text:
Talk:Reformation

Sectioning
The article is dedicated to the Reformation not to Reformation in indivdual countries or territories. I doubt that the article should present the details of the Reformation movement in each country. Of course, relevant events of the history of the Reformation of individual countries could be presented but only within the wider framework. Consequently, much of the present subsections are unnecessary. Borsoka (talk) 09:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

 * As someone who has not edited this article very much but is familiar with the history of the Reformation, I agree. I think the current article layout can be improved. First thing I noticed is that we have 2 main sections "History" and "Conclusion/legacy". Since this article is about a historical movement or event, having a history section is redundant. If I were simplifying this layout I might suggest the following:
 * An origins, background, context section (whatever is most appropriate)
 * A section describing briefly late medieval Catholicism
 * Renaissance and how that contributed to later Protestantism
 * Proto-Protestants
 * Early Reformation (1517-1524)
 * Martin Luther
 * Luther's theology
 * Reformation at Wittenberg
 * Karlstadt's radicalism
 * Zwickau prophets
 * Reformation at Zurich
 * Zwingli
 * This is of course just a start and we would have to include further events, but there is no reason for including every country in Europe - especially if they have their own articles. Ltwin (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Borsoka Ltwin (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking a very similar structure. The main difference that I do not like orphan sub-sections. :) Borsoka (talk) 01:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

 * @Borsoka I agree. This article should really focus on the main historical narrative of the Reformation and leave the detail to other articles like English Reformation, Swiss Reformation, and the Counter Reformation. Ltwin (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article is too big. Can I suggest a different structure?
 * As a background, may I suggest that one reason that an unwieldy article has been generated is a failure to adequately distinguish two different usages of "Reformation":
 * the first concerns the religious movements which took lasting hold in Germanic (language) countries (Germany, Scandinavia, Netherlands, Britain, etc) and their colonies
 * the second concerns the Geo-political period of instability and wars in Western Europe (particularly Germany) that came in the wake of the religious movement, and which ended with the Treaty of Westphalia: the enormous amount of the current article that is taken up with wars and battles (rather than e.g. theology and personalities) is a sign of this usage. (e.g. " Georg Truchsess von Waldburg (d. 1531), the commander of the troops of the Swabian League, achieved the dissolution of the Swabian peasant armies either by force or through negotiations." ... really??)
 * I think the article should be about primarily about the first usage, not the second. (If it seems strange to think of two uses of "Reformation", consider how it makes no sense to say that the Protestant Reformation as a religious movement stopped with the Treaty of Westphalia! Of course, some events straddle both usages: the Pilgrimage_of_Grace for example.)
 * So...I think that a better way to trim down the Reformation page would be
 * Make it a hub article, where each section on has a minimal paragraph; perhaps Luther can be allowed two paragraphs, but no details. Clarify that the main scope of the article is the religious history of the 1500s and 1600s.
 * to remove much of the discussion on geo-politics, war and battles to an article that accompanies European_wars_of_religion; e.g. the section Consolidation and Confessionalization.  I am aware of the danger of sweeping the wars under the carpet in order to concentrate on e.g. theological or personality aspects of the Reformations: The main article just needs to say "The wars and famines that followed the Reformation killed up to 17 million Europeans" and provide a link.
 * to remove the Background section, which is just ludicrous in how off-topic it is (no matter how correct), perhaps to Christianity_in_the_16th_century;?
 * Restructure the remaining article to build NPOV into the structure of the article (and perhaps avoid unnecessary squabbles) by providing explicit top-level sections for the different movements. I suggest:
 * Protestant Reformation: Lutheran, Calvinist, Zwinglian, Bohemians, Anglicans, Gallicans, Anabaptist
 * Protestant Pre-cursors: Waldheimensians, Huss/Hussites, Wycliff/Lollards
 * Protestant Aftermath and Legacy
 * Catholic Counter-Reformation: Council of Trent, Jesuits,
 * Catholic Pre-cursors: Brethren of Common Life  devotio moderna,  Council of Basel/Florence, Savonarola, Catherine of Genoa/Oratory of Divine Love,  Christian Humanists (Jean Gerson, Erasmus, etc)
 * Catholic Aftermath and Legacy
 * Breakdown by Country
 * Wars - link to other page
 * Rick Jelliffe (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above, and just came here to suggest that breakdowns by country be according to the countries that existed at the time; i.e., "United Kingdom" should not be a section, since that is a political formation that did not exist at the time of the Protestant Reformation. Instead, it might make more sense to combine all the countries listed under "United Kingdom" (England, Wales, Scotland) and Ireland under a section titled "Britain and Ireland" – making that section title geographic rather than anachronistically political. Everything currently within "New Waves" is about England and Ireland anyway, so that could all be integrated into a "Britain and Ireland" section.
 * skoosh (háblame) 18:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Baptisms and birth
it about how other religions give birth 102.132.142.88 (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Background: Church Life
Apologies for the length! At the risk of starting some flame war, can I take issue with the sentence "Based on Christ's parable on the Last Judgement, the Catholic Church taught that the performance of good works, such as feeding the hungry and visiting the sick, was a precondition of salvation." I think this is a misrepresentation.

A good guide for what the Church taught at that time is Aquinas, yes? His teaching on what it takes for the "ungodly" to be "justified" (i.e. an initial conversion or repentence after backsliding) has no mention of any kind of acts or works or charity: ''The entire justification of the ungodly consists as to its origin in the infusion of grace. For it is by grace that free-will is moved and sin is remitted.''(Summa Theo, Part II.I, Question 113. The effects of grace, Art7.) (IIUC, this is what Trent called "Actual Grace" or "prevenient grace", associated with a moment or a change) God offers this "first grace", then you make a freewill move towards God, then a move away from sin, then the remission of sin, is Aquinas' logical order.

However, when it comes to justified and unbackslidden Christians (i.e. baptized and converted in whatever order, and sticking to the path), which Aquinas treats as the default case, he talks about "sanctifying grace" which is a state (of living increasingly in grace) rather than a moment.

Where good works also come in relate to happiness: "happiness is the reward for works of virtue" done with charity a.k.a. "merits", as judged by God's loving nature, and caused by the Holy Spirit. Merits have no part in first grace but they amplify the reception of sanctifying grace subsequently by a feedback mechanism: I think the idea is that the more Christians open themselves up to God by charity, the more he fills them.

So the article could say that good works are a post-condition of justification, but for Aquinas they are not a pre-condition for justification or sanctification: grace comes first, based on the merits of Christ not us. So I don't think it is right that medieval Catholic doctrine was that works were "a pre-condition for salvation": I mean, if it were, wouldn't that rule out death-bed converts?

Can that sentence be adjusted or removed, as it seems to perpetuate a myth (or a garbled truth), please?

B.t.w., Luther's argument (against Erasmus' On Free Will) was not that Catholics required good works as a pre-condition for salvation, but that people who gave even the smallest role to free will were still slaves to the Law and not in grace.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your remark. Although the sentence does not contradict the cited source (Hamilton), I rephrased it . Hamilton writes: "The medieval church took vera seriously Christ's discourse on the Last Judgement in which he explained that men's salvation or damnation would depend on the works which they had performed in this life...". Borsoka (talk) 01:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think your re-wording is slightly better, but it still not acceptable because
 * 1) it still goes beyond what the source says, and
 * 2) the source says something that is controverted by other sources, and
 * 3) readers could easily go away with an incorrect interpretation, and
 * 4) it is not accurate.
 * A better wording would be "In accordance with Christ's parable on the Last Judgement, the Catholic Church taught that the faithful who (after their justification by grace and faith only) died in a state of sanctifying grace (maintained inter alia by good works out of faith and charity, such as feeding the hungry and visiting the sick) inherit their salvation and will get into heaven. In a sense, their lives being then good, they now merit getting to Heaven (but they have not earned the merit: their merit is a voluntary participation in Christ's merit); for some medieval people, gaining merit became a religious focus."
 * That probably is too much, though? It still is not the whole picture, as every different period and culture (and different theologians) had different emphases and ways to express it,https://regensburgforum.com/2017/02/06/scholastic-developments-on-merit-a-downward-path-into-pelagianism/  and I am not writing as a specialist in this area.  (And, of course, what the Church teaches and what medieval kids learnt from their Godparents are different things...) Rick Jelliffe (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ OK I adjusted the text with what I think is a better compromise:
 * "Entry into heaven required dying in a State of Grace; apart from recent and deathbed converts, the Catholic Church taught that the faithful who performed good works in charity, such as feeding the hungry and visiting the sick, would go to Heaven, in accordance with Christ's parable on the Last Judgement." Rick Jelliffe (talk) 04:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * My concern is that the present short text is fully in line with the cited source, while parts of the above version are not verified. I am not sure either that we should present all elements of the Catholic theology of salvation in an article about the Reformation. Borsoka (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, we certainly should not misrepresent what medieval Catholic theology was, either. I will find some RS references, or put it into a note. (I think my description it is better, if made acceptable, because for it also hints at the important medieval issue of "dying well" which pre-occupied them.) Rick 220.240.66.80 (talk) 00:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have added some more citations. Please let me know if they are not adequate, so I can find some better ones. (On the topic of dealing with Catholic theology, I think there is some use in understanding something by understanding what it differs from; I suppose that is the intent of the Background section?) Rick Jelliffe (talk) 01:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

