User talk:Vidim

November 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Waldensians appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

My insertions may, or may not, have been 'biased'. What they were inserted for was to bring an alternative view to what I considered to be an already biased piece. I don't think it is necessary to give more weight to arguments posited by those who claim allegiance to the Waldensians. My showing that the son disagreed with his father shows there isn't consensus within the Waldensians regarding their origins. VidimVidim (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Neutrality does not mean giving equal weight. A neutral point of view may still be a point of view, but for purposes of the encyclopedia it is not "biased," or rather, Wikipedia encourages a bias to reflect views in proportion and credibility of reliable sources.  That one Waldensian was influenced by later Protestant arguments does not mean that the Waldensians' official stance is that they started with Peter Waldo.  Ian.thomson (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Your use of the term, 'Protestant arguments' as distinct from just 'arguments' or even 'evidence', demonstrates, to me at least, your own lack of neutrality in any argument about Waldensian antiquity, at least in this private discussion. Also, the idea that there was only 'one' dissenting opinion seems ludicrous. My own use of one reference was to demonstrate that there was not consensus regarding origins within the Waldensian movement. Further, there are good arguments for stating that the Waldensians, whether they originated from Waldo or not, were, by definition, 'Protestant', in that, their core foundation, by the time of Waldo, was to 'protest' against Papal authority. Therefore, to label one set of arguments for antiquity as 'Protestant' and another set of arguments against antiquity as, 'Waldensian consensus' is an unnecessary categorisation. Can I ask if you were the original writer of the piece, as a whole, and whether you were the original writer of the paragraph under discussion?Vidim (talk) 08:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you find any Waldensian claims to being older than Peter Waldo from before the Reformation, or even before non-Waldensians began to argue that the Waldensians are older than Peter Waldo, that are accepted by secular scholars? The quote from Wylie regarding two Catholics saying the Waldensians are ancient is misleading, as the reference to them being ancient is from centuries after Waldo (de Seyssel), while the earlier figure (who is used to give the impression the quote comes from around Waldo's time), who still lived two generations after Waldo, only says "a long time".  And isn't your addition pointing out Catholic investment in the discussion without bringing up Protestant investment an indication of your own lack of neutrality? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Ian, you haven't answered my question? Please answer my question about any original contributions.Vidim (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not relevant in the least, but I'm not the original author. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that to know if you are the original writer is ' not relevant in the least'. To quote part of your link, ' Some contributors feel possessive about material they have contributed to Wikipedia. A few go so far as to defend it against all others.' You, yourself, seem very intent on defending the original paragraph. I wanted to understand, in this private discussion, why this might be. You also accused me of a lack of neutrality and, I may be wrong, but I seem to detect a lack of neutrality in your arguments in this discussion which might be reflected in your edits. Further, you also seemed to be unnessecarily beligerent in your comment regarding my question about protected content. I wondered why this might be. Again, concerning this private discussion, it helps me to know how much time to invest in this conversation, by trying to assess with whom I am dealing and their motivations for commenting.

As I said before, the whole piece under discussion seemed weighted in assuming the Waldensians started with Waldo and the particular paragraphs under discussion were completely one-sided in assuming that. My own conribution was made, as I stated earlier, in order to redress that balance. If there is any lack of neutrality on my part then I think, even if that's true, nevertheless, my insertions may have contributed to the piece itself having a more neutral 'feel'. I actually think you may have been right to have edited my extended quote of Wylie but your insertions about Protestant 'vested interest' in Apostolic Succession seem to me to be 'jar' against the flow of the paragraph as a whole and your own attempt to achieve 'balance', in aesthetic terms at least, seems awkward. I am also not happy with your attempt to categorize arguments into 'Waldensian' or 'Protestant', for the reasons stated earlier.

With regard to your questions about pre Reformation commentators: I'm not sure discussions along those lines are helpful at this stage but I will consider it and get back to you, if I think it's worth my time. However, I reject completely your assertion that Wylie's comments are 'misleading'. The use of quotes from Roman Catholics regarding Waldensian antiquity has significance because of the relative importance of the person being quoted against the backdrop of the Catholic organisation's claims to Apostolic Succession.

You seem to give a great deal of weight to the ponderings of 'secular scholars', as if their comments might be wholly neutral and therefore worthy of having more 'merit', in terms of ascertaining the truth of the origins of the Waldensians. Then, in the course of your argument you, arbitrarily, introduce something different by which to measure the significance of other evidence by introducing a concept I shall call, ' distance in time relative to the events'. You then dismiss the significance of those commenters who are nearer in time to the period in question, for no good reason other than, it seems, because to do so supports your argument.

