Talk:Thomas More/Archive 4

One-sided and completely inappropriate content
I note that a concerted effort has been made to prevent my bid to edit the last paragraph of the section on More's Campaign Against The Reformation. This paragraph is entirely opinionated and riddled with demonstrable bias, and as such has no place in Wikipedia. It violates the core principle of Neutral Point Of View more blatantly than any other historical article I've read. Nor do I believe that the function of the talk page is to defend the indefensible (we're agreed, presumably, that using Wikipedia as a vehicle for promulgating one's own opinions is indefensible, right?). However, life being short, I do not propose to engage in an endless reverting war on this subject. If those who insist on preserving this opinionated content genuinely want a protracted discussion about this then I will (wearily and reluctantly) point out the bias line-by-line but it would perhaps be quicker if the interested parties could perhaps re-read the relevant section in an honest way and then "look me in the eye" (metaphorically!) and try and tell me that the content is unbiased, fair and all the things that (I hope) we all want Wikipedia to be.

In short, could those who reverted my edit to this section please consult their conscience and then tell me whether or not the paragraph in question is biased. If you could start with a simple yes or no to that question, it would perhaps make this discussion proceed more quickly. Many thanks. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 04:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I reverted your edit because I do indeed think the applicable section is unbiased. You've stated that you disagree with perceived bias in that paragraph. Do you have sources that address either this point of view or Marius's book as a reference?  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 05:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there are many sources and if you absolutely insist I'll dig them up tomorrow (it's late here) but in the meantime, and in a last-ditch bid to prevent this discussion dragging on far longer than it should, please consider the following. The previous paragraph begins by stating what I think we all agree on - that historians disagree about More's actions as chancellor - and then gives a brief summary of the positions of both sides. Then we have a 244 word paragraph that is entirely - entirely - concerned with exonerating More on every charge, and that devotes NOT ONE SINGLE WORD to the other perspective (a perspective that had been acknowledged as recently as the previous paragraph). You can't seriously think that that's unbiased? Seriously Chris, please take a moment to reflect on this in good faith. Why have one paragraph that gives both sides and then another that gives only one side? One solution would be to balance the second paragraph, which would involve making it longer (and, as others have noticed, this section is already becoming bloated) but the quicker and easier option is simply to acknowledge that the "historians are divided" paragraph has already addressed this contentious point, and leave it at that. Especially given the objectionable nature of some of the views expressed (eg the suggestion that executing people for their beliefs is somehow OK because More believed it was for the greater good). Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 05:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, I had hoped to avoid having to spend time laboriously pointing out something that would perhaps seem obvious to any fair-minded reader but evidently that's what's required, so here goes. Apologies in advance for the length of this - the paragraph in question packs a lot of bias and unverified speculation into its 244 words. Perhaps, after considering the length of the arguments below, it will become clearer why I simply decided that the paragraph was beyond salvation and didn't even merit discussion on the talk page. As I said, life is short. Regarding the request for sources to substantiate the opposite POV to that championed in the paragraph in question, I remain prepared to provide them if need be but it occurs to me that that misses the point - the problem with the paragraph is not so much that it is unbalanced but that such a clear example of opinionated content ever made its way into Wikipedia in the first place. As such, deletion seems a much cleaner and quicker solution than the messy business of balancing such an unremittingly biased POV. But that's another discussion. In the meantime, here are the problems with the paragraph as it currently stands:

1. To begin with a general point, the paragraph is, by its own admission, an attempt to provide contemporary "context" (which in this case seems to mean mitigation) for More's actions in executing dissenters. As such the paragraph is entirely superfluous, as precisely the same point had been made in the paragraph previously (in which Peter Ackroyd places More's actions within the context of the period). For this reason alone, the paragraph should be deleted.

2. Going into more detail, the first sentence says that More's actions "should" be seen in the context of the claim that More was trying to prevent "100,000 deaths". Why "should" they be seen in such a context? The minute a Wikipedia article starts telling its readers what they "should" do, it begins to lose validity. What's more, no reference is provided to substantiate this assertion that context of a mitigating nature "should" be provided. Indeed, this claim arguably violates not just one but all three of Wikipedia's core principles. It's certainly unverified, it is clearly not a neutral POV and it's arguably original material.

3. What's more, it is highly contentious and, many would feel, objectionable to put so much emphasis on "context" (or, more properly, mitigation masquerading as context) in circumstances like this. Providing unreferenced context (ie cover) for what many regard as murder is inflammatory to the numerous people who believe that More's actions were abhorrent. (Especially when referenced context has already been provided in the paragraph before.) One could equally provide "context" for Osama Bin Laden's actions (like More, he was a devoutly religious person who believed he was doing God's work). If anyone wants to provide such a context for Bin Laden's actions, be my guest - let me know how you get on. Of more immediate relevance to this article, one could provide "context" for Henry's part in More's own execution (Henry believed in the Divine Right of Kings). However, I note that no such context is provided. (If the article is in the business of supplying "context" to the decision to execute people, it should be applied even-handedly). Apart from anything else, this is an article about events in a medieval court - readers are perfectly capable of putting those events in the context that (as this paragraph essentially argues) "people did things differently back then". Supplying extra and unsubstantiated "context" (over and above the referenced context already provided in the previous paragraph) demonstrably skews the content of the article.

4. Why is it "clear" that the "conservatives" were trying to prevent consequences such as eternal agony in Hell? It is entirely speculative that the supplied reference (a prayer by More) explains his actions (on the contrary, the line "to think my worst enemies my best friends" would appear to make this particular source singularly ill-suited as an explanation for More's decision to execute dissenters). If pure speculation is to drive this article then one might equally suggest any number of other motives for More's behaviour, such as a desire to crush political and ecclesiastical rivals, or, as some contemporary and modern sources suggest, simple sadism on More's part. (More's own comment on Tewkesbury's execution suggests a strong sadistic streak.) The use of the word "clearly" is blatant editorialising. And who says that the concept of Hell is "less easily understood" by modern readers? (No one, apparently. As usual, no source is provided for this wholly speculative claim.) One could equally argue that modern readers, to whom cinematic depictions of Hell are available (along with powerful modern literary descriptions such as that in Joyce's Portrait of the Artist), are more capable of understanding this than More's peers. Again, therefore, the "less easily understood" assertion is shameless editorialising, and an apparent attempt to shoe-horn in yet more mitigation for More's actions.

5. Perhaps most ludicrously of all, the paragraph then indulges in utterly unsubstantiated counterfactual speculation, implying that if More's attempt to suppress the English Reformation had succeeded, lives might have been saved. Apart from the obvious point that his attempt did not succeed, any attempt to theorise what might have happened if he had succeeded is pure guesswork. (And guesswork that is - yet again - completely unsupported by any source). One might equally argue (as many have) that if the English Reformation had not happened, Britain and the world would not have made the sort of technological and sociological progress that they did make. As such, it is perfectly possible that, had More succeeded, many more lives would have been lost than saved. In short, it is preposterous for a supposedly neutral and factual article to wallow in such blatant conjecture. And, crucially, like everything else in the paragraph, it is conjuecture with an agenda - conjecture that TENDS TO MITIGATE MORE'S ACTIONS. It doesn't even pretend to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines on NPOV.

6. The paragraph finishes by quoting the Pope's view of More. Are we seriously suggesting that the Pope can even remotely be considered to have a disinterested opinion on one of his Church's saints?! (Let alone one who acted as a henchman in what many believe to be one of the Church's darkest chapters.) Given that the Church canonised More (literally), one might suggest that the Pope is in fact the last person on Earth to whom one might turn for a balanced assessment of More's actions. Now there, surely, is a moment for a bit of "context"! Better still, his opinion on this subject should be removed as he is subject to a conflict of interest and as such is - on this matter - a textbook example of a questionable source.

7. Above all, the problem with the paragraph in question is that it contains not one word to challenge the uninterrupted flow of excuses for More's actions. At no point in the entire paragraph is there any attempt to point out to the uninitiated reader that other opinions of More's actions exist. It is a total abdication of our responsibility as Wikipedia editors to be neutral.

In short, it is my opinion that the paragraph in question is a disgrace to the standards that I think all of us are sincerely trying to uphold in Wikipedia. Whether or not that opinion is shared by others I can't say, but either way what is clear is that the paragraph blatantly and repeatedly violates at least two of Wikipedia's core principles. As such it should either be extensively rewritten and rebalanced, or (to save everyone further time and effort) deleted in its entirety. Already the section on More's Campaign Against the Reformation is disproportionately long, so if these arguments are to be pursued then perhaps the best place would be in a new article. In the meantime, the paragraph as it stands is totally unsatisfactory, for the reasons outlined at length above. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't say it seems too bad to me, except in rather assuming that More actually controlled policy, which is pretty unlikely - that was Henry, for whom religious dissidence was rebellion (as for most rulers, but he took it personally). More "voss just following orders", as they say. The views of better historians would be helpful. Johnbod (talk) 01:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks John but, with respect, it sounds like you're not particularly well acquainted with this aspect of More's life. If ever anyone took to the task of "just following orders" with passion and zeal, it was More. His various utterances on the subject of what to do with "heretics", and in particular the almost obsessive fervour with which he hunted Tyndale, demonstrate that on this issue More was a man who led rather than followed. Besides, if I understand your point correctly, you appear to be saying that the paragraph in question should provide yet more mitigation for More's actions. If so, you either haven't read what I wrote or are dismissing it in its entirety. (If the latter, some indication of why you dismiss it - ie some engagement with the points I made - would be appreciated.)