 * I have also updated the lede's "requires good works" to "could involve good works" for the same reasons as above. "Requires good works" is a weaselly phrase that people can take (and have taken) as meaning that Catholic teaching is that grace and faith are not necessary (and logically prior to anything else), just doing nice things. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think your reading of the sentence is flawed, to put it lightly. It doesn't imply anything else was considered unnecessary, only states one thing that was considered necessary by the catholic church. XeCyranium (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No, we cannot rely on some culture-dependent default that when someone says something categorical they are not thereby being exclusive. This is a contentious issue, where people obviously do take the idea that Catholics think good works in the absence of faith is what is necessary to save someone and would read the words on face value; a contentious issue needs to have careful language.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, nothing's really lost by changing it. XeCyranium (talk) 02:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the phrase did not suggest that grace and faith were not necessary as it did not contain a statement about them. My concern is that we cannot present medieval Catholic theology based on medieval Catholic theologians' works as per WP:Primary. Borsoka (talk) 02:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

 * Yes. There is no shortage of research papers on what medieval theologians taught: what medieval people thought they were being taught is a much more difficult proposition, so scholars who give evidence such as the thriving charitable guilds are useful. It is good to mark what needs better citations.
 * Of course, what needs to be treated with extreme suspicion is partisan material from Catholics, Protestants, modern atheists, etc.: err.. pretty much everyone :-) (I think the scholarly "well" is so polluted that in many cases we need to trace quotes back to the original statements-- not as original research but as confirmation that the source cited is historically plausible and conservatively paraphrased.  I appreciate many of Borsoka's re-phrasing in the last weeks especially, as so often it is possible to turn a partisan statement into an objective one by just changing a word here or there.) Rick Jelliffe (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Latin
The text has reverted to "Latin was the language of public worship in most dioceses of Catholic Europe[note 6] although few laymen understood it." I think this is misleading and a non-sequitur: most medieval people had a smattering of Latin, as they encountered it in their daily lives (through the liturgy, prayer books, law, administration, manuals, signs, labels, accounts, schooling, doctors, etc.) and most everyone knew the Latin of the main public prayers of the mass.

Being able to speak and read a language fluently (which few could, or still can, for Latin) is different from being able to understand things you have learned in it: few people speak French but many people understand the words to the first lines of Frère_Jacques; few lawyers understand Latin sentences but they all know res ipsa loquitur and mens rea etc.; if you hear young educated Indians speak, they often pepper their native language with learnt English sentences or sayings, this being elegant or smart: they certainly "understand" those English fragments. When we watch a foreign movie with subtitles, just because we don't understand the language does not mean we do not understand the movie: we have another source of comprehension than our ears.

One of the responsibilities of the godparent was to teach the public prayers of the liturgy: when properly catechized people said the pater noster or the creed, they understood it. Everyone was supposed to understand the public prayers of the liturgy they would have to say. (Sure, the details of what the priest said was not important (or secret), but the readings were supposed to be explained in the vernacular in the homily, and many boys went to choir school to learn to sound out and hopefully understand the Psalms.)

Some other info:

 * On late medieval and renaissance Latin: Tunberg, T. (2020). Spoken Latin in the Late andMiddle Ages and Renaissance Revisited. Journal of Classics Teaching, 21(42), 66-71. doi:10.1017/S2058631020000446Tunberg, T. (2020). Spoken Latin in the Late Middle Ages and Renaissance Revisited. Journal of Classics Teaching, 21(42), 66-71. doi:10.1017/S2058631020000446
 * On medieval Latin as a living language: https://www.academia.edu/4109901/Medieval_Latin_Chapter_17_Dinkova_Bruun
 * For quasi-literacy: "in England 'probably more than half the population could read, though not necessarily also write, by 1500"
 * Based on your summary, I understand that few people understood Latin. I am sure that you can understand some Hungarian words (like czardas and goulash) but I doubt that you would be able to understand a whole Hungarian text. The fact that an explanation in the vernacular was needed shows that they did not understand the Latin liturgy. The article itself states that church visitations in Saxony proved that many believers could not cite the fundamental texts of Christian faith in the 1520s. Remember that the word "hocus-pocus" derrives from the Latin words of the Eucharist: "Hoc est corpus meum". Borsoka (talk) 02:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

 * Hmmm. (Please forgive if this gets off-topic: it makes its way back to an NPOV issue at the end!) In this context, "understood" may be a word that only misleads. Language competency is not binary.
 * I don't know the situation in Hungary (I was there two weeks ago: so hot but wonderful!), but I do know that the legal professions in English-speaking countries are full of Latin phrases that every lawyer understands: mens rea, res ipsa loquitur, etc. Do lawyers speak or read Latin? No. Do they understand/know the Latin phrases they need to know to participate in their discussions: yes. I do not speak Latin, but I do recall "calor, dolor, tumor, rubor" that my doctor father taught me as the symptoms of inflamation (which goes back to Celcus in the first century): these phrases permeate the culture. Most countries in medieval times were multi-lingual, and not only was Latin the language of record in most places in Europe, but there was there a much greater emphasis on aural reading and memorization of passages. If I heard the same Hungarian liturgy repeated every Sunday, and had it explained by my Godfather as a child, and was taught to recite the public prayers, I would indeed understand those parts. If I had a lively faith, I would be interested in finding out what the priest was saying and doing: ultimately everyone is responsible for their own faith, yes?  From the POV of Wikipedia editing, we need to avoid any bias that makes binary assumptions about e.g. literacy and ignorance.
 * For medieval Roman Catholics, the Latin prayers of the mass would be universal knowledge, the Creed, the Our Father, and the psalms (especially for boys who had been through a singing school). You would expect that, as today, most churchgoers would be able to recollect chunks of the beatitudes and key phrases. They would understand many of the OT stories, if not reproduce the exact words. In English, it is likely that most vernacular bibles were owned not by Lollard radical laymen but by priests to help teach and prepare their sermons, to make sure they were using standard English phrases; most of the Wycliff and Tyndale bibles have tables to show the (gospel etc) readings for the week (as used in the Sarum rite used in most places in England and Ireland pre-split), a practice carried over from the Latin Book of Hours of the medieval literate. Preachers in homilies were supposed to translate the gospel or text they were preaching on in their vernacular sermons, and people would memorize phrases just as today. From the POV of Wikipedia editing, we need to acknowledge that the knowledge of what people knew in aural cultures often is invisible to history.
 * As to most believers not being able to cite the fundamental texts, so what?: from the (lets call it) Erasmian Christian point of view, we would be more interested in whether they were indeed believers, faithful, were kind and loving, were good husbands and wives, and so on: I think Erasmus would say that Christ never called anyone (or everyone) to be a theologian? If the church visitations in Saxony found that the people there were not loving and kind, I would be more convinced. Of course, we are all supposed to be shocked at people who don't see Christianity as a contest of ideas, who don't 100% buy into Luther's idea that assertions are the core of what makes a Christian (or the emphasis of the second millenium Church councils on catechesis for that matter.) A Lutheran might say "the ability of laymen to assert exactly the theology and biblical texts of their faith is a metric of their community's faith" while a Catholic (not all though!) might say, "no, the number of people who visit hospitals and prison (and other things) out of genuine faithful charity even though they may be quite stupid and confused about all sorts of things outside the Creed."  It is certainly not NPOV to have judgements of theologies or churches or groups based on the success criteria of other churches or theologies or groups. I was reading an academic article the other day that said that for Lutherans "faith" meant "assent to the propositions of the faith" while for Catholics "faith" means "obedience to the propositions of the faith" (i.e. more of an emphasis on doing rather than thinking). From the POV of Wikipedia editing, it is not NPOV to criticise Catholics for ignorance on things that are essential to e.g. Lutheranism but are adiaphora to Catholicism. (I know I am going too far, for the point of argument: I hope you see what I mean, I am not saying  claiming that Catholics say that ignorance of essentials is good.)
 * ...And I think there is another NPOV issue lurking here: I think this bias shows up in one of Borsoka's (excellent) recent revisions, where there is still some text to the effect that Reformers said that many church practices could not be found in the Bible; but this only gives half the picture: as a criticism by the Reformers, it requires that people should expect all church practices to be found in the Bible (it has clearly never been Catholic teaching that tradition or Tradition is limited to Scripture alone.) It would be fascinating to know any academic research on why this idea suddenly appears then, and what was used to justify it. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I think the article indicates that Luther, Calvin, Zwingli never fully implemented the principle sola scriptura, as they insisted on infant baptism in contrast with the Anabaptists who regarded it as an anti-Biblical practice. The article also indicates that the principle was not an innovation since prominent scholastic theologians had only cited the Bible. As to the Latin language, I think reliable sources are needed to state that masses of peasants and artisans could understand the Latin liturgy of the Mass in the Middle Ages. Borsoka (talk) 02:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "The article also indicates that the principle was not an innovation since prominent scholastic theologians had only cited the Bible."
 * I don't see that the article or sources says that. First, it does not give any prominent scholastic theologian who only cited the Bible, does it (e.g. Note 11)? Second, sola scriptura is not just an assertion that everything that is necessary for salvation is given in the bible, it is that the bible is clear enough not to need an external interpreter: contrast this with what St Augustine actually said: "I would not believe in the Gospel, if first I did not believe in the Church" (which the previous Pope thought was a good summary of what Duns Scotus taught too.) To retrofit sola scriptura onto the scholastics is anachronistic.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 22:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed with @Borsoka. The article currently reads "although few laymen understood it." We shouldn't say the contrary unless there is a reliable source for it. @Rick Jelliffe seems to be saying that most people knew the "gist" of what was said in the Latin liturgy and prayers because they were told the meaning in English and were familiar enough with the liturgy by virtue of lifelong repetition. Fair enough. But that is different from being able to understand Latin as a language. And you would still need a reliable source to make either claim. Ltwin (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Brethren
The current article says "The Brethren of the Common Life opposed their members' priestly ordination" which seems utterly unlikey to me: there is a big difference between not pushing and opposing...I don't have the book cited, could someone check the reference to confirm that is actually what it claims? I thought the reverse was true, that the Brethren tried to shovel their promising students into Augustinian canonries (like Erasmus) or monastaries (like Luther.) The book The Modern Devotion says that Brotherhouses that could not attract rectors or priests actually failed. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * MacCulloch says that the Brethren "discouraged members from becoming priests". Borsoka (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will change "opposed" to "discouraged" then: they are not synonyms. (The Brethren took their stability promise seriously, but that surprises me: does MacCulloch means secular priests, not canons, perhaps?) Rick Jelliffe (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think Close paraphrasing should also be taken into account. Borsoka (talk) 05:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure. Possible synonyms for "discourage" --if necessary-- might be (to try to) deter, dissuade, disincline, put off, talk out of, advise against, urge against. But not "oppose". Rick Jelliffe (talk) 06:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Catholic Reform
There is currently a strange sentence: "The canons of the Cologne Cathedral requested Gropper to write a critical response to it,[262] and achieved Hermann's deposition at the Roman Curia"

