do so. Tlhslobus (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, your corresponding edit was perfect. I think anodyne is a good goal in a collaborative project. I can see the point you were trying to make (about the persecution of heretics) and I'm sure we can find some scholarly secondary sources that will better explain the issue with St. Thomas More.  Thanks again for making that revision.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words. Tlhslobus (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)