But thank you for reminding me that I forgot to mention the key point, which I have now added (Point 7 above). Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well enough, but he was just part of the Homeland Security of the day, chasing someone he thought was pushing deliberately misleading translations of the Bible, and who was widely regarded as a significant threat to the peace of the realm. Calling it "almost obsessive fervour" seems well over the top, and the evidence it was More pushing that is I think weak. He was used as a court polemicist and was never restrained in in his statements - that wasn't his job. Neither Ackroyd nor the American are the best RS available, and we should use better. Johnbod (talk) 01:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, your opinion appears to fly in the face of the one incontrovertible thing that we do know about More, namely that - in fairness to him - he was prepared to die rather than countenance any form of what he saw as heresy. (I presume you know how the story ends.) As such I can't think of a person who could LESS be accused of meekly following orders. Regarding his pursuit of Tyndale, I'm not the only one who thinks this was an absolute fixation of More's - "obsessive ferocity" is the phrase I recall from Moynahan's book. Anyway, it's hard to imagine anyone in Henry's reign who demonstrated more determination to stand up to him (and on a point that was of far more importance to Henry, and one that was therefore far more likely to get More into mortal danger). As such, your view seems somewhat perverse, to put it mildly. Nonetheless, you're obviously entitled to it, and I'm more than prepared to agree to disagree. But none of that engages with the central point that the paragraph in question is utterly one-sided. Do you dispute that the points in the paragraph that I highlight above all serve to justify or at the very least "explain" More's actions? Can you find anything in the paragraph to balance this mitigating "context"? Because I certainly can't. Therefore, whilst I fully respect the position you've outlined, it doesn't at all address the issue under discussion here. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I notice that not a single secondary reliable source has been mentioned in this entire section, except a vague reference once. Perhaps it is time to list some to support various claims, preferably including page numbers, after all we all know that it is the sources that matters, Wikipedia editors are not considered reliable sources for whatever interpretation is proposed. --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * tldr. Perhaps you should learn about Wikipedia before you attempt further edits.  It is not the job of editors to philosophize about St. Thomas More.  It is our job to assemble sources and regurgitate their analyses.  Please bring your reliable sources if you want to challenge that paragraph.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 06:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm baffled by the last two posts. They appear to completely misunderstand what I'm saying. Firstly, I haven't "philosophized" about More, in fact I haven't added a single word to the article. Nor am I proposing to. I'm proposing to DELETE material, because the material in question is opinionated and poorly sourced (or not sourced at all). So I can't possibly be introducing original material. I'm at a loss as to how that misconception arose but it's demonstrably untrue and I hope we can move on from it. The same applies to Saddhiyama's point - I'm not proposing to say anything at all about More. There are sources to substantiate the opinion that More's actions were reprehensible but, as stated above, my proposal is not to enlarge the article but to reduce it, specifically by removing opinions which themselves are poorly-sourced or not sourced at all. For example, the normative statement that More's actions "should" be placed in a mitigating context is not sourced. Similarly, no source is provided to substantiate the opinion that More was trying to "prevent other supposed ills", let alone that he was "clearly" trying to do so, and no source is provided to substantiate the opinion that said ills are "less easily understood by our modern secular and ecumenical world". This is pure speculation, with absolutely no grounding in any external source. In fact it's precisely because the paragraph indulges in so much "philosophizing" and original material that it should be removed.

Perhaps my earlier argument is unclear so let me rephrase the main points, in the hope of bringing this to some sort of conclusion. The paragraph in question makes multiple statements that are opinionated and/or totally unsourced. Even the minority of statements that are "referenced" rely on sources that are either unsatisfactory or used in ways that blatantly contravene Wikipedia's guidelines. One of the three sources is quoted incorrectly (Marius does NOT say that More "openly" blamed Luther's writings for the Peasant's Revolt, and more importantly the implication that Marius is trying to mitigate More's persecution of reformers is a grotesque distortion of his book, as anyone who has read it will know). A second source is used in connection with an opinionated and sweeping assertion which it doesn't substantiate (that "the modern Catholic view" of More's actions is "probably" best expressed by a selectively chosen extract from a particular papal statement) and in any case is of questionable neutrality (the Pope's view of the behaviour of one of his saints during the Reformation is akin to Bill Gates's view of Microsoft's business practices in the 1990s). And the third - the prayer - doesn't even begin to substantiate the stated opinion, and indeed barely even seems to relate to it. The prayer makes no mention whatsoever of More's views regarding the Reformation (the topic supposedly under discussion), and any attempt to connect the two is pure conjecture. Certainly, no source is cited to support interpreting the prayer in this speculative manner. Wikipedia's guidelines clearly state that references should "support content" - none of the three references do so, and at least one supports the opposite view.

Most importantly of all, the paragraph is entirely one-sided, and makes no reference to the widely-held view (including by Marius himself) that More's persecution of reformers was reprehensible. And it indulges in bizarre counter-factual speculation (which, again, is completely unsourced). In the several weeks since I raised those points, none of them has been challenged. If they can be challenged (eg if someone can explain what unreferenced counter-factual speculation is doing in a Wikipedia article), I'd be very interested to hear that case. If not, can we please amend the article so that it meets Wikipedia's guidelines. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You made three points that I'd like to address:
 * 1) "Marius does NOT say that More "openly" blamed Luther's writings for the Peasant's Revolt" Sure he does. ""In England, More and the others learned of the Peasants’ Revolt with shuddering horror. They saw it as a direct consequence of Luther’s doctrines and a confirmation of their conviction that the advent of Lutheranism in England would bring violence and revolution. In a royal proclamation, Henry VIII declared that Martin Luther was the cause of all the slaughter.""

- Richard Marius


 * 1) "A second source is used in connection with an opinionated and sweeping assertion which it doesn't substantiate (that "the modern Catholic view" of More's actions is "probably" best expressed by a selectively chosen extract from a particular papal statement) and in any case is of questionable neutrality..." I can see your point here. The quote from the Pope is identified as such, so it makes the reader aware of potential bias.  If you don't like the words "modern Catholic attitude on the issue was probably best expressed..." then it can be changed to something more like during More's canonization ceremony, the Pope said... and leave it at that.
 * 2) "the prayer - doesn't even begin to substantiate the stated opinion, and indeed barely even seems to relate to it. The prayer makes no mention whatsoever of More's views regarding the Reformation (the topic supposedly under discussion), and any attempt to connect the two is pure conjecture." I'll agree to that. I read the prayer and it doesn't seem to indicate what the paragraph implies.
 * I can agree that we can massage the text to elucidate less on what the reader "should" conclude about the context and perhaps only communicate what the sources wrote about the context. At no point have I accused you of publishing original research. I'm accusing you of deleting referenced material based solely on your own perceptions, which is demonstrably true.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 03:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. You did accuse me of attempting to publish original research but I've dealt with that on your talk page.

Re: the More article, I think we're making progress. We agree that the prayer doesn't indicate what the paragraph implies. We agree that the text accompanying the Pope's quote should be amended along the lines you suggest. We agree that it's inappropriate to be spouting opinions about what the reader "should" think.

Where we still seem to disagree is regarding Marius. I think I can now see where the confusion lies. You've asked me to provide academic sources to challenge Marius. The whole point is that I'm NOT challenging him! I agree with him! I've read his biography very closely and, for the record, I think it's excellent. My whole point is that the paragraph I'm attempting to amend is MIS-quoting Marius, and not merely misquoting but entirely misrepresenting his attitude to More's campaign against the Reformation (the topic supposedly under discussion in the paragraph). Marius is scathing about this aspect of More's life. The paragraph as currently written implies that Marius thought More was trying to save lives, when in fact what Marius actually states is that More took great relish in ending them.

I'll get back to Marius in a moment but the same applies to the rest of the paragraph. I am not challenging any sources, academic or otherwise. I'm saying that THERE ARE NO SOURCES for most of what is being claimed, and that such sources as there are are inappropriately used or simply don't say what the paragraph claims they say. I've no problem with the sources (where there are sources); it's the way the sources are being used that I object to. In a nutshell, I'm the guy who's on the side of the sources. It's the person who wrote the paragraph in the first place who seems to have a total disregard for sources.