I don't understand the last clause: what does it mean to achieve a deposition? Is the word "archived" meant instead? Rick Jelliffe (talk) 03:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hermann was deposed by the Holy See on their initiative. Borsoka (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Which sense of "deposed": to be removed from office forcefully (i.e. his "deposal"), or to give evidence under oath (i.e. his "deposition")? I am guessing the former, so I will change "deposition" to "deposal". Rick Jelliffe (talk) 08:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Calamity: purgatory
I have reinstated the text that says purgatory is a transition state between this life and heaven, from the incorrect text that says it is an intermediate state between heaven and hell. I have put four academic citations as justification: if more are desired, please let me know.

The traditional Catholic sequence here is
 * death (separation of body and soul)
 * personal judgment (in state of grace?)
 * purgatory (purification of soul) for the elect[1]
 * (are you a saint? go direct to heaven)[2]
 * (are you in mortal or original sin? go to hell and await)
 * resurrection (reunion of body and soul)
 * the general judgment (sorting of "sheep and goats")
 * beatific vision and happiness for the sheep, hell for the goats

So purgatory is not intermediate but prior to heaven for the elect, nor does it provide a way between heaven and hell, in medieval (and modern) Catholic belief. I have added (what Denizinger provides as) the specific wording from the Second Council of Lyon 1274 at Second_Council_of_Lyon as additional evidence.

There is a lot of mis-informed material, including even in some older academic material, that confuses purgatory and hell, or want to make them the same kind of thing, or to say that purgatory is related to salvation/justification (e.g., some backdoor way to get into heaven by works, outside grace and obedient faith in Jesus) rather than relating to sanctification/purgation/refining. Because of this, Wikipedia articles need to be extra careful not to propagate this kind of myth.

[1] Interestingly, Hildegard of Bingen teaches that purgatory is voluntary (in the sense that the participants think it is a good and necessary thing to get done, like going to the dentist perhaps ;-) ) and that the pains (of having the dross refined from the gold) are received with joy (because they remove impediments to the beatific vision).

[2] Some medieval theologians/visionaries made further distinctions like "earthly paradise" and "limbo" but they never took off. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 12:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Luther-centric
The current article is quite Luther-centric. The Reformed tradition of Zwingli and Calvin is scattered in pieces. Yet they were very independent of Luther: different theory of justification for example. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this follows standard literature: Luther is treated as the origo of the movement. Furthermore, we do not need to present all details of each reformators' theologies in a general article, so we should use sources about the Reformation not about individual reformators. Borsoka (talk) 02:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

British Reformation under Henry VIII
I have removed a sentence that papal legate Wolsey "and the lawyer Thomas More (d. 1535) assumed the leadership of massive purges against Protestant."

1) There were 30 heretics killed in Wolsey's time as Lord Chancellor 1515-1529, and 6 in More's time 1529-1532. This makes 2 per year: both "massive" and "purge" are not the right words.

2) The trials and executions were not done "by" the Lord Chancellor, but, usually, by regional authorities, as More pointed out.

3) The "and" suggests that More was a henchman or lackey of Wolsey. This does not seem to be historical.

4) That it was not Protestantism per se that More was interested, but malicious and seditious heresy, is suggested by 1) his "my darling" exchange with Tyndale, and 2) he tolerated under his roof his Lutheran-leaning son in law, William Roper, on condition he kept any dangerous views private.

5) It is not cited.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 05:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

1. Purge does not only cover murders, it refers to several forms of persecution forcing people to abandon their faith. 2. The deleted sentence did not claim or imply that More executed anybody. 3. The "and" does not suggest that More was a henchman of Wolsey, because he is presented as one of the two leaders of the purges. 4. Could you refer to scholarly books making a distinction between Protestantism and "malicious and seditious heresy" when writing of More's preeminent role in the persecution of non-Catholics? 5. The sentence was verified by a reference to Cameron. Furthermore, we can hardly ignore prominent scholars who write of the massive persecution of Protestants in England and emphasize the role of More in it. Cameron writes: "England in the 1520s was perhaps most remarkable for its relatively single-minded and efficient persecution of early forms of Protestant thought. The most effective anti-Lutheran persecutor and polemic at the time was not so much the leading churchman Thomas Wolsey (d. 1530) but rather a leading lay lawyer and politician, Thomas More (d. 1535), who both actively pursued individual heretics and also wrote vast polemical tracts against them." Peter Marshall also writes: "A clutch of English heretics were burned in 1530-32 as the result of a concerted campaign of repression led by Chancellor Thomas More ..." Borsoka (talk) 02:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Catholic versus Roman Catholic
I have had a couple of reversions now by people arguing along the lines that 1) there is no difference between "Catholic" and "Roman Catholic" (also that "Roman" is old-fashioned) 2)  the article only ever uses "Catholic" therefore it should be consistent so therefore 3) the word "Roman" should be removed.  I think this is another one of these areas where people assume that their idiom is universal.

On these 1) Yes, "Catholic" and "Roman Catholic" are often interchangeable, and yes, people used to say "Roman Catholic" more in the past. But they do have a different meanings.  First, because Roman Catholic is used in contrast to other churches in communion with Rome: the Greek Catholics, the Maronite Catholics etc. So there are indeed places where Roman Catholic is a useful distinction.  It is not "old-fashioned" to be precise.  Second, because it can connote loyalty to the Roman Bishop (rather than e.g. conciliarism): so it can convey an intention of the person (e.g. rather than a phrase "Erasmus kept loyal to the Romish Antichrist" it can be said with more NPOV "Erasmus stayed a Roman Catholic"). Third  because all the churches that say the Creed (one, holy, catholic and apostolic church) believe themselves to be catholic, and some (e.g. high church Anglicans) may even call themselves capital-c Catholics. Fourth there is no way to tell whether "catholic" or "Catholic" is meant if the word starts a sentence: the choices may be to rewrite the sentence or to use a distinguishing adjective (e.g., ... "Roman".)

