Talk:Twelve Conclusions of the Lollards

Quotation
What is the policy with regard to pages such as these which consist of nothing more than the text which is available at Wikisource? I'm for replacing this with a proper article about the text, and leaving people to follow the Wikisource link. Djnjwd 00:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree.Gaius Cornelius 21:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Also it is not possible for the document to have been composed in 1395, as it was presented to parliament in late 1394. This whole article needs to be revised to accurately discuss the 'Lollard Conclusions' and not just repeat them

If you find a source that shows the 1394 date, then by all means, add it to the article. Otherwise the current source that says 1395 will have to be followed. —Chris Capoccia T&#8260;C 11:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This relates to an older version of the article. Summaries were later given.

Summaries
The summaries that are in place have three problems IMHO.


 * In several cases they do not accurately reflect the original: missing the important aspects/ramification/remedies (e.g. that the pacifism specifically challenges Crusading, or the challenge to Aquinas and Corpus Christi).


 * In some cases, the Conclusion is watered down to become some anachronistic sentiment: for example the call to ban goldsmiths and armorours and have only technology directly useful for subsistence is not just "simply living" (in the FF Schumacher "Small is Beautiful" sense) but is closer to the Amish/puritan approach (indeed almost closer to the Pol Pot "Year Zero" approach of de-technologizing the society.)  The Lollards and Wycliffites believed in radical evangelical poverty, not Marie Kondo voluntary simplification :-)  I have rewritten that one.


 * Editorially, we need to cope with that many people are interested in Lollards primarily viewed as as proto-modern-protestants, which can downplay the aspects of Lollardy that went beyond or behind it. There is a Chinese Whisper problem: someone summarizing someone summerizing Foxe's pro-protestant English re-translation (viewing the Lollards as proto-early-protestants) of the Fasciculi (an anti-Lollard Latin transation perhaps by Netter) of the original English. This makes it necessary to check any summaries against the Middle English originals (not as OR, but as the fact-checking necessary when sources are partisan or contested in order to get at least NPOV.) And IMHO it makes it useful to include quotations from the original Middle English to supplement and evidence the summary, and to give the flavour better.

I have adjusted some of the article along the lines suggested. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 05:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)