Going back to Marius, with all due respect, he simply does not say that More "openly" blamed Luther's writings for the revolt. There is a reason why I put quotation marks round the word "openly", both on this occasion and previously, and that is because Marius does not use that word - as the extract that you yourself cited makes clear. Henry VIII blamed Luther, and Marius OPINES that More did so too but, having read Marius closely, he does not say that More specifically expressed said view, much less that he did so "openly". In short, Marius is speculating. He's fully entitled to do so, and Wikipedians are entitled to quote him, but only if he is quoted accurately. What's more, he should be quoted in context, and anyone who has read the extracts in full, or indeed the rest of Marius's book, will find it hard to reconcile the paragraph's repeated contention (that More executed reformers in a bid to SAVE lives) with what Marius actually says.

In short, I'd have no problem with that sentence if it read, "More's biographer Richard Marius believes that More blamed Luther for the deaths in Germany, but Marius does not see that as an excuse for More's behaviour; on the contrary, Marius sees More's attitude to the reformers as 'vindictive', 'intolerant', 'authoritarian' and motivated by a desire to 'exterminate' them." But as you know, it says something very different.

Furthermore, the paragraph as it stands implies that More HIMSELF stated that Luther's writings caused the deaths. This is totally misleading. It's only if you click on the link that you discover that More himself didn't say that.

To sum up, the paragraph makes at least seven claims. Only three of them are sourced. One of those sources does not substantiate its claim (we agree there). One of those sources is quoted in a way that needs to be re-written (we agree there too). And the last one (Marius), is at the very least misquoted, and at worst is used to advance an argument that is the polar opposite of that advanced in the source itself.

Lastly, can we once and for all agree that there is absolutely no place for the counterfactual gibberish about what might have happened if More had been successful in his bid to stamp out the Reformation. Firstly it is unsourced, and for that reason alone should have been deleted long ago. Secondly it is ludicrously unencyclopedic (what on earth is this speculation doing in Wikipedia?). And thirdly, it is highly objectionable. To illustrate why, imagine how African-Americans would react if the same sentence appeared in the article about Martin Luther King's assassination, only with word "reformation" changed to "civil rights" and the words "Protestant" and "Catholic" changed to "black" and "white".

Here's how it would read: "It seems unlikely that white people and black people could ever easily agree on how many eventually died in America as a result of the Civil Rights legislation that King's assassin was unsuccessfully trying to prevent, and whether or not this cost could be justified by arguable offsetting benefits."

Such a statement would cause riots, and understandably so. So why are precisely the same sentiments allowable in the Thomas More article? Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The article's statement has not caused riots, and is unlikely to do so, presumably because the sentiments are not 'precisely the same', once the context is taken into account. Whether fairly or otherwise, the English Reformation is widely believed by many to have resulted in large numbers of deaths, including More's own death, although it would be almost impossible for everybody to agree on how many deaths, etc. (Incidentally, although this may or may not be slightly beside the point, More and others also believed, rightly or wrongly, that the German Reformation had already caused huge numbers of deaths in the German Peasants' Revolt, and were at least partly motivated by a desire to prevent the same happening in England). There is no similar widespread belief regarding Civil Rights legislation causing large numbers of deaths. The deaths carried out under More's Chancellorship were legal executions of the kind which had been standard throughout Europe for centuries, and were thus approved of by a substantial proportion of 'mainstream' Europe at the time. The assassination of King was an illegal murder condemned by all sections of mainstream society at the time. More did not personally kill anybody, but was one of a number of people encouraging the courts to apply what was then the law of the land. King's assassin personally killed King, an act completely contrary to what was then the law of the land. A man is said to be entitled to be judged by the standards of his times, and More's behaviour is very much in accordance with the standards of his times, while the behaviour of King's assassin is not. The executions in More's day happened a very long time ago in a completely different climate of opinion. King's assassination occured well within living memory (including my own memory) in a climate of opinion very similar to our own. More is a canonised Saint in both the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England (which the English Reformation created). King's assassin is not similarly honoured by both black and white mainstream organisations (unless somebody wants to claim that the Ku Klux Klan is mainstream and both black and white).


 * I should perhaps add that I am saying all this despite the facts that I stopped being a Christian over 40 years ago, that I am broadly sympathetic to the English and other Reformations (which ultimately helped lead to my being free to stop being a Christian, albeit after religious Wars that caused great suffering on all sides for decades or centuries, with today's religious tolerance arising mainly as a reaction to all that suffering), and that I would expect to be burned at the stake for my views if I expressed them in More's England, and that the same fate might have befallen other people I love.


 * The paragraph to which you have been objecting (as well as the last sentence of the preceding paragraph) were added by me last May in an attempt to present an explanation of why many disagree with the Marius quote in the preceding paragraph (which back in May appeared as a sort of conclusion to the section, a conclusion which I expect misrepresents the majority of so called 'reliable sources' on the issue). It is largely based on my recollection of one or more scholarly works responding to similar criticism of More, which I read many years ago, and which I would have included if I could remember their name(s) or if the relevant snippets could have been quickly found online (instead I had to make do with what I could find, on the basis that Wikipedia is a work in progress, while expecting that others would in due course find better sources). Given More's canonisation by both Catholic and Anglican churches, it should be obvious that some such quotes are available (and I have every reason to expect that they are actually the 'standard' view of the issue among so-called 'reliable sources', both because of the canonisations, and because of the common view among historians that a man is entitled to be judged by the standards of his time), but I don't have the energy or inclination to go chasing for them through various libraries. An alternative might be to get rid of both the Marius quote and the stuff I added to try to balance that quote, but I don't think that would improve the article. I think a better approach would be to try to improve the sourcing for the response to Marius, and then reword the response in the light of such sources once found. But somebody other than me would probably have to do the work, as I'm not sufficiently interested to bother - apart from anything else, I don't much like More, partly because I find it hard to much like somebody who, as already mentioned, would have had me and many people I love burned at the stake, and also because I vaguely resent being taken in long ago by the whitewashing propaganda of the movie 'A man for all seasons', though that's hardly More's fault, and I also dislike him because of my own views concerning the relationship between his Utopia and the Amerindian Holocaust, but I doubt that my views on that would find any support in 'Reliable Sources' (but I still think Marius's view is both over the top, and probably a minority view among 'reliable sources').


 * On the other hand I shouldn't have to do the work, because there should be plenty of Catholic editors out there who should be willing and able to go chasing the relevant sources, as a reply to Marius remains needed, but ideally needs to be improved as already mentioned above. But as for me, it's probably a mistake on my part to have allowed myself to get re-involved by writing this answer to you, and I hope to try and stay out of the remainder of the discussion, though I'm not entirely sure that I'll be sensible enough to do so. Tlhslobus (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for your reply. I very much appreciate your sincere effort to resolve this issue. I think your post raises some new questions, which means that this will drag on still further, but I have no doubt at all that you genuinely wish to improve the article. That comes across very clearly in what you write.

I think the most helpful thing is your acknowledgement of what motivated you to write the paragraph in the first place. I very much appreciate your candour on this point. It makes matters much clearer. It has always seemed to me that the paragraph in question was written with an agenda in mind, and what you say seems to confirm that. Presumably, you would argue that your agenda is the "correct" one, which is where we'd have to differ, but I'm grateful for your confirmation that that there was an agenda in the first place, and your explanation of what it was.

Leaving aside for a moment the rights and wrongs of your agenda, the most pressing question is whether you've gone about implementing it in the right way. My own view is that, with all due respect to the obvious sincerity of your efforts, you have clearly gone about it the wrong way.

You state that your intention was to "balance" what Marius wrote, and you go on to suggest that he's not one of the sources that are, in your opinion, "reliable". You further state that you're "not sufficiently interested to bother" to find other sources to back that opinion up. I think that's where you're going wrong. If you don't want to find sources to substantiate your opinion I would question whether it's appropriate to alter the article. Especially not if you're altering it based purely on your own personal viewpoint (a view that itself is, as you also say, based on a distant recollection).

You're entitled to disagree with Marius but the only academic source you've found to challenge him is ... Marius himself. If you think he's not reliable, it's somewhat baffling that you've cited him. And even then you've misquoted him, and what's more you've (no doubt inadvertently) implied that the quote in your source is from Thomas More himself.

And your assumption that More's sainthood somehow means that Marius is at odds with the "standard" view among historians simply doesn't follow. There are plenty of saints whose lives, or aspects thereof, have been roundly condemned by historians. This has been the case since St Ambrose in the 4th century, now perhaps best known for his antisemitic rants, up until at least as recently as Padre Pio, whose canonisation hasn't stopped many observers (apparently including at least one pope) from regarding him as a total fraud. As for your point that More is also an Anglican saint, I would point you in the direction of the Archbishop of Canterbury's remarks about More in 2006, when he said that his church had canonised More for everything he did EXCEPT his persecution of reformers. (Don't forget, the section of the More article we're trying to edit is about More's persecution of reformers, not the other aspects of his life.)