2) So the consistency argument is fallacious, where different meanings are intended. (In any case, the consistency argument is factually wrong: there are other, proper uses of "Roman Catholic" elsewhere in the article.)

The consistency needed is e.g. to use "Roman Catholic" only when the Western/Latin/Papal church in particular is meant, or to disambiguate a sentence, but "Catholic" otherwise.

Rick Jelliffe (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Part of the issue is that Roman Catholic is often meant as a term of precision when it does not really serve that purpose. Roman Catholic often refers to all Catholics in communion with Rome (Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches alike, see this exceptionally silly usage in Britannica). It's a common term, but there are far more precise ones. If we're referring to the whole of the church in communion with Rome, we should use Catholic Church or (when appropriate) a common metonymy like Rome. If we're referring to the Latin Church, say Latin Church or Latin Catholic.
 * The lowercase catholic versus the uppercase Catholic is not a reason to disambiguate, as someone referring to "the Catholic Church" in academic and reliable source media is almost always referring exclusively to what EnWikipedia calls the Catholic Church. This is distinct from the term Orthodox Church, which very commonly refers to either the Eastern or the Oriental Orthodox Churches and necessitates a commonly accepted preceding adjective. If this article had broader coverage of the Old Catholics, Liberal Catholics, or Independent Catholics, or Anglo-Catholics, then I would be inclined to believe Roman Catholic served a reasonable purpose as a disambiguator. ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As the article covers the 16th and 17th centuries, it can hardly refer to Old Catholics, Liberal Catholics, Anglo-Catholics. However, I think the use of the term "Catholics" instead of "Roman Catholics" is acceptable in the article's context. Borsoka (talk) 02:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Borsoka, if my last point was unclear: I wholly agree that coverage of those groups is irrelevant to this article. I was presenting a hypothetical situation that would encourage the usage of Roman Catholic. Otherwise, I think we agree. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * B.t.w. If we take the case of famous Anglican Richard Hooker, writing around 1590 in |Ecclesiastical Polity we see he never uses "Catholic" to refer to the Roman Catholic church: he reserves that for the historical, patristic church (e.g., as opposed to Arians) because he wants to deny continuity. He uses "the Church of Rome".  Rick Jelliffe (talk) 11:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It is clear from the article on "Roman Catholic" that it is not always a simple synonym for "Catholic", though it can be. Therefore to remove "Roman" as a matter of blanket editorial policy (which is what my OP is about) is bogus: the editor needs to look at the sentence (and references) to see whether it carries meaning, not assume it serves no useful function.
 * The argument that there may be better ways to disambiguate is good, but irrelevant because here (and in the Erasmus case) there was no substitute of some other adjective.
 * For example, in the article on "Erasmus" is a sentence "For the past seventy years, the Roman Catholic Easter Vigil mass has included a Renewal of Baptismal Promises". But if we remove the Roman, we get "For the past seventy years, the Catholic Easter Vigil mass has included a Renewal of Baptismal Promises" which is wrong, because non-Roman-rite Catholics do not have it, being in charge of their own liturgies; and also because other self-styled Catholics who are not in communion with Rome (e.g. the Tudor English Church after the Act of Supremacy--i.e. in the Reformation period--, which continued to style itself Catholic.)  So sometimes Roman is correct and appropriate, even if slightly fuzzy. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 10:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Borsoka suggests that the article is the appropriate scope for determining whether "Roman" should be used. I disagree: it should be phrase-by-phrase, or in the context of its current paragraph, or to bring out a nuance of a cited article. It may be an appropriate adjective, not being used as a part of a name.
 * Let us imagine three editors:
 * the first sees "Roman" and says "I know what it means, it never means anything useful" and boldly deletes it regardless of the sentence it appears in;
 * the second says "I don't know why this says 'Roman', I am going to mark it for clarification or disambiguation and start a Talk but not simply delete or replace it as the first option";
 * the third says "I have read the Roman Catholic page, so I know there is a term with a variety of meanings and some controversy, and in none of them is "Roman" actually wrong here. It does no harm to give the editor the benefit of the doubt, and turn my attention to more useful things. In any case, keeping it explicit may be useful for the poor reader who has a different idiom to my own."
 * I do not think the first editor is correct. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 11:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Your position, as described above, is to use Roman Catholic as synonymous with both Roman Rite and Latin Church, two different things. This is exactly the imprecision that Roman Catholic contains—particularly since Roman Catholic is generally considered to mean all Catholics and not just a subset. When we mean a specific thing, use the specific term. ~ Pbritti (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with Pbritti on this point. The word "Roman" is useless as a qualifier not necessarily because it means nothing, but because its actual meaning is ambiguous and used differently in different sources. Therefore removing it is the best course of action. Where specific context is needed, spell that out explicitly rather than relying on the use of an ambiguous qualifier. — Amakuru (talk) 12:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Note on Prône
I have added a note on the Prône. This is has two citations, and most importantly the link to Latin_liturgical_rites which itself has citations to six sources. After an editor added a tag questioning the context, I have moved the note to a different position which I hope is more obvious.

It would also be useful to point out that sermons were (almost always) in the vernacular too (in parishes, not monastaries), and preceded by a translation of the Gospel verse that was the subject of the homily.

The current article's text that "the language of public worship was Latin" really does only captures half the reality: certainly the ritual language of priests was Latin and they used it to get on with their business of confecting the eucharist (indeed some prayers were deliberately said to softly for the laity to hear) according to their missal; the language of the people was the vernacular (certainly with code-switches to memorized Latin prayers) and they used it to play their part. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 16 August 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per the discussion below. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Reformation → The Reformation – As this refers to a specific event, rather than the process of reforming something. GnocchiFan (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Academic works cited in the article mainly use the definite article. Borsoka (talk) 03:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Move to Protestant Reformation for WP:PRECISION and per WP:THE as article titles should generally not begin with "the". Rreagan007 (talk)
 * Support either In ictu oculi (talk) 07:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. The current title is fine under Wikipedia policy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is like Renaissance, which is mentioned at WP:THE. The previous title Protestant Reformation would be OK though (but there are probably good arguments to be found in the previous RM). —Kusma (talk) 12:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Kusma. StAnselm (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the Glorious Revolution, etc. Srnec (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Per WP:THE. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Alternate use Protestant Reformation -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 03:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Move back to Protestant Reformation. Did not realize this article had been moved, but it should never have moved IMO.  "The Reformation" is second choice, "Reformation" in general is not great since, when referring specifically to the religious events, it has a leading the as nominator notes.  SnowFire (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. KT-wiki-edits (talk) 01:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: This is the Reformation, so disambiguating with "Protestant" isn't necessary. The Wikipedia naming convention drops the definite article, so "The" is non-standard, see also English Reformation for a related example. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rename?
Could we rename this to "The Protestant Reformation"?

It comes up more easily on Google and it's a more common term TerryJerry19 (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion about this about 10 months ago (see the section above). Wikipedia generally drops definite articles like the, so the move would most likely take the article to "Protestant Reformation". However, there's not really a need to do that, as "Reformation" is the simplest and most common name for the subject. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Pbritti I find that in educational formats, it's still referred to as The Protestant Reformation. So if we were going to remove the definite, we should still change it. Considering most people using this page will be AP Euro high school students or College Students studying this particular period, it would be a matter of a small quality of life change so it comes up on the top of search engines. For me the top result is a list of Protestant reformers when I search "The Protestant Reformation" on Ecosia, Google and DuckDuckGo TerryJerry19 (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Given that the title the Encyclopedia Britannica uses is Reformation, I'd say that the current title of this article is the better one. Indyguy (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

 * The Wikipedia guidelines is to avoid articles at the start, unless it is part of a proper name or title (e.g. "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"). WP:DEFINITE Also, Naming_conventions_(definite_or_indefinite_article_at_beginning_of_name) gives an example that is very close: "Renaissance, not The Renaissance". So no "The Reformation", even though it is strange.  But it is not bad, given that for half a century many academics regard "the" as obsolete (and, perhaps, an artifact of German self-identity/importance) and prefer to talk of Reformations plural. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 23:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Reformation


text:
Pike

Pike, Pikes or The Pike may refer to:

Fish

 * Blue pike or blue walleye, an extinct color morph of the yellow walleye Sander vitreus
 * Ctenoluciidae, the "pike characins", some species of which are commonly known as pikes
 * Esox, genus of pikes
 * Northern pike, common northern hemisphere pike
 * Mackerel pike or Pacific saury, a fish popular in east Asian cuisine
 * Walleyed pike or walleye, Sander vitreus, not actually a pike, but regionally referred to as such

Russia

 * Shchukino District (Russian for "Pike" District), an area in North-Western Administrative Okrug, part of the federal city of Moscow.

