Jump to content

Talk:Thomas More/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Reverted to 'Roman Catholic' per WP:BRD

I've reverted the changes by Chris McLaughlin back to the long-established consensus 'Roman Catholic' wording per WP:BRD, as the new wording was seemingly a disimprovement, being still ambiguous and liable to cause many readers to have to unnecessarily leave the page to check which 'Catholic Church' is being talked about - for instance, there are more than 23 entries on the Catholic Church disambiguation page, and more could and probably should be added, as the Anglican notion of the 'universal Catholic Church' of RCs, Anglicans, and Orthodox, doesn't even appear to be there (that's the notion that ultimately led to the widespread usage of 'Roman Catholic' throughout much of the English-speaking world). Indeed the previous user who removed 'Roman' a few months ago did so in the mistaken belief that More was called St Thomas More by that 'universal Catholic Church' and not just by RCs. (Incidentally, I myself normally say 'Catholic' when I mean 'Roman Catholic', but on Wikipedia my personal usage is beside the point; so is the view of some person or of some Church that 'Roman Catholic' is 'erroneous'). Hence if anybody wishes to persist with the change, they should first discuss it here, per WP:BRD (which stands for the Bold-Revert-Discuss process - the change was Bold, I've Reverted it, so we should now Discuss it here if somebody still wants to make the change). Tlhslobus (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the reversion, but think it highly unlikely that any reader would feel it necessary "to check which 'Catholic Church' is being talked about". Chris McLaughlin is quite right that the default meaning of "Catholic Church" in ordinary English usage makes it a synonym of "Roman Catholic Church", as your own usage further attests. Chris McLaughlin is mistaken about the origins of the phrase: "Roman Catholic" was the designation that Spanish diplomats hit upon to prevent sneaky Anglicans from arguing that "tolerating Catholics" was compatible with persecuting adherents of Roman primacy. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Interesting historical point, Andreas Philopater, but I'm not clear why you agree with my reversion - if 'Roman' doesn't reduce ambiguity, why do we still need it?. Is it simply a matter of sticking with agreed text? Or with some agreed Wikipedia convention? Or some other reason? Tlhslobus (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Anglican calendars

The back-and-forth editing in and out of details of Anglican calendars is very annoying. Could it be discussed? Contrary to Haldraper's latest edit summary: there is nothing to indicate to readers that the link provided will give details of calendars, rather than a stubby explanation of what a calendar is. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It may be that the link could be piped better but that long list dominated the section; the list of Anglican Churches who don't honour More and Fisher was particularly superfluous. Haldraper (talk) 09:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Then make a new subsection, "Veneration in Anglican churches" or something, and people who don't want to know about that can skip it. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I've repiped the link as you suggested which should make it clearer for those who are interested. Haldraper (talk) 09:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

So now we have a link to a wall of redlinks, when we could just tell people under "Thomas More" which Anglican churches venerate him and which don't. I don't see how that's an improvement. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 10:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It's an improvement because the section on More's canonisation is no longer dominated by a long list of which Anglican churches do and do not honour him. Haldraper (talk) 10:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Then separate the sections, as I proposed earlier, rather than removing from sight information that some readers will find relevant.--Andreas Philopater (talk) 10:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
1) Thanks, Andreas Philopater, you are of course right - and they were originally in a separate subsection on other Anglican Churches, which Haldraper got rid of. Furthermore, simply linking to a list of calendars that tells you nothing about More until you spend a long time checking one or more individual calendars just massively inconveniences readers who may be interested, especially if they are interested in several countries, or in which countries include him and which don't. But even if only interested in a single country, they have to click on one link, find the link to their church calendar, click on it, then do a 'Find' for Thomas More (always assuming it even occurs to them to try all this). I might also add that it is Wikipedia policy to make articles show less Anglo-American bias, so excluding all Churches except the two found in England (RC + C of E) seems to conflict with that policy.
2) So if we are to take this useful and relevant info out of the article for what are essentially just cosmetic reasons, then it should go to something like a new linked article (possibly a List article) that quickly provides the reader with the same info. I'm not sure how long it would take to create such an article (and one might want it also to mention listings of John Fisher, with an article name to reflect this), but if Haldraper or anybody else creates it, I'll be happy to have the creator transfer the current info to it, leaving just a linked summary sentence in the current article. It will of course be easier to avoid wasted effort if we agree a consensus here to create it, and it will make it less likely that others will then delete it (backed by such a consensus here, I'd be happy to create it myself as a text article, also including John Fisher, but I wouldn't want the technical hassle of trying to creating it as a List article, and I'd prefer to leave that to somebody else, unless the lists were nothing more complicated than Church names and/or sentences preceded by an *). Provisional suggested article name: 'Listing of Thomas More and John Fisher by Churches of the Anglican Communion'.
3) But in the meantime I am now initially restoring the text as was, in effect Reverting as in the R of WP:BRD (Bold, Revert, Discuss) - the deletion of a large amount of text that is relevant and useful for readers and that had been there for a fairly long time (especially without adequate replacement, as is currently the case) is WP:Bold, and, per BRD, once challenged such Bold moves need consensus before taking effect.
4) Having done that I will then provisionally restore the old 'Other churches in the Anglican Communion' subsection as in effect suggested by Andreas, and transfer the relevant text to it.
5) If anybody prefers to do so, they can also create separate RC and C of E subsections. (One might then consider adding John Paul II making him patron saint of politicians to the RC section, possibly after changing the name of the overall section to something like 'Canonization and similar honors', but that's a discussion for another day) Tlhslobus (talk) 03:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Done. If somebody prefers to change the restored subsection into a full section outside 'Canonization' for cosmetic reasons, or to undo my step 4 above, that's OK by me (though I suspect it actually makes more sense as it is).Tlhslobus (talk) 03:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I've now provisionally added RC and C of E subsections as suggested in step 5 above. Please feel free to undo that if you don't like it.Tlhslobus (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Legacy section is very POV