I think your fundamental impulse - to balance the article - is reasonable and one we all share, but I would question whether you've made the article more or less balanced. There are (broadly speaking) two views on Thomas More's persecution of the reformers: one holds that More was merely doing what any man in his position in those days would have done; the other holds that he was a book-burning zealot who derived personal satisfaction from having reformers executed. Both those views are expressed in the preceding paragraph. Your paragraph only expresses one of those views. The view you're expressing (that "a man is entitled to be judged by the standards of his time") has already been expressed, very clearly, with the reference to Ackroyd above. By expressing that view again, this time without any reference to the opposite point of view, and by further adding other (mostly unsourced) mitigating factors for More's behaviour, you're unbalancing what was previously balanced.

As a footnote to the question of balance, I'd note that the rest of the article is largely devoted to eulogising More's actions (with some justification - I think we all admire his willingness to die for his principles, even those of us who don't share those principles). So it seems doubly important to ensure that the one section of the article that examines an aspect of More's life that has drawn criticism should give due weight to that criticism.

With regard to the counterfactual stuff, again we should perhaps agree to differ whether the parallel between More and King's assassin is appropriate. What I meant by "precisely the same" is that the principle (of speculating about whether a violent attempt to suppress social change might, had it been successful, actually have saved lives) is identical. Which it undeniably is. Where of course you're right is that the context is different, one being an event within living memory, the other being an event that happened centuries ago that, thankfully, no longer arouses riotous behaviour. I never thought otherwise, and if I gave the impression that I did then I'm sorry.

I'm more than happy to play the counterfactual game, as long as we agree that it's pure speculation and has no place in Wikipedia. The article is supposed to be a fact-based assessment of what happened, not conjecture about what might have happened if things had turned out differently. For what it's worth, my own view is that it's highly debatable that More's persecution of dissidents saved lives. All the evidence seems to me to point the other way. Eg you mention your theory that More's attempt to crush the English Reformation was motivated by a desire to avoid a repeat in England of the German peasants' revolt. The glaring flaw in that theory is that there was no repeat in England of the German revolt. The only peasants' revolt in England happened two centuries earlier, at at time when More's beloved Catholic Church was unchallenged.

Not only was there no revolt, it seems to me that the English Reformation was a relatively peaceful affair. For example, its final consolidation (at least in political terms) was in 1688, which is known, with considerable justification, as the "Bloodless Revolution". Furthermore, the most significant outbreak of religious killings to follow the Reformation in England (apart, of course, from More's own campaign of violent suppression) were the executions that took place in the reign of Queen Mary, which of course were, like More's, an attempt to SUPPRESS the Reformation. So the suggestion in your paragraph, namely that future deaths were "as an arguable result of the Reformation", is completely back to front. You appear to be placing responsibility for the deaths on those who were killed, rather than on those who did the killing. Perhaps that might help you to see why I find that line of reasoning somewhat objectionable.

But it seems pointless to debate this because, like I say, counterfactual history (especially unsourced counterfactual history) surely has no place in this article. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * And yet, is ready to write 10,000 words of debate about it. I had intended to let this issue drop but Brooklyn Eagle thought it wise to incite my response.


 * Brooklyn Eagle points out 's admission that he inserted the segment from Marius but declines to perform further research on this issue of executions of heretics. Wikipedia is a volunteer effort so I don't blame anyone for indicating they've had enough, although I don't think it's fair to point at Catholic Wikipedia editors to be the parties chiefly responsible for defending one of their saints. Brooklyn Eagle also points (on my talk page) to this deletion by, questioning why I didn't revert that edit as I had reverted him. I noticed Spoonkymonkey's ill-advised edit but I didn't revert it because I didn't want to get into another talk page battle as I had with you.  At this point I'm content to revert vandalism and leave the content wars to someone else, at least until I have time and better sourcing.  Brooklyn Eagle made the statement I look forward to you delivering the same lecture to him as you did to me. I'm not sure if that was meant for Tlhslobus or for Spoonkymonkey but I'm not in the habit of giving lectures.  I'm making an honest effort to make a better encyclopedia.  Meanwhile, Brooklyn Eagle continues to expound on their theories without a single academic source cited.  I made a point by point critique (see above) and I agreed in some cases where the sourcing didn't support the text.  My biggest critiques addressed the facts that one, we can't just cut sourced material without having academic reason and two, Brooklyn Eagle has yet to provide a single source.  I don't think I've ever seen so many words in one assemblage that said absolutely nothing.  This hurts my head almost as much as the last time I read Chomsky.


 * For example, this foolishness: Eg you mention your theory that More's attempt to crush the English Reformation was motivated by a desire to avoid a repeat in England of the German peasants' revolt. The glaring flaw in that theory is that there was no repeat in England of the German revolt. Well, Brooklyn Eagle, there wasn't another Peasants' Revolt because More and company executed the troublemakers. More gleefully executed Protestants to maintain order, which he did successfully.  Nobody (not even Marius) is saying that executing Protestants is a good thing on balance, just explaining why More is seen by some as a saint despite everything else.  You've assembled this rant against More on the basis of a quote from Marius that you have only your own opinion for credibility.  Go find a reputable source and then make the change.


 * Finally, I don't want to be included in this debate anymore. Conduct like this is what's wrong with Wikipedia; why editors are being driven away.  I don't have the time or inclination to continually argue with partisans.  I took Catholic Church off my watchlist some time ago because of bickering. I may remove this article, too, simply because one editor with no academic references is lonely on Monday night.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 07:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I really don't want to re-involve myself, but as I feared, I have once again found myself stupidly unable to resist the temptation to make three comments regarding Brooklyn Eagle's latest contribution.

First, I did not intend to imply that Marius is not a so-called 'reliable source' (and as such I see no reason not to use him when he confirms that people like More were concerned about the German Peasant's Revolt), just that I expect he doesn't reflect the balance of so-called 'reliable sources' on the question of More's being some kind of near-genocidal monster as portrayed in the Marius quote, a balance which is what Wikipedia says we're supposed to be reflecting. My expectation may of course be mistaken, and it would involve an enormous amount of research in libraries to discover whether it was or was not, far more than any volunteer can reasonably be expected to undertake unless he is already fiercely pro-or-anti-More which would itself automatically call his/her conclusions into questions. That is presumably a probably insoluble dilemma inherent in Wikipedia's own rules, and presumably to be worked around as best one can by devices like WP:IAR and WP:WORKINPROGRESS, as I tried to do back in May 2013 (whether successfully or not is for others to judge, although only one person seems to be persistently objecting). It is however unfortunate that the only citation I could find online for his fear of an English repeat of the Peasants Revolt was Marius, as this prevented me from starting the relevant sentence as I originally intended with something like 'More's defenders would say that ...', as clearly Marius is not a defender of More. Instead I simply put in the qualifier 'perhaps' to try to indicate that this was not something universally agreed. So it would perhaps help if somebody could find a less inconvenient source here than Marius (I know they exist as I read at least one a long time ago - that's how I know about his 'German' concerns; it may even be that it was Peter Ackroyd's book, though I can't be sure of that, and unfortunately his book has no online snippets). Afterthought: if I said 'reliable' here or in my previous post, that should be understood as just shorthand for 'so-called Reliable Sources'. Some of these are sometimes genuinely reliable for some purposes, but I rather doubt if anybody's views concerning the current issue can ever be genuinely reliable even in principle.