Canada

 * Pike Island (Nunavut)
 * Pike River (Quebec)

Great Britain

 * Clougha Pike, a hill in Lancashire, England
 * Cold Pike, a fell in the Lake District, England
 * Dollywaggon Pike, a fell in the Lake District, England
 * Esk Pike, a fell in the Lake District, England
 * Hartshead Pike, a hill in Lancashire, England
 * The Langdale Pikes, a range of hills in the Lake District, England
 * Murton Pike, a hill in Cumbria, England
 * Nethermost Pike, a fell in the Lake District, England
 * Pikes (hill), a hill in the Lake District, England
 * Red Pike (Buttermere), a fell near Buttermere in the Lake District, England
 * Red Pike (Wasdale), a fell near Wasdale in the Lake District, England
 * Scafell Pike, the highest mountain in England
 * The Pike (Hesk Fell), one of Wainwright's outlying fells in the Lake District, England

United States

 * Pike, California, a census-designated place
 * Pike, Indiana, an unincorporated community
 * Pikeville, Kentucky
 * Pike, New Hampshire, an unincorporated community
 * Pike, New York, a town
 * Pike (CDP), New York, hamlet in the town of Pike
 * Pike, Texas, an unincorporated community
 * Pike, West Virginia
 * Pike Bay Township, Cass County, Minnesota
 * Pike Island, Minnesota
 * Pike National Forest, Colorado
 * Pike Place Market, Seattle, Washington
 * Pike Road, Alabama
 * Pikes Peak, in Colorado
 * The Pike, an amusement park in California
 * Pike County, Alabama
 * Pike County, Arkansas
 * Pike County, Georgia
 * Pike County, Illinois
 * Pike County, Indiana
 * Pike County, Kentucky
 * Pike County, Mississippi
 * Pike County, Missouri
 * Pike County, Ohio
 * Pike County, Pennsylvania

Multiple entities

 * Pike County (disambiguation)
 * Pike Township (disambiguation)

Military

 * Pike (weapon), a long thrusting pole weapon used by infantry
 * Half pike
 * Pike square, a Swiss military tactic
 * HMS Pike, the name of five ships of the Royal Navy
 * USS Pike (SS-6), an American Plunger-class submarine
 * USS Pike (SS-173), the first all-welded submarine
 * Pike (munition), a Raytheon-developed guided round fired from a grenade launcher

Music

 * Pikes (album), released by Buckethead in 2013
 * The Northern Pikes, a Canadian rock band, from Saskatoon

Sports

 * Pike (diving), a position used in competitive diving
 * Pike (gymnastics), a position in which the body is bent only in the hips
 * Pike, a variant of the kick (b-boy move)
 * Pike, a type of cheerleading jump

Technology

 * Pike (cipher), a stream cipher invented by Ross Anderson
 * Pike (programming language), a programming language
 * Red Pike (cipher), a British government cipher

Characters

 * Pike Trickfoot, a gnome cleric in the D&D Web Series Critical Role
 * Pike (Buffyverse character), a minor character in Buffy the Vampire Slayer
 * Pike, a racer character in Rimba Racer
 * Langdale Pike (character), a character in The Adventure of the Three Gables, a Sherlock Holmes story by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
 * Private Frank Pike Character in UK TV show Dad's Army
 * Captain Christopher Pike (Star Trek), a character in the Star Trek science fiction franchise.
 * Plkess, Good Super Auto Pets player. Captain of Jiggy Himmins and the Serious Williams of team tour season 8, Captain of Shell Shock of team tour 9.

Other uses

 * Pike (surname), a list of people
 * Pike Expedition, an American exploration of the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains
 * Pike pole, a long-handled reaching, holding, and pulling tool
 * Pike potato, a variety of potato
 * The Pike: Gabriele D'Annunzio, Poet, Seducer and Preacher of War, 2009 biography
 * Pike or toll road, a road on which fees are collected
 * Massachusetts Turnpike, known as "The Pike"
 * Pike, a colloquial name for the Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity
 * WWFX, branded as "100 FM The Pike"

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Pike


text:
Talk:Reformation (disambiguation)

February 2002
Please, someone have a look here, i don't feel like fucking you right know but competent to add anything, and redirect to protestant reformation i guess isn't enough!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Szopen (talk • contribs) 16:43, February 25, 20023510rover six hut hut

July 2008
The disambiguation page should be at this article and not Reformation (disambiguation), because this is where the majority of links are pointing to. Please leave this page as a disambiguation page. Green Giant (talk) 02:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Links should not point to a dab page but straight to the target article. Abtract (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Making this not a disambiguation page
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation about re-making this page a redirect to Protestant Reformation, and moving the disambiguation page to Reformation (disambiguation) -- Nataly a 19:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

the reformation is a very important piece in history because it shows us different sides of how religion was descussed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.64.37 (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

 * No good idea - that is Euro-centric, and there may be other "Reformations" in other historical epochs, there might even be a starship in a C-rated scifi series with the name "the Reformation" (just an example). I think the Protestant Reformation is the topic that refers to all events in Europe around the 16th centuries, before and after, not just Herr Dr. M. Luther, who was most significant, but definitely not alone. It would be better to rewrite the text on the disambig to refer to all events, not just Luther, and rework the Protestant Reformation to deal with Leo X:es economical decisions, Luthers inflamed tries to evoke debate, and the subsequent schism, chaos, peasant wars, schmakaldic wars, thirty year wars and this-that-whatever. As much as I'm concerned, Kung Fu Tse made an important reformation in China more than 1500 years earlier. Said: Rursus (☻) 14:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"Protestant Reformation" Should Not Be the Primary Topic
As can be seen on the disambiguation page, there have been several other significant Reformations throughout history that were just as important, if not more important, than the Protestant Reformation. "Protestant Reformation" should not be the primary topic, and so the pages "The Reformation" and "Reformation" should redirect to the disambiguation page, not to "Protestant Reformation". Wikitam331 (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for posting this, finally. This should be discussed, and a consensus should be reached before The Reformation and Reformation redirect here. StAnselm (talk) 22:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Reformations was moved to Reformation (disambiguation) by TexasAndroid. Reformation remains a redirect to Protestant Reformation. Although an involved editor, I'm only trying to summarize the close after other editors have repeatedly removed the move templates without properly closing the discussion. older ≠ wiser 11:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