An anonymous editor removed that section recently and it has been restored, however, it drew my attention to the section and reading it confirmed that this section has a very pro-More POV. Almost all the references and quotes are aimed at praising or glorifying More and as the original deleter said responding to an attack that was never made. It therefore is very one-sided and does not add anything of value to the article. Dabbler (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The Legacy section does, overall, present a positive assessment of More, but if it does, it reflects where the popular consensus is, and has been for a long time. Given that it does provide reasonable citations (except for the claim about historians, which is odd, because worthwhile cites of historians considering his execution unjust here could be multiplied at great length, and almost no one could reasonably claim that his conviction and execution were just, whatever they think about More himself - this does need to be fixed) and also provides what might be called dissenting viewpoints, I have difficulty seeing why this is an issue, objectively speaking. Hilary Mantel and Brooklyn Eagle might not be happy with it, but by any fair standard, it is a not unreasonable assessment of More's legacy. Alexander1926 (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps the title of the section is incorrect. It is not his legacy that is discussed, which was pretty limited, perhaps Richard III's lingering reputation as a "Bad King" and disabled hunchback and a well known book title that very few have read, but it reflects the positive modern opinion about him and while it does not really address the opposing opinions that he was a persecutor of religious freedoms. Dabbler (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Reasons (given per WP:DETAG) for removing the POV tag on this section:

  • I'm not sure whether this is the right way to say this, but sadly, the tagging's justification seems thoroughly confused. Contrary to what has been stated:
    • This section does NOT discuss Richard III, nor whether he was a 'Bad King', nor a disabled hunchback, nor a persecutor of religious freedoms, nor a well known book title that very few have read (whatever that was intended to mean)
    • This section DOES discuss whether Thomas More was a persecutor of religious freedoms. Its second sentence reads: 'However, his zealous and brutal persecution of Protestants while Lord Chancellor contravenes modern notions of religious liberty as discussed below.' Its final paragraph is entirely devoted to such criticisms. This point has also been made by Alexander1926 (Thanks, Alexander).
    • This section was NOT recently anonymously deleted and restored. That was a paragraph in a different section, a section that is already tagged (albeit with a tag that should arguably be deleted per WP:DRIVEBYTAGGING, but I'll leave that decision to others), and is a paragraph that has already been fruitlessly discussed in these pages at distressingly exhausting length (see here).
  • The legitimate point about changing the section title can be discussed in a new Talk section (or a title change can be tried without discussion), and this does NOT require or justify the current tag.
  • Strictly speaking, according to WP:DETAG, I should post these reasons and then wait a few days or until consensus is reached. To save time and try to ensure the tag gets removed, I have removed it straight away, per WP:IAR. If somebody thinks I should have waited longer, please feel free to revert me. Tlhslobus (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Are you sure it isn't that too much is made of the persecution angle? Before Wolf Hall I think only professional historians and a few aficionados of John Foxe were much aware of this. A Man for All Seasons has meanwhile been filmed at least twice, and it's only a couple of years ago that Penguin Classics brought out a new translation of Utopia, to replace the one they'd had continuously in print for forty years. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Are you saying that you want to flag the section as POV because you think it's too anti-More? If so, personally I'm not sure that's wise as past experience suggests it will probably just lead to more exhausting and pointless effort-wasting unproductive argument here. If you feel that way, then a more productive approach may simply be to gradually make a series of small changes to the text yourself, and see how they fare (hopefully such a process of small changes by both sides may gradually evolve towards some 'ideal' middle ground compromise). But if you really want to tag the section and try to justify it here then probably nobody can stop you. Tlhslobus (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm saying what I'm saying. There's no need to put words in my mouth. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, given the context I thought that was probably what you were implying. My apologies for overhastily jumping to unwarranted conclusions.Tlhslobus (talk) 06:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Apologies accepted. They probably aren't even necessary in strict courtesy. Sorry that my response was more irritable than it need have been. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Andreas Philopater I might also be misunderstanding you, but taking your words at face value, I think the WP policies are reasonably clear about which choice to make: "professional historians" (even if not well known to the general public) are to be our reference point, and not Wolf Hall or A Man for All Seasons. OTOH, they and Foxe clearly have notability and can be cited carefully (not as factual simply) for that reason. It is clear that modern historians see positive and negative aspects to More, and we need to try to balance that. (BTW Wolf Hall is not simply anti More IMOH. I think the shock of it being critical at all just gives this reputation. The old idea of Cromwell as simply bad and More as simply good had indeed clearly become quite widespread within the general literate public before Mantel. It portrays Cromwell, the novel's hero, as being genuinely respectful and sympathetic of More on many occasions. It does not portray his execution as just for example. Anyway, all this is relevant to More's image in modern culture, but not to the sections where we discuss the facts of More himself. Which is perhaps even the same point you are making.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Well quite. To know what he did we best look to professional historians (and not so much to amateurs like Brian Moynahan, perhaps). To know how he was remembered we should look at much broader sources. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
One point to be careful of, any notable figure will have some authors trashing him because publishing something different gets them noticed. While we need to be balanced, we don't have to include outliers simply because they exist. A polarizing figure like More will have enough detractors without adding in the academic professional detractors. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I think Andreas Philopater's last post clarifies, and indeed that is consistent with the original posting. I think the point is that the LEGACY section need not be about what professional historians think really happened, and of course that is correct. On the other hand it is hard for us Wikipedians to say that A Man for All Seasons is more influential than Hilary Mantel (who is back in the press in recent weeks with a new BBC mini-series). Notability is something where it is sometimes hard to avoid Wikipedians using their own judgement, but ideally it would be good if we had secondary sources such as even just reviews from good newspapers to help us compare the influences of such works on the more general public. I presume however that there will be differences for example between America and England on this, so we should be careful about leaning too much one review. Mission Impossible?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
@Tarlneustaedter, I think your point is more directly relevant to the sections about real historical facts. So your concern is similar to the one I originally mentioned. But in a legacy section talking about public debates, if someone SUCCEEDED in getting people talking, we may need to mention that even if professional historians would frown. We would of course need to be careful about avoiding putting such opinions into "Wikipedia's voice".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Thomas More. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Why "Roman Catholic" is wrong per WP:BRD

The origins of the term "Roman Catholic" and "Catholic" are both disputed, but that dispute is not relevant to this discussion, the question is which construction is most accurate in terms of this article. I'll will attempt to be succinct below:

1. I agree and completely accept the usage of the term "Catholic" has a wider use than merely those in communion with the bishop of Rome, and in that sense my first edit could have been better. However in that sense the term "catholic" (with a small "c") is more commonly used.
2. Specifically in order to specify what was meant by "Catholic" in this context, and in response to the feedback of other users, I inserted a link specifically to the Wikipedia page describing the church which is in communion with the bishop of Rome. I deliberately avoided ambiguity by linking directly to it, not to "23 entries on the Catholic Church disambiguation page".
3. The term "Roman Catholic" is an erroneous term which is seldom (if ever) used by the church itself today. Where it is used it usually refers to Catholics of the Latin Church. However Thomas More is recognised as a saint not only by the Latin Church but by ALL who are in communion with the bishop of Rome. That is to say not only Latin Catholics, but the 22 Eastern Catholic churches as well. That is exactly why I linked to the page which describes all of these 23 churches.
4. I contend my formulation clearly specifies a recognition of sainthood by the 23 churches in communion with the bishop of Rome, this is a wider group than "Roman Catholics". This is true whether you think "Roman Catholic" is an appropriate formulation or not.
5. In my view the imprecision and contested nature of the term "Roman Catholic" makes it inappropriate for use in Wikipedia. The final edits I submitted (which were reversed) deliberately set out to avoid such imprecision whilst simultaneously not engaging with the controversy itself. I contend these edits or some similar compromise ought to be restored.
6. I would accept "Catholics in communion with the Bishop of Rome" as an agreeable compromise. This specifies precisely what is meant, and is not contested terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.253.207 (talk) 12:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