Second, your stated view that the English Reformation was a relatively peaceful affair ending in the 'Bloodless' events of 1688, with the 'most significant' bits being the killings of Protestants by More and 'Bloody Mary' is a view widely held by many Protestants. (Incidentally, saying 'most significant' instead of the shorter and more understandable 'worst' or 'bloodiest' or 'deadliest' seems unfortunate, as there is a risk that Catholics and others may misunderstand you and mistakenly think that you are implying that a small number of dead English Protestants is somehow 'more significant' than a larger number of dead non-English Catholics, which would presumably have been the view of many English people and Protestants at the time, with many Catholics and non-English people presumably also having the mirror-image view). Catholics (and perhaps especially Irish Catholics, as I used to be until about 40 years ago) would angrily differ with your interpretation, claiming that even in England far more Catholics died alongside More and in the subsequent Pilgrimage of Grace (which incidentally was arguably the English Catholic version of the German Peasants Revolt, a version that supposedly never happened) and its suppression than the number of Protestants killed under More and Mary, and that the vast majority of deaths (of both Catholics and Protestants) caused by the English Reformation occured outside England, notably in Ireland, where incidentally 'Bloodless' 1688 turned into a very bloody war from 1688 to 1692, which lead to the subsequent arguably deliberate impoverishment of the defeated Irish Catholics through the Penal Laws, arguably ultimately leading to more than a million deaths in several major Famines over the next century and a half. In Ireland, the mutual killing of Catholics and Protestants carried on intermittently from the 16th century right up to the present day, though with plenty of room for arguing over how much, if any, of this was ultimately the result of the English Reformation. It seems pretty self-evident that there is of course almost no possibility of Catholics, Protestants and others all agreeing on any of these conflicting interpretations, and my 'counterfactual' statement is merely trying to point this out, in what I think ought to be an uncontroversial statement of the 'bleeding obvious, once pointed out', except that clearly that does not seem to be how you see it. Of course More had no way of knowing how many deaths would be caused nor who would win, but he had every reason to fear that the number would be very large, and I expect most Catholics and some Protestants (but seemingly not all of them) and at least one non-Christian (me) would say that his fears seemingly proved well-founded, though I did not choose to spell this out explicitly in the article because I was trying to stay as neutral/NPOV as possible. Quite likely 'reliable sources' are out there that say this explicitly (I may well have read some, but my memory is unclear on this), though finding and quoting them will probably make the paragraph significantly more pro-More than it already is (for the simple reason that the view that the English Reformation ultimately had very bloody consequences, perhaps especially in Ireland, seems supported by a mountain of facts, while the contrary view seems supported mainly by the systematic ignoring of these facts, or at least that's how it seems to me). I also suspect that all this may be partly nonsense because I think what mostly motivated More was a desire to keep himself and perhaps others out of Hell, but I don't expect that the majority of so-called 'reliable sources' will say that he was 'mostly' motivated by that, as distinct from being partly motivated by it, so in the article I haven't said that is what 'mostly' motivated him, and this arguably means that this debate, and the article, and probably also the majority of so-called 'reliable sources', tends to give too much weight to bodies killed and not killed that were probably just a side-issue for More who was probably thinking mainly in terms of souls damned and saved which so-called 'reliable sources' (and thus Wikipedia) are usually inherently incapable of dealing with, but that's another story (though also another reason for staying out of this inherently slightly absurd debate about what is the right way to misrepresent him).

But thirdly, cheer up - I basically gave up long ago, and Chris Troutman appears to be giving up, so quite likely a little more patience will enable you and your 'relatively bloodless' interpretation to win, unless somebody else turns up to stop you, which might well be Spoonkymonkey, whose recent edit removing most of the Marius quote, if allowed to stand, significantly reduces the need for this paragraph (though arguably without entirely eliminating it, as each of its elements arguably has value even without the Marius quote that provoked them, though it would need 'improving' with better sources, etc, which might actually make it more pro-More, as mentioned above). I'm not sure that this suppression or dilution of viewpoints improves the encyclopedia (I suspect it does the opposite, which is why I tried answering Marius instead of suppressing him), but I also suspect the issue is not worth the effort. But there's nothing to stop you trying to undo Spoonkymonkey, if you think it's worth the effort (though, as I already said, I no longer think any of it is worth the effort). Anyway, I wish you all the best. Tlhslobus (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully my final afterthought, re 'Counterfactual': As I already argued above, I expect that so-called 'Reliable Sources' that considered the cost of the English Reformation would tend to reach conclusions that are more favorable to More than my allegedly 'counterfactual' statement, because that is how the facts seem to stack up. To put it another way. it seems to me that it is your 'fairly bloodless' view that is 'counterfactual', with my allegedly 'counterfactual' statement actually being phrased to be technically self-evidently true and thus factual (and incidentally also intended to be neutral), though it s also phrased in a way that tends to create the counterfactual impression that the Protestant 'fairly bloodless' view and the Catholic 'lots of blood' view are equally consistent with the facts when the Catholic view actually appears to be far more factual (even if as an Irish person I tend to be reluctant to publicly say so, a habit derived from fear of giving ideological ammunition to IRA terrorists). But I should perhaps also add that the now-removed (but still there in summary form) Marius quote that started this whole business itself seems deeply counterfactual when talking about More wanting to exterminate Protestants (which at least seems to imply ordinary Protestants, as distinct from agitators). It is clear that he wanted to exterminate a small handful of Protestant agitators, but in England there wasn't yet any visible community of ordinary Protestants for him to exterminate. But such communities did already exist in Germany, and if he ever called for their extermination it is news to me, and I'm surprised that no quote from people like Marius has so far turned up showing that he did make such a call if he did in fact make one. So Marius's claim appears to be a counterfactual one, from a historian with an apparent history of such apparent overstatements (one of which seems to have cost him a job with the Clinton administration, if I remember rightly). It seems strange that this statement about an extermination that never happened does not get labelled counterfactual by you, while a statement deliberately phrased with the intention of being both self-evidently true and neutral, and relating to huge numbers of deaths that actually happened, gets labelled counterfactual by you. So in conclusion it seems to me that you tend to make rather odd choices about which statements to damn as counterfactual. Tlhslobus (talk) 03:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Belated thanks for your replies, sorry for the delay in responding.

OK. The first thing to do is distinguish between the two people I'm replying to here. Tlhslobus is evidently sincere, and makes a rational case. I disagree with much of that case but it's coherent and civil. Chris on the other hand seems to be out of his depth and having difficulty grasping basic points of logic and, perhaps as a result, has started lashing out with childish insults.

So I'll reply separately.

To Tlhslobus: your case is reasonable but it concentrates mostly on the counterfactual stuff. And btw I'm not "damning" counterfactual speculation - on the contrary it's one of my favourite genres - I just think it's inappropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. I'm happy to respond to your points but at some stage I think we should move on to what did happen, rather than debating unprovable speculation about what might have happened in other circumstances.

To answer your question, I focused on your statement rather than Marius's because yours is counterfactual and his isn't. You conjecture about what might have happened if things had turned out differently (ie you suggest that lives would have been saved if More had succeeded in crushing the Reformation) - that's textbook counterfactual speculation. You don't specify how many lives you believe would have been saved but you imply it's a considerable number (and you confirm here on the talk page that that is indeed your opinion). Marius's statement is different in nature. It may or may not be correct but it's clearly not counterfactual. You disagree with his statement (eg on the baffling grounds that there was no "visible" Protestant community) but whatever else that statement might be, it's not counterfactual. He's not saying, "More would have wanted to exterminate Protestants if there had been any", he's saying, "More wanted to exterminate Protestants".

Another difference between Marius's statement and yours (in terms of appropriateness for inclusion in the article) is that his has been published.

You also say my "fairly bloodless" view is counterfactual. Again, you seem confused about what counterfactual history is. What you appear to be saying is that my view is WRONG. You're entitled to that opinion, but there's a difference between being wrong and being counterfactual. I'm not saying the English Reformation "would have been" fairly bloodless if things had turned out differently, I'm saying it WAS fairly bloodless. Correct or incorrect, that statement is not counterfactual.

Perhaps more to the point, my opinion is on the talk page - yours is in the article.

Regarding your claim that your speculation is "neutral", I don't believe you've thought that through. You seem, as I've said before and genuinely mean, to be a sincere person, so I would ask you to look at your statement again and ask yourself, sincerely, whether it is indeed neutral. You say: "It seems unlikely that Catholics and Protestants could easily agree on how many died ... as an arguable result of the English Reformation". Surely you can see that's a loaded statement? You could equally have said: "It seems unlikely that Catholics and Protestants could easily agree on how many lives were SAVED as an arguable result of the English Reformation". That would be just as valid as your statement but yours is worded to imply that lives were lost as a consequence of the Reformation, mine is worded to imply that lives were saved by it.

The wisest policy, surely, is not to have either statement included in the article. Particularly as neither your statement nor mine is sourced.

As an aside, I hadn't realised you were from an Irish Catholic background. I see now why this is a sensitive issue for you. But we'll have to differ if you're going to link every violent death in Ireland since the 1530s to the Reformation - plus a few million more as a result of the potato famine. The idea that famine deaths were "religious killings" is debatable, to put it mildly. Conflict between Britain and Ireland was taking place long before the Reformation (as an Irishman, you'll know that the history of British oppression started centuries earlier - it's generally traced to the Norman invasion of the 12th century, a campaign waged with the approval of the Pope) and would surely have continued afterwards, regardless. Religion was secondary to nationalism and power, and indeed in the 18th and 19th centuries many Irish nationalists were Protestant (eg the 1798 rising was substantially led by Protestants, who were imprisoned and/or executed). So when I say the English Reformation was fairly bloodless, I mean that the number of those executed purely for being Catholic (as opposed to being victims of British oppression in Ireland and elsewhere) was relatively small. And as I've also said, it seems likely that the scientific revolutions of the 18th century and beyond, and perhaps even the Enlightenment itself, would not have happened at all, or would have been slower and less far-reaching, without the Reformation. Therefore it's at least possible that lives - perhaps millions of them - were saved as a result.

BUT WE'LL NEVER KNOW! If nothing else, can we at least agree on that point?!

Re: Marius, I note your clarification about what constitutes a "reliable" source but I'm still not sure what the basis is for your assertion that he's outside the historical consensus. You seem to make that judgement based on a hazy recollection of the consensus 40 years ago. That doesn't mean you're wrong, but nor does it seem sufficient grounds for what you acknowledge is an attempt to alter the balance of the article.