To give this an official close, I see no consensus really for or against changing the redirect at Reformation. But the move that I enacted, from Reformations to Reformation (disambiguation) appeared to be a reasonable "at a minimum do XXX" solution. The contents of the disambig really showed that, one way or another, it should be at a "Reformation" based name, and absent a consensus about changing Reformation itself, this was the next best location for it IMHO. - TexasAndroid (talk) 12:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Reformations → Reformation
 * Reformation → Reformations
 * It makes no sense that "Reformations" is the disambiguation page. This is because the article title "Reformations" implies that every article on the disambiguation page refers to a Reformation, which is not the case. For example, the Music section does not have any "Reformations" listed; rather, it has albums and bands listed.  The content of "Reformations" should be moved to "Reformation", and "Reformations" should redirect to it. Current article naming conventions are not consistent with Wikipedia naming conventions for disambiguation pages.  The proposed change will cause the disambiguation page to be consistent with Wikipedia naming conventions. Wikitam331 (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Move Reformations to Reformation (disambiguation) and leave Reformation as a redirect to Protestant Reformation. Protestant Reformation is, I believe, the primary topic for Reformation - for one thing, there are a lot of incoming links to the redirect. But I agree that "Reformations" is an awkward title for the disambiguation page, since most of the entries are in the singular. StAnselm (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the number of incoming links to a redirect isn't a strong enough of an argument to prevent the disambiguation page from having the proper title. 12.165.27.130 (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Links should not point to redirect page, but directly to the target article. Wikitam331 (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Oppose move of Reformation: it should continue as a redirect to Protestant Reformation. A Google search confirms that this is the primary meaning. Support move of this dab page to something sensible, e.g. StAnselm's suggestion. -- 202.124.73.99 (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that Protestant Reformation is the primary meaning is also supported by the fact that the "Reformation in Country X" articles all mean "Protestant Reformation in Country X." -- 202.124.73.99 (talk) 11:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not true. "Reformation in England", for example, yields English Reformation; "Reformation in Scotland" yields Scottish Reformation, and so on for "Reformation in Sweden", "Reformation in Switzerland", "Reformation in Denmark–Norway and Holstein", and "Reformation in Iceland". Also, I disagree with your opinion that a Google search confirms that it is the primary meaning. A Google search yields three English Reformation results and a fashion clothing brand in the top ten results. It's clear that "Reformation" usually refers to either the Protestant Reformation or the English Reformation, which means Protestant Reformation is not the primary topic. 12.165.27.130 (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, you realise, don't you, that the English Reformation is part of the Protestant Reformation? So the latter is still the primary topic per WP:DABCONCEPT. StAnselm (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Same for Scottish Reformation and so forth -- all part of the Protestant Reformation. -- 202.124.73.147 (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, since Wikipedia search is not case-sensitive, users searching for "reformation" are not looking for Reformation (with a capital 'R') but are more than likely looking for reformation, which is the primary definition of "reformation" in any legal Dictionary. Which is more evidence that "Protestant Reformation" is not the primary topic of a search for "reformation". 12.165.27.130 (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt that. The Protestant Reformation article got 272,015 views in the past 90 days. Rectification (law) only got 3,618. Reformation (law), which redirects to Rectification (law), only got 40 hits. Reformation, which redirects to Protestant Reformation, got 26,860. Even if half the readers of Rectification (law) came via "reformation," which I strongly doubt, that's still 93% of people searching "reformation" wanting Protestant Reformation. Protestant Reformation is the primary topic. -- 202.124.73.147 (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Reformation" with a capital 'R' is completely different from "reformation" with a lower-case 'r', the former of which is a proper noun, and the latter of which is a common noun and has absolutely nothing to do with the Protestant Reformation. By citing the number of page views for Protestant Reformation, you are mistakenly assuming that people searching for both "Reformation" and "reformation" are looking for Protestant Reformation. The reason Protestant Reformation has that many hits is because it is the primary topic, and has been the primary topic for many years. If, for example, Reformation (law) was the primary topic, it would get as many hits as Protestant Reformation did by people searching for "Reformation", "reformation", and "reformation (law)", regardless of what they are actually intending to search for. I disagree that Protestant Reformation is the primary topic. 12.165.27.130 (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason Protestant Reformation has that many hits is that it's a major event in history. 272,015 finish up at Protestant Reformation (in the past 90 days), while only 3,618 finish up at Rectification (law), which is a very minor topic in comparison. -- 202.124.72.213 (talk) 01:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Total hits for Reformation are more than seven times as large as for Rectification (law), which proves that the overwhelming number of people searching for "Reformation" are not searching for the legal term -- because they don't finish up at the legal term. What are they searching for? For Protestant Reformation, obviously, which gets 75 times as many hits as the legal term. -- 202.124.73.35 (talk) 03:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * They aren't necessarily searching for Protestant Reformation when typing "Reformation" or "reformation. They could be searching for any of the other various topics on the Reformation disambuguation page. 76.125.166.228 (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Reformation should remain as a redirect to Protestant Reformation, as it is pretty clearly the primary topic for the term regardless of capitalization. The disambiguation page be moved to Reformation (disambiguation). older ≠ wiser 17:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's definition of "primary topic" is "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." Protestant Reformation did not receive more hits than all other "Reformation" topics combined, therefore it does not fit Wikipedia's definition of "primary topic". 76.125.166.228 (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