Chris McLaughlin

At least at a first glance, "Catholics in communion with the Bishop of Rome" seems wordy but informative and essentially fine by me, if suitably Wikilinked, though others (and possibly me after further thought) may well object that it's actually likely to be confusing to many readers. To where would you wikilink it? A wordier but arguably more informative (or more easily understood) alternative might be "Roman Catholics (meaning the Latin Church and all other Catholics in communion with the Bishop of Rome)", with Roman Catholics wikilinked as standard (which currently redirects to Catholic Church, which is there described as 'also known as the Roman Catholic Church'), and "all other Catholics in communion with the Bishop of Rome" wikilinked to the relevant part of the Disambiguation page (an anchor can easily be added there if necessary to link to the exact desired spot).Tlhslobus (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Also you seem to be implying (for instance in your point 4) that Roman Catholic Church refers only to the Latin Church, whereas it normally refers to the whole Church, at least as per Roman Catholic Church (disambiguation), which says:
-------------------------
The Roman Catholic Church is the church in communion with the Bishop of Rome (the Pope)
Roman Catholic Church may also refer to:
Latin Church, the largest of the particular churches that constitute the Catholic Church
Diocese of Rome, the local church of Rome
------------------------
So another less wordy possible option might be to Wikilink Roman Catholics in our current text to that disambiguation article, or to a new anchor added in front of 'The Roman Catholic Church is the church in communion with the Bishop of Rome (the Pope)'. Tlhslobus (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, are we quite sure that the non-Latins in communion with Rome all know him as 'St Thomas More'? I'm no expert on this, but the veneration of saints and their precise naming seems to be the sort of non-doctrinal ritual matter on which some non-Latins might be allowed differ from Rome, and might choose to do so - for instance, when it's the other way round, I know that St Maroun is a major saint in the Maronite Church in Lebanon, which is in communion with Rome, but I've never heard of him in a Latin context. So it seems at least possible that something similar may well apply in some non-Latin churches to some Latin saints such as More, though I'm not quite sure precisely how that should affect our wording. (Having now checked, St Maroun is in fact also a Latin (and Orthodox) saint, but 'Maron, known to Latin Catholics as St Maroun' sounds somewhat misleading - to that extent your 'venerated by the ... Church as' seems like a real improvement).Tlhslobus (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Also we should perhaps wait a few days to see if anybody else wants to have their say, especially Andreas Philopater, who has already supported the reversion in the previous section. As for Wikipedia's use of 'Roman Catholic' in general, that seems to be a matter you might want to raise elsewhere, perhaps on the Talk Page of WP:MOS, though possibly with unpredictable consequences (for instance, I suspect that lots of people, especially Northern Ireland Catholics, may be rather offended that Wikipedians eventually decided that 'Ireland' was normally preferable to 'Republic of Ireland' - or at least I think I'd probably be pretty offended if I were a Northern Ireland Catholic, or any other Northern Irish person who thought of himself or herself as Irish - as somebody from the Republic I think I should perhaps feel vaguely offended on their behalf, but I'd probably better stop this digression).Tlhslobus (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)





Thank you for engaging in the discussion and the points you make are generally reasonable. I will try not to repeat myself, but I will attempt to deveolp a couple of points:

I wouldn't really object to your suggestion to link to the "Roman Catholic" disambigulation page however I think that the very existence of that page is proof positive that this particular term is troublesome, and in my view simply adds to the case that it ought to be avoided. In answer to your question as to where to link "Catholics in communion with the bishop of Rome" then the answer is precisely the place I linked to previously which is specific to this group. The name of the link could be easily rendered to look like this: "Catholics in communion with the bishop of Rome". This article points out in its first line that this group is also sometimes refered to as the "Roman Catholic Church".

I have certainly always understood the term "Roman Catholic" to refer to Latin Church (i.e. Western) Catholics in communion with the Pope. Although Latin Catholics are by far the majority of those in communion with the bishop of Rome there are 22 other autonomous Catholic Churches which are just as Catholic, just as in communion with the bishop of Rome and yet are not at all "Roman" in any other way whatsoever. It fact it is this very exclusion of such a large element of the Catholic world that is in my view the most objectionable problem with the term.

I am still not clear why exactly the term "Roman" is necessary at all. Eastern Catholics definitely do recognise Latin Church saints (and vice versa) so the use of the term "Roman" in this respect simply does not represent the reality of the situation. If the intention is to distinguish those Catholics in communion with the bishop of Rome from others such as Anglicans etc. who claim the term Catholic then the specificity should relate to ALL of those in communion with the bishop of Rome, not only the "Roman" ones.