I'm also none the wiser as to why, on the one hand, you cast doubts on Marius himself (including noting that he lost his job with the Clinton administration - personally I'd be more worried if he'd kept it) whilst, on the other, you use him as a source in your paragraph. Either he's reputable or he isn't. He can't be reputable when he supports your point of view and disreputable when he doesn't, surely?

The key question, one I've been asking from the start and that no one has yet answered, is this. Since both views of More (that he was unduly repressive and that he merely acted according to the standards of his time) are reflected in the previous paragraph, what's the basis for adding a further paragraph that reflects only one of those views? If someone could answer that, we'd finally be making some progress.

To Chris: among other comments you talk about "one editor who's lonely on Monday night". To which I would simply say: grow up. If you can't respond to a legitimate argument without resorting to childish insults you're clearly not ready for the world of grown-ups. At the very least, get some logical jibes. If you regard spending time on Wikipedia as a sign of "loneliness" then what does that say about your own contributions to this site? They dwarf mine by at least 10x. For the record, I'm married with three kids and working to pay off a mortgage - if you're in a similar situation you'll know that the difficulty tends to be not having enough time alone, rather than too much.

But, yes, this discussion is incredibly protracted, and there's a reason for that. I gave a two-sentence explanation for my edit explaining that the paragraph in question wasn't neutral, an explanation I stand over. That should have been the end of that. However, despite the fact that the person who wrote the paragraph has had the honesty to acknowledge that he did indeed have an agenda, and moreover that he has neither "the energy nor the inclination" to "go chasing" sources that would properly substantiate that agenda, you point blank refuse to accept any questioning of the paragraph's neutrality. That level of wilful blindness inevitably leads to a ballooning in the word count, much as it does when one has to explain basic science to a creationist. I've tried to assume good faith on your part but in retrospect should perhaps have abandoned that assumption when you mysteriously changed your explanation for reverting my edit. (In your initial summary you said it was because I hadn't discussed the edit, but when I showed willingness to discuss it, your tune changed and the explanation became that you'd reverted my edit because you thought the paragraph was neutral).

Making demonstrably false accusations also leads to everyone spending unnecessary extra time at the keyboard. Perhaps the hardest thing to reconcile with an assumption of good faith on your part is your readiness to countenance things (eg the unsourced suggestion that More's actions would have saved lives in a counterfactual universe in which his bid to crush the Reformation had been successful) that you would never stand for in other circumstances. Not only would you not stand for it, I suspect you know you wouldn't.

So, yes, when one has to explain things that ought to be self-explanatory it does lead to a longer conversation.

You say you're "not in the habit of giving lectures". Um ... so what is this: "Perhaps you should learn about Wikipedia before you attempt further edits". Or this (from your talk page): "if the top 10 academics say 'A' is true but you're sure 'B' is true, you write the article to show 'A' is true". Or this: "It's not up to Brooklyn Eagle on behalf of the English-speaking world to determine the sources didn't mean what they said". As it happens, not one of those points relates to what I was doing but even if they did - you don't think they sound preachy? I gather I'm not the first to note your tendency towards "didactic advice". If you ever plan to turn your lecture series into a book you could entitle it Do As I Say, Not As I Do, because you seem to have no interest in the dispassionate discussion you talk about, and every interest in promoting your own, highly biased opinions.

As suggested above, the insults may be a result of your frustration at being unable to follow simple logic. You've demonstrated that inability a few times, most recently when you respond to my "foolishness" with the assertion that, "there wasn't another Peasants' Revolt because More executed the troublemakers". You spectacularly miss the point here, as I'll explain, but what's amusing is the "elementary my dear Watson" tone in which you do so. Evidently you regard your comment as a devastating critique but in fact it merely reveals how far over your head all this has gone. Let me walk you through this. The issue under discussion is what would have happened were it not for the English Reformation, which, as Tlhslobus's comments in the article, "More was unsuccessfully trying to prevent". The key word being "unsuccessfully". Because, of course, there was an English Reformation. There's no obligation on you to know basic history but please at least read the article you're commenting on. In a nutshell, then, here's the contradiction I was highlighting: (i) the paragraph argues that More's motivation for attempting to prevent the English Reformation was a desire to stop another Peasant's Revolt. However, as the paragraph also notes, (ii) More wasn't able to prevent the Reformation; and yet (iii) there wasn't another Peasant's Revolt.

Clear now?

As an aside, it's interesting to hear you describe the Protestants as "troublemakers". Not for the first time, you demonstrate the depth of your bias. That's fine - we all have opinions - all I'd ask is that you don't complain about the partisanship of others.

As to your endlessly repeated request for sources, OK, I'll give you the sources in a moment but first, can I ask (yet again): sources for WHAT? On your talk page you asked me to source "criticism" of Marius, but you've gone quiet on that now you realise I agree with him (in fact I seem to be the only person who has actually read him). Again you move the goalposts, only this time you haven't said where you've moved them to. So ... sources for what? The key point to remember is this: the issue under discussion is the paragraph's neutrality. Now you can agree or disagree with my opinion that it's not neutral but how on earth does one source such a view?

It can't be done. That ought to be obvious but apparently isn't, so I'll spell it out. You said you'd restored the paragraph because it was unbiased and then said: "You've stated that you disagree with perceived bias in that paragraph. Do you have sources that address this point of view?" The point of view in question is that of Tlhslobus. So ... you want me to give a source - sorry, no, an "academic source" - for my contention that Tlhslobus's paragraph is not neutral? Are you serious? You think academics are publishing articles/books on PARAGRAPHS IN WIKIPEDIA? If you're aware of any published source, academic or otherwise, that comments on Tlhslobus's paragraph, please bring it to my attention.

In short, Tlhslobus thought the article was unduly anti-Moore so changed it. I thought it was just fine so changed it back. Now here's the thing. No academic has passed judgement or is ever likely to pass judgement on whether Tlhblobus or I are correct. You do realise that, I take it?

Look, I get that you reflexively shout "sources" whenever someone edits in a way you disagree with (though not, apparently, when you agree with them - a tendency that btw demonstrably pre-dates your decision not to revert Spoonkymonkey for doing exactly what I did). But that tactic doesn't make sense here. Pause for a moment and reflect on the absurdity of your position. You are, in effect, asking me to find a published article by Professor X from the University of Y saying, "the version of the Wikipedia article that obtained prior to Tlhsolbus's intervention was fair but is now unduly favourable to More". It would be nice if academics did scrutinise Wikipedia so minutely but, I'm sorry to break it to you, they don't.

In short, it's up to Wikipedia editors - ie us - to judge whether an article is balanced and properly sourced at any given time. I think Tlhsolbus's intervention makes this article less so. You disagree, as is your right. But don't hold your breath waiting for an academic to adjudicate.

Also, you didn't answer my question of why one should cite sources when DELETING material. How would that even be possible? It's like hanging a notice on a wall that's already been knocked down.

And going back to your hypocrisy difficulty, can you remind me of the sources you have provided? I don't recall you sourcing your view that the paragraph is neutral. Applying your logic to your own case, "You've stated that the applicable section is unbiased. Do you have sources that substantiate your statement?" As explained above, it seems absurd to provide sources to establish the neutrality of a paragraph in Wikipedia but if I'm required to do it, then why aren't you? Number of times you've called on me to provide sources: eight (once in bold type). Number of times you've provided sources yourself: zero.

You say you're "making an honest effort to make a better encyclopedia". When I saw that I must admit I laughed out loud, as it sounded so at odds with what you're actually doing. But maybe I should give you the benefit of the doubt. It's certainly possible you THINK you're making an honest effort. So let's put that claim to the test.

Here then is my challenge. If indeed your goal is improve the encyclopedia, please explain exactly how one would, in practice, go about sourcing my belief that Tlhslobus's paragraph has an agenda? (Beyond, of course, the fact that he himself has already acknowledged that). Where would I even begin looking for a source that comments on his neutrality? And assuming such a source could be found, where would I insert it, given that I propose to delete the paragraph in question?

Those are not rhetorical questions. You're the (self-appointed) expert on Wikipedia, so let's see you step up to the plate with some specific answers to those queries.

If you can clarify whether or not you genuinely think it's reasonable to source my belief that Tlhslobus's paragraph is biased, and if you can explain how in practice I source a deletion, then, assuming your answers are sincere and make sense, I undertake to do my best to follow your instructions. And what's more I will happily admit I was wrong to laugh at your claims to be making an "honest" attempt to improve Wikipedia.

Anyway, I said I'd give sources, so here they are. Since you haven't explained what you want sources for, I'll assume you want sources that express the opinion that More was unduly repressive. I've already cited one: Marius himself. Brian Moynihan is another. GR Elton is a third. Jasper Ridley a fourth. Michael Farris a fifth. From journalism and broadcasting you could add Stephen Fry and Rod Liddle. There are seven published authors, all on record with intensely critical views of More's conduct during the Reformation.

Happy now?