 * It is reasonable to assume that a search for "The Reformation" would be somebody looking for Protestant Reformation, so I believe that Protestant Reformation should certainly be the primary topic for The Reformation. Moving the disambiguation page to Reformation would solve both the capitalization concerns as well as the primary topic concerns for "Reformation" and "reformation" searches. The best solution would be to leave Protestant Reformation as the primary topic for The Reformation and to move the disambiguation page to Reformation. Wikitam331 (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support; the disambiguation page should be at the singular title. "Reformation" alone, without the definite article, cannot be held to be unambiguous.  Powers T 18:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The ambiguity is best handled by the current system of (1) redirecting Reformation to Protestant Reformation, and (2) placing a hatnote there to catch the relatively small number who were interested in something else, and sending them here. -- 202.124.73.35 (talk) 03:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, as StAnselm points out, changing this would mess up a huge number of incoming links, which link to Reformation with the intended meaning of Protestant Reformation (and they do this because the literature doesn't normally have the prefix "Protestant"). -- 202.124.73.35 (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And as user 12.165.27.130 pointed out, the number of incoming links is a weak argument for preventing proper redirections from being set up. Wikipedia is continuously being changed and made better. If everbody in the Wikipedia community made the argument that improvements shouldn't be made because it's too much of a hassle, then nothing would get done and Wikipedia would become static.  We don't want that. 76.125.166.228 (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Links should not be pointing to a redirect but should be pointing directly to the target article. Wikitam331 (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But it wouldn't be an improvement. The large number of incoming links reflects the fact that "Reformation" in ordinary usage almost always means the Protestant Reformation. -- 202.124.73.182 (talk) 04:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of the incoming links use the term "the Reformation" with both the definite article and the proper noun usage. They do not use "reformation" without a definite article or a proper noun to describe the Protestant Reformation because they are completely different things. 76.125.166.228 (talk) 06:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Reformation" without a definite article almost always refers to the Protestant Reformation too (generally as an adjective). Without a capital letter, properly speaking it doesn't, but most searches for "reformation" are indeed looking for "Reformation." -- 202.124.72.134 (talk) 06:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Incoming links should point directly to the target article, not to a redirect. Wikitam331 (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Support; Users Wikitam331 and Powers make the case for why Protestant Reformation is the primary topic for The Reformation but not for Reformation. The disambiguation page should be moved to Reformation and Reformations should redirect to it. 12.165.27.130 (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The primary encyclopaedic topic for "reformation" would be the Protestant one. The word reformation doesn't belong here at all (it belongs at Wiktionary), so we actually need only worry about what encyclopaedia-worthy reformations or things-called-reformations could vie for primacy. Srnec (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But there are Wikipedia articles about "reformation" in the common noun sense, such as Reformation (law). Whether that page (and other Wikipedia pages that use "reformation" in the common noun sense) should exist on Wikipedia or Wikitionary is a completely unrelated topic. If you wish to delete them, you should discuss it on their respective Talk pages. 76.125.166.228 (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no article at reformation (law); it is a redirect. Even so, it is a technical usage and not the "common noun sense". Srnec (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The redirect implies ambiguity: reformation (law) is the same as rectification (law). All English Dictionary definitions for "reformation" clearly indicate that "Reformation" with a capital 'R' refers to the Protestant Reformation, while other definitions use a lower case 'r'. 76.125.166.228 (talk) 06:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The hatnote on Protestant Reformation is adequate for handling the comparatively tiny number of "reformation" searches wanting something else. Remember Protestant Reformation gets 75 times as much traffic as rectification (law). -- 202.124.72.134 (talk) 07:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And it gets hundreds of times as much traffic as the bands and albums, which are even more minor then rectification (law). -- 202.124.75.102 (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't get more traffic than all other "reformation" topics combined, which is the requirement for being a primary topic. 76.125.166.228 (talk) 03:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Support. "Reformation" should be the disambiguation page, and "Reformations" and "Reformation (disambiguation)" should redirect to it. "The Reformation" should continue to redirect to Protestant Reformation, as it is clear that the definite article implies a search for Protestant Reformation.  Without the definite article, "Reformation" is not ambiguous in the same way that "The Reformation" is. 76.125.166.228 (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Move Reformations to Reformation (disambiguation). Protestant Reformation is clearly the primary topic for Reformation. In addition to the page view stats above, all Google hits I found either related to the Protestant Reformation or something that doesn't have an article. TimBentley (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of Google hits for "Reformation" that yield results with the definite article in the title. 76.125.166.228 (talk) 06:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand -- TimBentley is referring to Wikipedia articles. All the top Google hits either relate to the Protestant Reformation, or to "Reformation" as a brand name for something without a Wikipedia article. Going by Google, Protestant Reformation is clearly the primary topic for Reformation (and going by Wikipedia views and incoming links, the same is true). -- 202.124.72.134 (talk) 06:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's definition of "primary topic" is "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." Nowhere in that definition does it say that Google search results determine whether a topic is primary or not. It only implies that number of Wikipedia page views are relevant. Protestant Reformation did not receive more hits than all other "Reformation" topics combined, therefore it does not fit Wikipedia's definition of "primary topic". 76.125.166.228 (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect. Please read WP:DAB. -- 202.124.72.99 (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It clearly indicates that those tools listed are not absolute determining factors but simply are suggestions. 76.125.166.228 (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Going by Wikipedia views, the same is not true. All topics on the Reformation disambiguation page (aside from Protestant Reformation), have more views combined than Protestant Reformation does.  Please see WP:DAB for more information.  Also, the number of incoming links can be changed, as has been stated above. 76.125.166.228 (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Comment. The relevant policy here is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely ... to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." That is clearly true for Protestant Reformation, as demonstrated above by the three kinds of evidence listed at WP:DAB. Redirecting Reformation to Protestant Reformation, as is currently done, is the right action, per WP:DAB. -- 202.124.72.134 (talk) 07:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is dishonest to butcher quotes from sources you are citing. The entire quote from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says, "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." Protestant Reformation did not receive more traffic than all other "Reformation" topics combined in the last 30 days, even after artificially being set as the primary topic (which raised the number of hits to Protestant Reformation). The claim that Protestant Reformation is the primary topic is dubious and does not fit Wikipedia's criteria for being the primary topic. Therefore, Reformation should be made the disambiguation page and Reformations should redirect to it.  The proposed change should be made. 76.125.166.228 (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please, WP:NPA. There was a "..." in that quote and a link. Protestant Reformation is indeed very, very much more likely to be searched than any other topic, per the stats above. And having Protestant Reformation as the primary topic only increases the stats very slightly, since so few people are looking for the other topics. -- 202.124.72.99 (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize for accusing you of being dishonest. The stats posted above do not prove that the amount of people who search for "Reformation" or "reformation" (and are looking for Protestant Reformation) exceeds the number of people who search for "Reformation" or "reformation" (and are looking for any of the other topics listed on the disambiguation page). 76.125.166.228 (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep Reformation pointing to Protestant Reformation. This is not a dictionary, so we don't need to define the word. We give information about topics, that's what an encyclopedia does, and the most important (or at least most-viewed) topic by far dealing with a "reformation" is that one. There's no real ambiguity. This name for this disambiguation in my opinion is not ideal and could've been better, but the main topic is without a doubt. Red Slash 21:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The amount of times the topic has been viewed is not what makes it a primary topic. It has to be viewed more than all other topics combined, which it has not been. That is why Protestant Reformation is not the primary topic. 76.125.166.228 (talk) 03:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Comment: an additional page view statistic: 775 views (over 100 since this RM started) of Reformations the past 90 days, compared to 26830 for Reformation. Another thing to consider is that six pages on the disambiguation are, roughly speaking, subtopics of the Protestant Reformation. TimBentley (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The number of views for the disambiguation page doesn't matter according to Wikipedia's definition of "primary topic", which says, "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." Protestant Reformation did not receive more hits than all other "Reformation" topics (listed on the disambiguation page) combined, therefore it does not fit Wikipedia's definition of "primary topic". 76.125.166.228 (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Excluding the pages which are subtopics of Protestant Reformation, yes it did. By a long, long shot. -- 202.124.75.102 (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Subtopics are different topics, so you can't exclude them like that. Combined non-"Protestant Reformation" topic views exceed the number of views for Protestant Reformation in the past 90 days, which means Protestant Reformation is not the primary topic per Wikipedia's definition. 76.125.166.228 (talk) 03:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * They're called subtopics for a reason. Taken as an aggregate, topics related to the protestant reformation vastly exceed any other topic. The protestant reformation is by far the primary topic for the unqualified term. older ≠ wiser 03:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Topic" and "article" are synonymous. We are discussing a primary topic, which implies a singular Wikipeda article. Different articles on Wikipedia are different topics.  If they weren't different topics, they'd be part of the same article.  The number of topics related to the Protestant Reformation does not make Protestant Reformation the primary topic. According to WP:Disambiguation, Protestant Reformation must have more views than all other topics combined in order to qualify as a primary topic, which it does not. Protestant Reformation is not the primary topic, and the proposed change should be made. 76.125.166.228 (talk) 03:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * While I disagree with your dismissal of "subtopics", Protestant Reformation does in fact have more page views than all of the other pages combined. For the last 90 days, it had 270,034 views. Taken very, very broadly, views for all of the other listed pages (excluding only the unambiguous Reformation Day and Reformation Wall and including numerous redirects for the other listed pages) was 208305. And that is an extremely generous count, including views for a number of views for unambiguous titles such as Counter-Reformation and Post-Suharto era. older ≠ wiser 13:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You can't exclude Reformation Day and Reformation Wall because they are still topics on the Reformation disambiguation page. Also, there are other topics that aren't included on the disambiguation page that should be (such as Reformatiambon in Ireland and Reformation in Italy).  When you include all of those, you will see that the total number of views of non-Protestant Reformation topics on the disambiguation page exceed the number of views of Protestant Reformation in the last 90 days.  Which means that Protestant Reformation is not the primary topic, according to Wikipedia's definition of "primary topic". 76.125.166.228 (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Reformation Day and Reformation Wall are not ambiguous. A truly fair count would compare only ambiguous titles and not unambiguous partial title matches. The count already extremely generously includes counts for many unambiguous matches. However, even if those topics are included, Protestant Reformation still has far more page views than all the other combined. older ≠ wiser 00:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Wikipedia's definition of Primary Topic contradicts your claim.  Protestant Reformation does not have more hits than all other "Reformation" topics combined, per Wikipedia's definition of "Primary Topic". See below. 76.125.166.228 (talk) 02:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You appear to have a defective understanding of primary topic. older ≠ wiser 03:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your simple say-so is not a persuasive argument, nor does it prove anything about my understanding of "primary topic". 76.125.166.228 (talk) 12:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, Protestant Reformation probably qualifies as a broad-concept article: "Where the primary topic of a term is a general topic that can be divided into subtopics, such as chronologically (e.g., History of France) or geographically (e.g., Rugby union in the British Isles), the unqualified title should contain an article about the general topic rather than a disambiguation page." StAnselm (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * All that means is that Protestant Reformation should not be a disambiguation page. It does not mean that Protestant Reformation is the primary topic of Reformation. 76.125.166.228 (talk) 11:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Summary so far:
 * Support move: Wikitam331, 12.165.27.130, 76.125.166.228, PowersT.
 * Leave Reformation as a redirect to Protestant Reformation: StAnselm, older≠wiser, Srnec, TimBentley, RedSlash, me.