Without wishing to labour the point I think this debate illustrates precisely the problem with the term "Roman Catholic". Despite the fact that it is common usage, even among many Latin Catholics, it is not really accurate in any meaningful way. My own view is that Wikipedia should aspire to agreed and accepted terminology which is accurate to the maximum degree possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris McLaughlin (talk • contribs) 12:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Chris, I share the ignorance of Tlhslobus on this point about whether ALL RC saints are recognized by Orthodox churches in communion, and it would be good to confirm it would be sourced.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Chris. I'll leave the good news till near the end.
1) On reflection "Catholics in communion with the bishop of Rome" now seems a bad idea, being both harder for many readers to understand and too wordy for the lead - that sort of clarification might be added as a foot note. But as Andrew Lancaster has pointed out (thanks, Andrew) that particular formulation would need an RS citation, and it might not be easy to find a 'clarifying' footnote that didn't need a probably hard-or-impossible-to-find RS citation.
2) You appear to be very much in a minority, and in disagreement with the usage of most modern Popes, when saying that "Roman Catholic Church" only means the Latin Church. This is documented in great detail with many citations at Roman_Catholic_(term). But of course none of that would of itself make 'Roman' necessary.
3) You are of course right that 'Roman Catholic' is 'troublesome'. But so is 'Catholic' without 'Roman', partly because so many other churches claim to be Catholic, etc (see History of the term "Catholic"). And that is presumably why 'Roman' has long being the consensus here.
4) I also still suspect dropping 'Roman' will require more readers to have to check it out than necessary, but I could easily be wrong on that, and in any case it's probably more inconvenient for me to argue that than it is for them to sometimes have to make unnecessary checks. And I myself don't greatly care about the other issues of 'Catholic' v 'Roman Catholic'.
5) So I am now dropping my objections to your changes, regardless of whether it's just changing 'Roman Catholics' to 'Catholics' or changing it to 'venerated by the Catholic Church'.
6) However that doesn't necessarily mean that others won't object to them, perhaps because of something like item 3 above. But I'm now leaving that up to them, if there are any of them.
Regards. Tlhslobus (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • My own view is that "Roman Catholic" is the least ambiguous option as well as the least likely to give offence to the subset of Anglicans who will insist that they too are Catholic. Now that the reasons for the change have been given, I am prepared not to insist. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I do object to the basic premise in the headingt of this section. Roman Catholic is not "wrong" it is normal usage for a large number of people who do not accept that the self-described "Catholic Church" uis the only Catholic church. It is also usual usage in many places when discussing that denomination to ensure that it is correctly identified. It is also used by that denomination is its dealings with other churches, e.g. Anglican—Roman Catholic International Commission. If it is necessary to ensure that Eastern Catholics are included in the statement then the words "Roman and Eastern Catholics" is a shorter and easier to understand formulation than "Catholics in communion with the bishop of Rome". Dabbler (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)




Thank you for the broadly positive feedback. I will try not to repeat any of the arguments above but in will respond to comments made since my last posting:
1. No-one here contests that the word "catholic" is claimed by some Protestant churches (and others). The issue here is not the word "catholic", but rather the word "Roman".
2. My contention all along has been that the word "Roman" is at best ambiguous and at worst erroneous. I therefore don't see much benefit in changing the text to "Roman and Eastern Catholics". This implies the existance of two different groups, whereas in this particular instance they share one communion of saints.
3. I would question the use of the term "Roman Catholic" as being used by recent Popes. I have examined the article mentioned but would like to see the texts of these statements in their original languages to see if the word "Roman" is there and how it is used. In some situations where the term has been used it has a particular meaning, such as when Popes have met Orthodox Patriarchs and wish to emphasise their historical communion. I am not aware of any Church document in modern times which uses the "Roman" prefix when referring to the whole Catholic Church.
4. I note the objections to the term "Catholics in communion with the bishop of Rome". I too consider this term wordy, however I would argue that it is more precise and more accurate than "Roman" and that precision and accuracy should be more important than concision. If someone can formulate a term which is more concise but which at the same time is sufficiently accurate then I would be quite prepared to consider it.
5.In an attempt at compromise and taking on board feedback I suggest "Catholics in communion with the Pope", which in my view has exactly the same meaning, is shorter, and is more immediately clear to the less well-informed reader. Nonetheless, I can imagine that someone may object to that term too.

Chris McLaughlin

I've fixed the many incorrect URLs for the Papal References in Roman Catholic (term). They all have Roman Catholic in the languages to which I've linked (English if possible, else Italian, else French). You can usually see the other available languages by clicking on the Uparrow to go to the monthly Index. On rare occasions 'Roman' is dropped from one of the translations, perhaps because Catholic and Roman Catholic are interchangeable.

For instance: Index: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1980/november/index_it.htm date: 1980-11-17 (speech to Jews in Mainz, Germany)

Italian (has Roman): http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1980/november/documents/hf_jp_ii_spe_19801117_ebrei-magonza_it.html Un segno incoraggiante fu anche il raduno del comitato di collegamento internazionale tra la Chiesa romana-cattolica ed il giudaismo l’anno scorso a Ratisbona.

Translation: An encouraging sign was also the session of the International Commission of contact between the (Roman) Catholic Church and Judaism last year at Ratisbon.