Regarding your comment about "bickering", again, I suggest you put your own house in order. As you know from trawling through my entire Wikipedia history, I have never previously been involved in a dispute. Not once. You, by contrast, have been in numerous confrontations. When I went to your talk page, the first thing I saw was you accusing another contributor of edits that were "faker than a three-dollar bill". Skim-reading your page over just the last couple of months, I note you've also been in a row about your alleged "trolling", and a dispute with not one but three people about your "rudeness" (which, as one of your critics notes, you try to rationalise rather than apologise for - deja vu). I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that those aren't the only instances of your "bickering" over the years.

It was you who picked this row, by accusing me of trying to insert original research into the More article. (Then, when you realised the accusation was false, you chose not to retract it but to try and slither out of it by denying you'd made it in the first place. Here's the accusation again. Click on your own link if you've forgotten what you were accusing me of: "It is not the job of editors to philosophize about St. Thomas More".)

If you genuinely want to avoid "bickering" then don't accuse people of things they haven't done. Or if you do and it becomes clear you were wrong then just man up and apologise. It takes guts but it's never too late to show some. Try it now. Admit that your accusation was just plain wrong. (I'll leave the decision of whether to apologise up to you.)

Finally, when I suggested we stop debating our versions of counterfactual history you said: "and yet Brooklyn Eagle is prepared to write 10,000 words of debate about it", I shouldn't even rise to that but it's hard to resist correcting someone when their facts are so wrong. I'll explain as slowly and clearly as I can. I AM prepared to debate what SHOULD go into the article. I DON'T particularly want to debate things that SHOULDN'T go into the article, ie unsourced counterfactual conjecture. Perhaps you could help me by explaining which part of that you can't understand. Yes, the counterfactual game is fun, and up to a point I've been happy to play it, but the idea that I've spent 10,000 words doing so is ludicrous. My contribution to the counterfactual debate (namely my view that if More had succeeded in eliminating dissent then more lives would have been lost than saved) runs to a few hundred words at most (and even they're in response to Tlhsolbus, who is keener on the game). What I have done is explain why such speculation is ITSELF inappropriate for an encyclopedia (one of those things I thought was self-evident but appears not to be). But that's not the same thing and, even if it were, the amount of words I've written on the whole subject of counterfactual history is barely a tenth of your 10,000 words estimate (and would have been zero if we could agree the obvious, namely that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for speculation). Do you find numbers difficult to grasp or are you just prone to exaggeration?

As I said at the start, though, it's true is that this correspondence as a whole is very protracted. In fact, if you add all our contributions together, I'm sure we're well into the magic five figures. But that hasn't come out of nowhere. As noted above, my original edit summary ran to 45 words and your stated objection to said edit was that I hadn't discussed it. Well, now I have discussed it, and yet still you're unhappy. So, final tip: if you want a shorter discussion, be upfront at the start. Then everyone will know where they stand. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This has been going on far too long with no sign of a resolution, and I don't have the time or inclination to answer you point by point. However I think there is some merit in the folowing part of your post:
 * Regarding your claim that your speculation is "neutral", I don't believe you've thought that through. You seem, as I've said before and genuinely mean, to be a sincere person, so I would ask you to look at your statement again and ask yourself, sincerely, whether it is indeed neutral. You say: "It seems unlikely that Catholics and Protestants could easily agree on how many died ... as an arguable result of the English Reformation". Surely you can see that's a loaded statement? You could equally have said: "It seems unlikely that Catholics and Protestants could easily agree on how many lives were SAVED as an arguable result of the English Reformation". That would be just as valid as your statement but yours is worded to imply that lives were lost as a consequence of the Reformation, mine is worded to imply that lives were saved by it.
 * Regarding your claim that your speculation is "neutral", I don't believe you've thought that through. You seem, as I've said before and genuinely mean, to be a sincere person, so I would ask you to look at your statement again and ask yourself, sincerely, whether it is indeed neutral. You say: "It seems unlikely that Catholics and Protestants could easily agree on how many died ... as an arguable result of the English Reformation". Surely you can see that's a loaded statement? You could equally have said: "It seems unlikely that Catholics and Protestants could easily agree on how many lives were SAVED as an arguable result of the English Reformation". That would be just as valid as your statement but yours is worded to imply that lives were lost as a consequence of the Reformation, mine is worded to imply that lives were saved by it.


 * The wisest policy, surely, is not to have either statement included in the article. Particularly as neither your statement nor mine is sourced.
 * I think the wisest policy, if perhaps not in principle then at least in terms of settling this particular dispute, would be to in effect include both statements, in effect by saying something like "It seems unlikely that Catholics and Protestants could easily agree on how many lives were LOST OR SAVED ..." As the statement seems self-evidently true, it would not require sources (assuming it is no longer disputed).
 * I think the wisest policy, if perhaps not in principle then at least in terms of settling this particular dispute, would be to in effect include both statements, in effect by saying something like "It seems unlikely that Catholics and Protestants could easily agree on how many lives were LOST OR SAVED ..." As the statement seems self-evidently true, it would not require sources (assuming it is no longer disputed).


 * So, in order to try to reach a consensus, would one of the following compromise wordings be acceptable to both Brooklyn Eagle and Chris Troutman  (I feel the first re-wording is especially far from ideal, but I'll go along with it if both of you agree)?


 * The current disputed sentence reads: It seems unlikely that modern Catholics, Protestants, and others could ever easily agree on how many eventually died in Britain, Ireland, and elsewhere as an arguable result of the English Reformation that More was unsuccessfully trying to prevent, and whether or not this cost could be justified by arguable offsetting benefits.


 * I suggest possibly re-wording it as follows: It seems unlikely that modern Catholics, Protestants, and others could ever easily agree on how many net lives were eventually lost or saved in Britain, Ireland, and elsewhere as an arguable result of the English Reformation that More was unsuccessfully trying to prevent, and whether or not any net loss of lives, if there was such a net loss, could be justified by arguable offsetting benefits.


 * A less cumbersome alternative (which I would consequently prefer, but which I suspect might be less attractive to Brooklyn Eagle) would be: It seems unlikely that modern Catholics, Protestants, and others could ever easily agree on how many lives, if any, were eventually lost in Britain, Ireland, and elsewhere as an arguable result of the English Reformation that More was unsuccessfully trying to prevent, and whether such a cost, if any, could be justified by arguable offsetting benefits.


 * If neither wording is acceptable, can either of you suggest wording that is? If no compromise wording is acceptable within a reasonably short period of time (bearing in mind that we have already spend a very unreasonable amount of time and effort on this issue), there will presumably be no consensus for change to the article, so it will stay as it is (except that anybody is always free, within reason, to tag any disputed statement with a 'citation needed' flag, etc), unless somebody (presumably Brooklyn Eagle) decides to try his luck with the Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, on reflection the 'less cumbersome' version needs the word 'net' added, to avoid the absurd suggestion that no deaths were caused by the English Reformation (it being self-evident that some were, including More's). So it should now read: It seems unlikely that modern Catholics, Protestants, and others could ever easily agree on how many net lives, if any, were eventually lost in Britain, Ireland, and elsewhere as an arguable result of the English Reformation that More was unsuccessfully trying to prevent, and whether such a net cost, if any, could be justified by arguable offsetting benefits.Tlhslobus (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

On reflection, I am withdrawing the above 'compromise offer', as I now think I should never have made it. There are a number of reasons for this, which would take time to write, but some (though not all) of them can be guessed at from the fact that I first wrote "I feel the first re-wording is especially far from ideal", and "A less cumbersome alternative" and then I quickly had to amend the original proposal with the explanation "to avoid the absurd suggestion that no deaths were caused by the English Reformation (it being self-evident that some were, including More's)". I may or may not give a more detailed explanation in due course, though I can't give any guarantee on this, because WP:NOTCOMPULSORY tells us that Wikipedia is not compulsory, and I already feel that I have wasted a hugely unreasonable amount of time, energy, mental stress, and distress on what I see as an utterly surreal, exhausting, distressing, infuriating, and irrational dispute which, incidentally, seems to be simply having the effect of badly warping my judgment and causing me to make unwarranted and inappropriate proposals such as the one I am now withdrawing, and in which I end up conceding 'merit' in the proposition that it is 'not neutral' to mention that deaths resulted from the English Reformation in an article about somebody who is officially described as a Reformation Martyr by the Church created by that Reformation, in gross violation of WP:NOTCENSORED and of what is normally understood by WP:NPOV. If we were to accept such an outrageous interpretation, anybody could be told to get reliable citations for merely mentioning that deaths resulted from a war or a revolution or a social upheaval on grounds that this was 'not neutral' as it could be argued that the event actually saved lives in the long run - and if they did waste time and energy trying to comply, then the same kind of 'logic' could presumably be used to decide that the fix still wasn't 'neutral', and so on ad infinitum. And having to accept surreal 'logic' like that would ultimately destroy Wikipedia. (And, incidentally, that is only one small part of the many things that are wrong with this dispute). Tlhslobus (talk) 06:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies Tlhslobus. I don't want an argument, as you are, clearly, a sincere person who genuinely does want to make a better encyclopedia. I hope therefore that we can proceed in a civil manner.