You virtually disregard the comment of the Inquisitor, Reynerius, because his utterance was made two generations after Waldo, a length of time you seem to think negates his testimony. More significant, I suggest, is that, because his work was to destroy opposition to, among other things, the RC doctrine of Apostolic succession, then the Inquisitor's comment has added significance. Reynerius seemed to believe that the Waldensians preceded the establishment of the Papal office and it is that fact which adds significance to his comment. Reynerius was an avowed defender of RC doctrine- not even 'neutrally minded' but wholly partial. Therefore, I suggest, Reynerius would not want to believe that the Waldensians preceded the Roman Pontiff, in any time period. The fact that the comment was made only two generations after Waldo's time increases the significance of the Inquisitor's comment and does not subtract from it. Vidim (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As I've said before: neutrality does not mean giving equal weight out of proportion to the sources. The only sources that actually go for a pre-Waldo age have their own biases in wanting to establish their own claims of apostolic succession, or at least counter the Catholic one.  Secular sources (who are uninvolved in such claims), and the Waldensians in general (except for a few reformation-influenced exceptions) claim that they started with Peter Waldo.  The idea of a pre-Waldo origin for the Waldensians does not appear anywhere in the words of Reynerius (who just says they have been around "a long time," while Wylie uses Reynerius's date to lead into a quote that is centuries later).  Do you have any documented evidence that Reynerius (who just said the Waldensians have been around "a long time," which two generations can qualify as) believed they were older than Waldo?  Reading a pre-Waldo origin into his statements, does not meet Wikipedia's standards.  And how is Wylie leading from a 12th century source to a 16th century quote neither lazy or dishonest?  It's either poorly done sourcing (something that any modern college would give a bad grade for), or dishonest (trying to give the impression that Reynerius said they were ancient). And how are you still blind to Wylie's own agenda?  Considering he wrote a book accusing the papacy of being the Antichrist, he clearly is not unbiased when it comes to history involving Catholicism.


 * Let's review. We have:
 * Pro-Waldo Waldensian scholarship - Their consensus (consensus does not mean absolutely everyone agrees) is that they started with Waldo. It would be to the Waldensians' ecumenical-political advantage to be older than Waldo, but they by-and-large still go with Waldo as their origin.  That alone speaks strongly.
 * Pre-Waldo Waldensian scholarship - So far, a single reformation-influenced Waldensian whose view is cancelled out by his father.
 * RC scholarship - You think they have an agenda, fine. However, their sources are still contemporary, and they don't mention the Waldensians until after Peter Waldo.
 * Pre-Waldo Protestant scholarship - The ones that push for a Pre-Waldo date have their own agenda, and they do not have contemporary sources. Also, this only represents a select portion of protestantism.
 * Secular scholarship - No agenda regarding who has apostolic succession or not, they say the Waldensians started with Waldo.
 * If we are to present views in proportion to the sources, the article overall has to go with the idea that the Waldensians started with Peter Waldo, and show why claims otherwise are not accepted. If someone edited my revisions for aesthetic purposes, but did not POV-push, I would not have an issue with it.  Ian.thomson (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps if you actually read the books you use as references instead of just using a phrase out of context in order to make some point then this discussion might have some benefit. Again, you've made some arbitrary decision regarding the definition of the phrase 'for a long time' as meaning two generations when it could also mean for a few centuries. Also, in the context of the discussion in Fuller's book, the author is aguing for an ancient origin for the Waldensians and not making a big deal out of three words that could mean any long period of time.

The author Fuller could also be described as an Anti-Papist, and so you downgrade Wylie because you say he has an Anti-Catholic bias yet quote a phrase that another Anti Catholic uses only because it supports your own argument? In my view, that is not the an attempt at neutrality or to uphold standards but only to try to 'prove' some point. And, by the way, why is the phrase, 'a long time' in italics? Is it because the phrase is disputed? I can't find any reason for the use of italics in the text and there is no reference to it.Vidim (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am only using Fuller to get a better quote of Reynerius, which is not an unacceptable practice. It is Reynerius I am quoting, so Fuller's own agenda is not an issue.  Without any indication that Reynerius meant anything beyond a couple of generations by "a long time," we cannot reasonably assume that he meant longer, the only reason one would have to do so is to push their own POV into Reynerius's words.  Fuller italicized that portion of the quote to place emphasis on it.  Ian.thomson (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I've taken this to the neutral point of view noticeboard. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)