Portuguese (has Roman): http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1980/november/documents/hf_jp_ii_spe_19801117_ebrei-magonza_po.html Sinal encorajador foi igualmente a reunião da Comissão de aliança internacional entre a Igreja romana-católica e o Hebraísmo no ano passado em Ratisbona.

Spanish (no Roman): http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1980/november/documents/hf_jp_ii_spe_19801117_ebrei-magonza_sp.html Un signo esperanzador fue también la sesión del Comité Internacional de contacto entre la Iglesia católica y el judaísmo, que tuvo lugar el año pasado en Ratisbona.

German (has Roman): http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1980/november/documents/hf_jp_ii_spe_19801117_ebrei-magonza_ge.html Ein ermutigendes Zeichen war auch die Tagung des Internationalen Verbindungskomitees zwischen der römisch-katholischen Kirche und dem Judentum im vergangenen Jahr in Regensburg.


Date: 1980-06-25 Italian (has Roman): http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1980/june/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19800625_confessio-augustana_it.html

Portugues (has Roman): http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1980/june/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19800625_confessio-augustana_po.html

Spanish (has Roman): http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1980/june/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19800625_confessio-augustana_sp.html

German (has Roman): http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1980/june/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19800625_confessio-augustana_ge.html

Here (if I checked right) all 4 say Roman Catholic, including the Spanish one.

Tlhslobus (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)




That's an impressive amount of work there and I admire your industriousness, however these examples are more than thirty years old. Can anyone point to recent use of the term "Roman Catholic" in official contexts when referring to the whole Catholic church? I think it ought to be remembered that even if such examples can be found that in itself does make the term any less incorrect. David Cameron often refers to himself as "Prime Minister of Britain", but in fact he is no such thing and no country called Britain exists. Similarly the Vatican often gets its own documents wrong. It has been official Church policy since at the Fist Vatican Council in 1870 to avoid the careless use of the "Roman" prefix. Chris McLaughlin

Oh dear, are you planning to get rid of 'Britain' too? And 'America'? And 'American'? And 'Europe'? And 'European'? And of course 'Blacks' are really brown, and 'Whites' are really a delicate shade of pink, and we're going to need to add 'maybe' to every statement in the encyclopedia because it's always possible that any given statement is in error for reasons possibly too subtle for the human mind to grasp. Wikipedia can't work like that. Instead it works with the balance of so-called reliable sources. The most recent examples in the article are from Pope Benedict and are less than 10 years old. I have seen no authoritative document saying that Roman Catholic Church means the Latin Church (as distinct from one book saying some people have 'even' used it to mean the Latin Church). Whereas there are plenty of reliable sources (including Popes, but these are vastly outnumbered by non-Popes) using 'Roman Catholic Church' to mean 'Catholic Church'. And even if they are all wrong that's irrelevant according to long-established and thoroughly sensible Wikipedia rules banning Original Research in favour of Reliable Sources. And in any case Church documents aren't necessarily all that relevant except as a possible means of persuading you: this article is written in 21st century English (a language spoken mainly by non-Catholics), not 1870 Church Latin. If 21st century English speakers still called Catholics 'Papists', then 'Papists' would probably be the right term to use here. Instead they call them Roman Catholics, so ... But it doesn't worry me what they get called here - my 'industriousness' was just trying to helpfully answer some of the questions raised by you as a minor side effect of fixing the Roman Catholic (term) article that badly needed fixing - so thanks for prompting me to do so. And please don't let anything in this paragraph stop you changing this article - I've already said I no longer care, though that doesn't mean others don't. Tlhslobus (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I do not see consensus above, so I reverted the change. The term "roman catholic" while perhaps theoretically inelegant in some measure, is widely understood as the church run by the Holy See. I see no point in changing references to the wordier term which is actually less comprehensible. In the discussion above, I see what has been described elsewhere as a "wall of text", demonstrating strong conviction by a single individual, but not showing consensus from other readers. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Please note that Roman Catholic (term) has been updated since the above discussion i a way which I find clearly supports the first proposal. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Order of Honorifics

I've looked at the extant discussion surrounding honorifics for Thomas More. The issue I wish to raise is strictly separate however. Another editor misdirected me to the archived discussion on honorifics in the name of the article itself and on the presence or absence of certain honorifics ("Saint", "Sir", etc.). However, that is not directly relevant to the changes I propose. The changes I attempted to make are primarily to the order in which the honorifics initially occur and not to the extent to which they occur at all.

I see no reason to have "Sir" before "Saint", as the title of the page is simply "Thomas More". I do see reason for having "Saint" before "Sir", however, namely that that is undoubtedly the order which More himself would have preferred, and that it is no hindrance either to historical accuracy or to the clarity of the article. Furthermore there should be no more controversy surrounding the title of "Sir" than "Saint" - all religious titles being controversial. (The idea that "Sir" is not a religious title resists about as much scrutiny as would dislodge a similar view about almost any other royal title.)