 * Move Reformations to Reformation (disambiguation): StAnselm, older≠wiser, TimBentley, me. -- 202.124.72.94 (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There appears to be a consensus that the disambiguation page needs to move. Perhaps all the others (StAnselm, older≠wiser, TimBentley, Srnec, and RedSlash) have changed their opinions on the issue after the most recent points were made. The absence of their responses does not necessarily mean that they still oppose the proposed move. 76.125.166.228 (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about moving the disambiguation page to Reformation (disambiguation), there is support for that. The last statement: The absence of their responses does not necessarily mean that they still oppose the proposed move.  is simply nonsensical. older ≠ wiser 18:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify. If they were here to read the entire discussion, they may have been convinced of my position. 76.125.166.228 (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, they would have struck through their vote ( like this ) and written something different. We can't proceed on the assumption that people may have changed their minds. For myself, I don't find your arguments convincing at all, and stick to my original position. StAnselm (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to rebut them if you don't find them convincing. 76.125.166.228 (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to rebut as there is no merit to your arguments. older ≠ wiser 00:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your Argument by Dismissal is a logical fallacy. All other topics on the disambiguation page, when combined, have had more hits in the last 90 days (312,085 views) than Protestant Reformation (269,035 views). WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says, "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." This means that Protestant Reformation is not the primary topic. Wikitam331 (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the supposed arguments are invalid. There is a primary topic for the term reformation. Evidence has been provided. That you don't agree or understand the criteria for primary topic means little. Even assuming that your count of 312,085 is correct (which does not accord with my own count), many of the entries on the page are not ambiguous with the term and should not be used it artificially inflate the count. older ≠ wiser 03:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are ignoring the definition of "primary topic". I counted the views for every topic on the disambiguation page and it was pretty close to what Wikitam331 came up with. I didn't cherry pick articles on the disambiguation page in order to artificially deflate the count. If the terms weren't ambiguous, then they wouldn't be on the disambiguation page.  If you want to remove them, that's a completely different unrelated issue and you should start another discussion about it below.  76.125.166.228 (talk) 12:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The 312,085 (which doesn't agree with my count either) presumably counts both subtopics of Protestant Reformation and things that don't belong here. No way do Post-Suharto era or Council of Trent belong here. Nobody calls them "reformation". Counter-Reformation probably doesn't belong either. -- 202.124.75.150 (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Post-Suharto era is known in Indonesian (and several academic works regarding the country) as "Reformasi", which translates to "Reform" or "Reformation". As such, it is a viable search term. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As a side note, the fact that it is called "Reformation" is already in the article... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've no issue with including Post-Suharto era on the page. However, there is a problem with including the page views without qualification. Certainly the topic may sometimes be known as Reformation, but it is very unlikely that all of the page views for that title were from readers looking for "Reformation". The page views for the Council of Trent and Counter-Reformation have an even weaker claim. The topics might have some ambiguity in specific contexts and so may warrant inclusion, but by and large are not ambiguous. However, even so, by my count of views for all the listed pages are still less that that for Protestant Reformation. Something smells funny here. Ah, I think I located the problem -- I had excluded Council of Trent as there is no indication whatsoever that it is ambiguous with "Reformation". Excluding the council, Protestant Reformation has more page views than all the other topics -- even when counting those topics which are not primarily known as simply "reformation". older ≠ wiser 15:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed (I noted that the IP double posted, so I returned the favour). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your opinion that topics on the disambiguation page should be excluded from page view count simply at your discretion. Wikitam331 (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine, since there is no indication of ambiguity, I removed the Council from the page. older ≠ wiser 15:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a whole separate issue. If you wish to remove links from the disambiguation page, start a discussion about it below. Wikitam331 (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Removal of unambiguous entries is simple housecleaning. If you wish to justify the inclusion of such an unambiguous entry on the page, start a discussion below. older ≠ wiser 16:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is already a discussion underway regarding the removal of certain topics. Please do not take it upon yourself to simply override the discussion and make the edit anyway. Wait until a consensus has been reached before making any moves. 12.165.27.130 (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Subtopics can also be separate topics as well. That's why they have their own page. You can't just discount them because you feel like it. If you disagree with articles being on the disambiguation page, feel free to start a descussion below to remove them. 76.125.166.228 (talk) 12:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe, maybe not. They could have simply forgotten about this page.  Some of them haven't participated in this discussion in days. Wikitam331 (talk) 13:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The week is up; people have given their opinions; the proposal has been defeated. Any admin can close this discussion now. -- 202.124.73.48 (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The week is not up yet. The unbiased closing admin can evaluate the discussion and decide whether the proposal has been defeated or not. Wikitam331 (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Not going to close this because of the sheer amount of heat still generated here, but I firmly support moving Reformations to Reformation (disambiguation) and keep Reformation as a redirect. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Consensus could not be reached regarding the requested moves. The result was no change. Wikitam331 (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I'm afraid you don't get to close the discussion. My personal opinion is that an admin may see consensus for a move to Reformation (disambiguation) -- which you've supported at Requested moves/Technical requests, but I don't get to close the discussion either. -- 202.124.72.127 (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment to closing admin. Wikitam331, 12.165.27.130, and 76.125.166.228 have been identified as sockpuppets and temporarily blocked. Socks stricken in summary above. -- 202.124.73.137 (talk) 09:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Failure to adhere to WP:MOSDAB
The current page contains several entries that are not remotely plausible search terms for "Reformation", including Post-Suharto era, Council of Trent, and probably Counter-Reformation. These entries should be removed. -- 202.124.73.48 (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Counter-Reformation should not be removed because it has the word "Reformation" in the title, and clearly belongs on the disambiguation page per Disambiguation. Council of Trent should not be removed, per WP:DABABBREV, which says, "Do not include articles unless the term being disambiguated is actually described in the target article. (For example, the Set disambiguation page legitimately has an entry for Volleyball.)" Council of Trent is a subtopic of Counter-Reformation, and both "Reformation" and "Counter-Reformation" are described in it. Wikitam331 (talk) 14:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In no conceivable way is Reformation ambiguous with Council of Trent. Probably not with Counter-Reformation either. A DAB page is not a list of "related topics." -- 202.124.72.5 (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How is it not ambiguous with Counter-Reformation? The word "Reformation" is in the title. Council of Trent is just as relevent to the Reformation disambiguation page as Volleyball is to the Set disambiguation page. Wikitam331 (talk) 04:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Council of Trent is not ambiguous in the sense that there is no ambiguity. Partial title matches should not be listed simply because they include a term in the title. The comparison with volleyball on Set (disambiguation) is inapplicable because there is a thing called a "set" in volleyball (which happens to have an entire section in the article -- I see nothing in Council of Trent to indicate that anyone would type "reformation" in the search box and expect to find any discrete "thing" described in the council article. older ≠ wiser 11:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * From the article summary: "The Council of Trent, delayed and interrupted several times because of political or religious disagreements, was a major reform council and the most impressive embodiment of the ideals of the Counter-Reformation." Please explain how its not plausible to expect that people searching for the term "Reformation" could be looking for the Council of Trent. Wikitam331 (talk) 12:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Because, for obvious reasons, the Counter-Reformation is never called the Reformation. -- 202.124.74.140 (talk) 13:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody is disputing that the Counter-Reformation is never referred to as "the Reformation". The fact is that Counter-Reformation is a relevant result for the search term "Reformation". Wikitam331 (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The purpose of disambiguation pages is to help readers find articles that are ambiguously titled. If the title of the article is not ambiguous, it really doesn't belong on the disambiguation page. Dab pages are not a generalized search index. older ≠ wiser 15:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:Disambiguation: "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead. In this situation there must be a way for the reader to navigate quickly from the page that first appears to any of the other possible desired articles." "Reformation" is a search term that could reasonably be expected to lead to "Counter-Reformation". Wikitam331 (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If no one refers to either Council of Trent or Counter-Reformation as "reformation" -- there is nothing to disambiguate. Because there is some tangential relevance, I'm OK with leaving Counter-Reformation in See also, but the Council of Trent is not in any way ambiguous with the term. older ≠ wiser 18:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody refers to "Volleyball" as "Set" either, but it still appears on the Set disambiguation page because it's a relevant search term per WP:Disambiguation, in the same way that Reformation is a relevant search term for Council of Trent. Wikitam331 (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The difference, which I already explained, is that there is a thing called "set" in volleyball. There could conceivably be an article at that title about the subject. There is nothing in Counter-Reformation or Council of Trent that any reasonable person would place in an article titled "reformation" or be likely to confuse with the term. older ≠ wiser 02:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If there could "conceivably" be an entire article about a Set in Volleyball, then why isn't there? The fact that the word Reformation is in the title "Counter-Reformation" alone makes it a valid entry for the disambiguation page.  Council of Trent, being the topic that is most widely associated with the Counter-Reformation as a reaction to the Protestant Reformation, is a valid entry for the disambiguation page. 12.165.27.130 (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again, what is so difficult to understand about why partial title matches are not included on disambiguation pages? Disambiguation pages are not generalized search indexes of topics that happen to contain the term. I'm not sure what to make of your remark about a volleyball set -- it seems to show a profound lack of understanding or denial. older ≠ wiser 13:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hypothetically, someone could be looking for information about the volleyball set by typing "set". Nobody looking for information about the reformations included in the the Council of Trent or Counter-Reformation would type in "reformation". TimBentley (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your opinion. Wikitam331 (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems the person who disagrees with that opinion is you (and your IP socks). older ≠ wiser 13:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Oppose - The Post-Suharto era is known in Indonesian (and several academic works regarding the country) as "Reformasi", which translates to "Reform" or "Reformation". As such, it is a viable search term. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Reformasi is generally rendered "Reform" in English. -- 202.124.72.5 (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Google Translate contradicts your claim. Wikitam331 (talk) 04:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not a WP:RS for the name of the period, and Google Translate has a whole list of alternate translations, anyway. These sources confirm that the Reformasi period is known as the "Reform" (not "Reformation") period:, , , , . -- 202.124.73.203 (talk) 12:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * None of your sources prove that "Reformation" is not a valid translation for the name of that period. You have been provided with references that prove that "Reformation" is a valid translation of the name. 12.165.27.130 (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Reformation" is NOT a valid translation of the name for the post-Suharto era. You have provided no sources showing that it is. -- 202.124.73.113 (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See the Post-Suharto era page for the sources that prove that it's a valid translation. 12.165.27.130 (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, no valid sources there. -- 202.124.75.63 (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As a side note, the fact that it is called "Reformation" is already in the article... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Only because of a very recent (and disputed) edit. -- 202.124.72.5 (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC
 * Several sources, one of which that has been posted in the article, contradicts your claim that Reformasi is not translated as "Reformation". Wikitam331 (talk) 04:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I note that Wikitam331 removed Post-Suharto era from Reform (disambiguation), where it has a much better claim to exist. I have reverted that as, at the least, unhelpful. "Reform" is the usual translation of Reformasi. -- 202.124.72.5 (talk) 01:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This has absolutely nothing to do with the Reformation disambiguation page. Please stay on topic. Wikitam331 (talk) 04:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

 * It's completely implausible that someone could type in "Reformation", and expect to find Council of Trent. I'm skeptical about Counter-Reformation, but I guess leaving it in the see also section is fine. TimBentley (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your opinion that it's "completely implausible". The Council of Trent was the most important embodiment of the ideals of the Counter-Reformation. 12.165.27.130 (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No aspect of the Council of Trent is called "Reformation." -- 202.124.74.41 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Oppose for reasons previously stated. 12.165.27.130 (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

order of religious Reformation movements
To me it makes no sense to include Islamic Reformation under the heading "Movements" but put Counter-Reformation (aka Catholic Reformation) at the end under "See also". Catholic Reformation is a common term for the latter, particularly among Roman Catholic scholars who don't like the implication that they were either reacting to Protestantism or else opposed to all reform. Both Islamic Reformation and Catholic Reformation are redirects anyway. I'd suggest moving Counter-Reformation up to the first section, including the note that it's also known as Catholic Reformation. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Protestant Reformation which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Reformation which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Reformation (disambiguation)