With regard to the point you make, I think you fundamentally misunderstand my objection to the sentence you refer to. I'm not disputing that the Reformation resulted in some deaths. You describe the suggestion that no deaths were caused as "absurd" and indeed it is but I'm baffled by the implication that that was my opinion. No one has suggested that there were no deaths at all - certainly not me. I don't even have a problem with your apparent belief that the number was very large - I don't share it (particularly the idea that those deaths included the millions who perished during the Irish famine, which strikes me as wildly speculative) but you're perfectly entitled to it. So perhaps we should park our discussion about whether it was a large number, or whether there would have been a "net" gain in lives. Whilst I'm grateful for your compromise proposals, and appreciate that they were worded in a scrupulously fair way, I agree with your decision to withdraw the offer, since it would, as you suggest, have been a rather nonsensical way to proceed. For the record, I didn't want the sentence to be rewritten, I wanted it to be deleted, precisely because any rewrite would lead to the absurdities you highlight.

The difficulty with the sentence as it stands is not that it alludes to deaths but rather the implication that More should be judged more favourably because he might have prevented these deaths. He may or may not deserve such favourable judgement but it is clearly not appropriate for us as editors to make that call. Essentially, you're arguing the following: "Those who criticise More should bear in mind that he was motivated by a desire to save lives, and would indeed have saved lives if he had been successful in preventing the Reformation, and what's more that the number of lives saved may have been considerable, stretching into the future and beyond England's shores". I'm paraphrasing but that's the gist, is it not? Those opinions are reasonable, and may well be correct, but they are clearly not neutral. They cast More's actions in a favourable light, one that is not universally agreed upon. As such they should at the very least be properly sourced. The sentence you refer to has no source of any kind.

In other words, it's an issue of context. The context here is clear, is it not? You believe Marius's criticism of More to be outside the consensus and have therefore decided to add a paragraph that counterbalances his opinion with the opposite opinion, namely that More was actually motivated by a desire to save lives. In short, Marius is offering a negative portrayal of More, you are offering a positive one. Everything you have said in the paragraph portrays (and is presumably intended to portray) More favourably. Was that not your intention?

You seem to object particularly vehemently to the idea that alluding to deaths that undeniably occurred might be anything other than neutral. Indeed, if I understand you correctly, it is this idea that you regard as sufficiently "irrational" to "destroy" Wikipedia. But, far from being irrational, the idea is perfectly reasonable. The "logic" (your quotation marks, presumably sarcastic?) of the suggestion that a reference to deaths can in fact be non-neutral seems to me to be watertight. As with so much of this discussion I'd have thought that logic was self-explanatory but evidently not, so please let me explain.

No one denies it's possible to allude to deaths in a neutral way. For example, the statement "millions of lives were lost in WWII" is, in itself, entirely neutral. But in the context of, say, an article on Oswald Mosley's opposition to the war, the same statement is not neutral. "Mosley sought to prevent the war, a conflict that cost millions of lives" is, quite clearly, not a neutral statement. Mosley undeniably did want to prevent war with Germany, and the war undeniably did cost lives, but the context is clearly favourable to Mosley. I trust that the logic of that is obvious.

The comparison with Mosley is merely one of principle. More was not a thug like Mosley (though I wouldn't like to have got on the wrong side of either of them). You yourself suggest a comparison with revolutions. I think that's a good and helpful analogy. For example, the Tsarist regime wanted to suppress workers' rights in Russia. Among other things, the regime shot 95 protesters (Bloody Sunday, 1905). The regime was eventually overthrown in the Bolshevik Revolution. That revolution cost lives. (Arguably a great many.) I don't think any of that is in dispute. But what I don't think would be acceptable would be if a Wikipedia article argued that, "the Tsar's behaviour should perhaps be seen in the context of his opposition to the Russian Revolution, an upheaval that cost many lives, both within Russia and beyond". Do you think that would be neutral? You could apply the same logic to any revolution. Eg, "It should be remembered that George III wished to prevent the American Revolution, a conflict that cost many lives". Or "the aristocracy in 18th century France opposed the French Revolution, a conflict that cost many lives". Etc. I don't think that any of those statements is neutral. They're all factually accurate (George undeniably tried to prevent the Revolution, it undeniably cost lives, etc) but they're not impartial. Would you accept that?

Finally, and perhaps most controversially, the sentence you refer to raises the question of whether the "cost" of the Reformation could be "justified" by "arguable offsetting benefits". Why open that can of worms? The question of whether the Reformation (and associated deaths) was "justified" is highly contentious and, surely, way outside the scope of this article. The only possible reason for raising that question here is to suggest, once again, that More should be judged favourably, since his actions sought to prevent that loss of life. In fact, far from being an "irrational" interpretation of your reference to Reformation deaths, it strikes me as the ONLY rational explanation for what would otherwise be a bizarre non-squitur. This is particularly so given your (admirably upfront) acknowledgement of why you wrote the paragraph (a desire to offset Marius's criticisms).

Despite what you might think, I have no emotional attachment to the Reformation, either in England or elsewhere. Henry was amoral, and I lost any sympathy for Luther when I discovered how anti-Semitic he was. (Though I am glad the Reformation paved the way for the less religious society we have today). But on a point of basic fairness, it seems obvious to me that the context of your remarks is unflattering (to put it mildly) to the Reformation, and certainly favourable to More. Indeed if the purpose is not to be favourable to More then I don't understand what that purpose is. Perhaps the key question is this: if it is self-evident that the Reformation resulted in deaths, and if you're referring to those deaths in a neutral way (ie one that does not affect the article's judgement on More), then what is the relevance of referring to them at all? Why object to the deletion of a statement if you think it adds nothing factually (other than what's already self-evident) and shines no light on how the subject should be judged? It seems to me that your sentence IS relevant, in that it offers a very definite perspective on More. The problem is that, so far, it is purely your own perspective.

You suggested a compromise, so here's mine. Although that sentence seems clearly non-neutral, I'm happy to let it stand if you can find a source for it. In other words, if a source says words to the effect of, "More's actions should be seen in the context of the lives, in England and beyond, that he would have saved if he had been successful" then I'm happy to let it go. As to the rest of the paragraph, you obviously don't agree to it being deleted, so maybe we can do something else, such as improving the sources you have so far, which everyone who has contributed to this discussion (including you I think) accepts are limited.

Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. This has been going on far too long, and involved far too much exhaustion and mental distress to a number of editors. The current text has been the consensus text for over a year, with only one person objecting to it. If you want a change, I suggest you try our dispute resolution procedures. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Postscript:
 * I really don't want to waste any more time on this.
 * And I certainly have no intention of making any changes to the current paragraph myself, among other reasons because of how badly my judgment on this issue has clearly been warped by this never-ending dispute (as indicated above a few weeks ago).
 * And in any case, as I already mentioned a few weeks ago, a compromise between you and me would not be a valid consensus, unless it also had the agreement of some more representative editor such as (or his choice of replacement if he totally understandably wanted to remain out of this ghastly never-ending dispute - as I also desperately wish I responsibly could).
 * But let me simply remind you that, as I already pointed out a few weeks ago, within reason you don't need anybody's permission to tag the sentence (and/or parts thereof) with a "Citation needed" tag.
 * I don't think it would be a good idea from your point of view, because, as I indicated fairly explicitly last year (and implicitly a few weeks ago), we will have no difficulty in finding citations for deaths caused by the English Reformation (starting with the Church of England's description of More and Fisher as Reformation Martyrs). I already indicated a few weeks ago why asking us to look for such citations is a bad idea (and last year I also mentioned the additional problem of providing undeserved political ammunition for IRA terrorists), but there should be no difficulty in finding them.
 * On the other hand, I expect citations for "arguable offsetting benefits" (in effect citations favouing the Protestant/anti-More side of the argument) may be very hard to come by, and may be very easily dismissed as not really supporting the wording used. So I expect that we would end up suppressing any mention of "arguable offsetting benefits" (even though no citations should be needed to support what is the self-evident truth, and that, incidentally, applies to both halves of the sentence).
 * As a result we would probably end up replacing the current balanced sentence (uncertain number of deaths being balanced by "arguable offsetting benefits") by some unbalanced pro-More statement (and arguably yet more undeserved political ammunition for IRA terrorists, as I mentioned above and last year), which would dis-improve the article, and do so in a way that neither you nor I would want.
 * But if you really want to do that, I probably can't and probably won't try to stop you, though I obviously can't guarantee that nobody else will (nor even that I myself won't change my own mind after contemplating the potential harm done, though I wouldn't expect that). But I wouldn't expect any attempts to stop you to succeed, if only because there would be plenty of pro-More editors who would be delighted to help you shoot yourself in the foot in this way. Tlhslobus (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)