So I propose the order of honorifics be changed in the first full line of text in the lead section.

2601:14A:C000:5326:4D84:CC9C:A32:46F4 (talk) 06:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC) DuFond

Historically Thomas More was known as Sir in his own lifetime and for four centuries after his death until he was eventually canonised. As for debating his posthumous preferences, it is hardly encyclopedic. What reference can you provide that he would have preferred to be dead and a Saint rather than alive and a knight? "Sir" is a secular title at the time of his life, it was granted to him by the King for his secular activities, so suggesting it has religious connections seems very dubious. In his homeland, I would suggest that he is better known as Sir Thomas rather than St. Thomas as that is the name he is taught by in schools, but I can offer no proof. Finally the wording as written indicates that the title Saint is not universally used and in fact many people find his actions abhorrent and far from saintly as can be seen on the earlier Talk pages edits. Dabbler (talk) 09:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
My fault if I pointed to the wrong archived conversation. I think the current listing of Sir before Saint is a fair compromise which the majority of editors are fine with. What More himself would have preferred doesn't matter on Wikipedia. Pushing the religious title to the fore is going to upset some. There is plenty of coverage about canonization in the article and the lede has the bolded title of saint. Making this change is parochial, picayune, and unnecessary. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

"Writing as Rosseus"

Rosseus is mentioned just once in this article. Therefore, I think it is proper and helpful to identify this instance of the alias/pen name fully as "Gulielmus Rosseus," [Firstname Lastname, not just Lastname alone].KathonWiki (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

A Towering Novel! Chuck Culver's Best Work (which means it's not a source for use here)

To editor Peter K Burian: Not only does the book you cited not say on page 231 what you claim it does, the book is a novel. We can't be citing fictional works for historical facts. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, I revised it afterwards; same content but with two scholarly sources. The content I added was confirmed by William Roper's account and he was at the execution: See page 94 of Roper's book, https://books.google.ca/books?id=8CEJAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=William+Roper+Thomas+More+execution&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjM-fLTj47VAhVk5oMKHX3gDuAQ6AEIKDAA#v=snippet&q=execution&f=false

Peter K Burian (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Thomas More. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Was he attainted?

This is not to wade into the Sir vs. Saint issue again, instead looking at the fate of his English titles. More was beheaded for treason. Others who suffered this fate tend to have their various dignities stripped away (Thomas Cromwell, for instance, had been The Earl of Essex KG PC) in their last days and I wonder if More was still a knight bachelor and a privy counsellor at the time of his death. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Correct quote at execution? Inconsistent wording in the article

The vast majority of sources do indicate 

 Of his execution, he was reported to have said: "I die the King's good servant, but God's first." (in the lead)

However, others state that the correct word was and (not but).

https://books.google.ca/books?id=AQtmzR9TXncC&pg=PA357&dq=I+die+the+King%27s+good+servant+God%27s+first&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=I%20die%20the%20King's%20good%20servant%20God's%20first&f=false A Thomas More Source Book edited by Gerard Wegemer, Stephen W. Smith

https://books.google.ca/books?id=Diy8DQAAQBAJ&pg=PA18&dq=I+die+the+King%27s+good+servant+and+God%27s+first+roper&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjW77b6h47VAhVBxYMKHS2-CHUQ6AEIQTAF#v=onepage&q=I%20die%20the%20King's%20good%20servant%20and%20God's%20first%20roper&f=false Executing The Tudors By Dr Scott Shaw-Smith

AND in the Execution section, the quote uses the word and. The quote either in the lead or in the Execution section needs to be changed for consistency. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I revised the lead so the quote is consistent with the one in the Execution section. However, I am not sure if the correct word is and or but. The latter is used by 90% of sources but in this article, the quote with and has been used for a long time, and cited. However, in my view, the source used is not one of the best available.

William Roper, who attended the execution, does not mention this quote at all. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

There are other sources which report the quote with, "but." For example, Peter Ackroyd's book on Thomas More: https://books.google.ca/books?redir_esc=y&id=r1gNAQAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=god%27s+first — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emptycupboard (talk • contribs) 23:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Crosby Hall

Crosby Hall, London has its own article. Details of a modern replica, the buildings that surround it and of some of its architects seem out of place in this article about an historical figure. Tagged {{Off topic}} pending a trim. --217.155.32.221 (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Done.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Suggested further trim: Both The London Encyclopaedia (p.220) and Historic England report that of the original building only the hammerbeam roof of the Great Hall, a postern, a fireplace and a few oriel windows survived to be incorporated into the new women's hostel building; this is not "…relocated and reconstructed stone by stone". Rewording to match the sources more closely is proposed.
--217.155.32.221 (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Done.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Details of Thomas More's death

Under the Personal Details section where it states where the article's subject died, it says: -begin quote- 20/3/2020 TUMMBAAD RATNAGIRI MAHARASHTRA -end quote- Unless Thomas More was blessed with supernatural longevity, I suspect this may be incorrect... - Graham, UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.234.142 (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@85.255.234.142 Looks like that change was reverted pretty quickly, so that is gone from the page now. If you're still seeing it, you may need to refresh your cache of the page. Details on how to do that are here. Best, Darren-M talk 19:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

More's History of King Richard III tagged

More's father was indeed treated harshly by Henry VII, but the line in the article stating that this was the reason Henry doesn't get much coverage in History of King Richard III has been tagged {{CN}} for a while now. I've just done a word count (Lumby's 1883 edition—thanks, Google. Obsessive or what?) and the actual total is about sixty. Given that it's Richard's story and not Henry's, that seems reasonable. The tagged statement looks a bit like WP:SYN. I'm thinking of removing it, subject to other contributors' views.--AntientNestor (talk) 07:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

No objections—removed.--AntientNestor (talk) 08:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Alan Dundes reference

This edit swapped out a ref from Alan Dundes as "Failed verification". Only after my change did I notice that another title from Dundes does actually contain some relevant material: Life is Like a Chicken Coop Ladder(1989), page 61. The replacement has more context so I'll let it stand. AntientNestor (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

More's influence on Justice Antonin Scalia

The late American Supreme Court jurist Antonin Scalia found a profound influence from the writings of Sir Thomas More, often quoting the English lawyer and was even given an award by the Thomas More Society, which bears More's name. During the inauguration of Barack Obama, Scalia (in typical Scalian fashion) wore a hat directly modeled after Sir Thomas More [1][2].


@AntientNestor you reverted my change to adding Scalia to the list of More's Influenced because "There isn't room for every jurist of the Catholic faith—should be significant figures in history only". I disagree with your assertion that Scalia was an insignificant figure in history—in fact, there is a good case to be made that Scalia may have been more influential to the corpus of American law than More himself was. Moreso, Scalia was not simply a "jurist of the Catholic faith", he was a Supreme Court justice, and a particularly influential one at that (see the page for Antonin Scalia). I think he'd still be worth putting in More's list of influenced for these reasons. GuardianH (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I certainly didn't want to diminish Justice Scalia's significance in modern US jurisprudence, but the important point I was making was "significant figures in history only". Taking the broad scope of history in the 500 or so years since More's time, I'm suggesting that any particular lawyer, whatever the style of hat they favor, will have to be a really significant historical figure of, lasting "all time" importance, to count. When I noticed the Scalia addition I checked to see how many there were already: in fact, just two. One included More in a couple of his plays. The second's WP page already explains and references his connection to More.
The Clarence Thomas reference you now provide is certainly persuasive as to Scalia's personal respect for More, of course.--AntientNestor (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Humanist? No.

He was a very famous Catholic. Why is he billed here as a humanist? 204.237.0.87 (talk) 11:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

It's Renaissance humanism, relating to scholarship and learning, not individual humanism. More definitely wasn't one of those.--AntientNestor (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Saint John Donne

At the time of posting the lascivious poet John Donne is described as "honoured as a saint by Anglicans". Donne's sermons as an Anglican priest were well regarded but, as far as I know, he was never canonised. Tagged, pending deletion, unless someone comes along to put me right.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 10:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, my scepticism was misplaced. I still can't find details of his canonisation but his saint's day is 31 March.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 12:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
This has now been clarified in the John Donne article.[1] It seems he has a saint's day but he wasn't a saint.--AntientNestor (talk) 08:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
I removed the word saint, he is not a saint in the same sense that Roman Catholics are called saint. The Church of England does not canonise people but acknowledges some as heroes of the church or as martyrs etc., the Anglican Calendars are called the "Calendar of Saints" for short as some are traditional pre-Reformation saints. Donne has a commemoration day on March 31. Dabbler (talk) 02:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Would the full term hero of the church in the article make it clearer still?--AntientNestor (talk) 07:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

what happened to sir thomas because of his decision?

? 72.214.231.250 (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Beaufort House

Following the recent expansion of Beaufort House, I'm thinking of following WP:TOPIC and trimming this, with a link to a new article. (Crosby Hall already has its article.) Thoughts?--AntientNestor (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Done--AntientNestor (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

"The King's Servant" short story

I have tagged this {{Off topic|date=April 2023}}. A one-line mention may possibly be appropriate, but three hundred words about a slight piece of modern fiction, with its publication history in various anthologies, is not. I'm considering a heavy trim.--AntientNestor (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The Tudors has its own article so there's no need for this amount of coverage here—also due a trim.--AntientNestor (talk) 09:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Done.--AntientNestor (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thomas_More/Archive_5&oldid=1180654481"