Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Huldrych Zwingli

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:18, 8 March 2008.

---

Huldrych Zwingli

Check external links

Self-nomination. This article is about a Swiss Reformation leader. I hope to add to our religion-related FAs and also bring some topic diversity on a non-anglophone subject matter. RelHistBuff (talk) 23:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Support - What a worthy goal and how well you have executed it! I knew very little about Zwingli before I read this article and I certainly garnered an excellent introduction to him from this page. Although I don't know anything about Zwingli scholarship, I can say that the sources for this article are reputable and carefully documented. Also, the images are well-chosen and all either in the public domain or released under a commons license of some sort. Here are my tiny suggestions for improvement:

• I assume little is known about his family? It would be nice to mention them beyond their names, if they were significant in his life.

I have several 19th century sources (Merle d'Aubigné, Hottinger, Christoffel, etc.) that describe his family and early life in great detail: mother's name was Margaret Meili, how the young Zwingli lived as a shepherd's son, how he listened to his father's conversations with the elders of the parish, how the uncle loved his nephew like his son, etc.. None of these details are in the modern sources, not even his mother's name. So I didn't include them. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Alas. Those proverbial nineteenth-century anecdotes. :) Awadewit | talk 20:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• In his publications, he noted corruption in the ecclesiastical hierarchy, promoted clerical marriage, and attacked the use of images. - "attacked the use of images" in places of worship, perhaps?

Yes, that's correct. --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• The religious factions of Zwingli’s time debated vociferously regarding the merits of sending young Swiss men to fight in foreign wars mainly for the enrichment of those in power within the cantons. - This is wordy at the end, but I can't think of a better wording right now.

I shortened it slightly, but there is probably a better way to word it --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is better. Awadewit | talk 20:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Each time "the church" was mentioned, I kept wondering if it should be "the Church".

I am not sure myself. I think the answer is in WP:MOSCAPS under the "Institutions" section where there is an example using an university. Here the analogy would be "The Roman Catholic Church offers..." and "The church offers..." which would be considered correct. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at a grammar book (The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers) right now which states that capitalizing the shortened form is a good idea in order to distinguish from the generic use of the word. Here is their example: "The Democratic Party has always been the dominant party in this country. However, recently other political groups have begun to encroach upon the Party's territory." I ask this because I have frequently seen England's Established Church referred to as "the Church" in order to distinguish it from a more general "church" and I wondered at times in the article if the Roman Catholic Church was being referred to as "the church" when it might more clearly be referred to as "the Church". Awadewit | talk 20:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I would also tend to favour "the Church" for the same reason; I am used to seeing it when referring to a specific church. But it does conflict with the MOS. I will capitalise it for now and I will leave a question with our MOS expert. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(gasp) The MOS is incomplete!? Awadewit | talk 18:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(-: Hee, hee. --RelHistBuff (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• The article switches between BE and AE at times - it seems to be mostly BE, but occasionally I saw some AE.

That is probably not surprising. I originally learned English in the US, but I have been using BE for quite a while now. Roger Davies and DrKiernan caught and corrected some of my spellings. I will try looking again. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I asked to borrow Roger Davies' eyes again for filtering the AE. He caught "center". Was there anything else? Some AE idioms might have crept in. I speak in AE, but I have a tendency to write in BE. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm. I thought there were some others, but I've become so mixed up myself perhaps I'm just imagining things. :) Awadewit | talk 18:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• His motives for doing this are not clear, but his sermons used exhortation to achieve moral improvement, in agreement with Erasmus. - The "in agreement with Erasmus" clause is a bit unclear - how exactly was Zwingli agreeing with Erasmus?

I hope it's a bit clearer. Gäbler used the phrase "Erasmian reformed Christianity" and that Zwingli had similiar goals ("moral and ecclesiastical improvement") to that movement. --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Better, yes. Awadewit | talk 20:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Scholars do not agree on the process of how he developed his own unique model. - I would say immediately after this what the major theories are. Outline them in a few sentences.

Done. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! These kinds of statements are very helpful for the uninformed reader. :) Awadewit | talk 20:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• In 1519, when Sanson arrived at the gates of Zürich at the end of Zwingli's first month of his pastorate, parishioners prompted Zwingli with questions. - wordy

Hopefully better now. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Awadewit | talk 20:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• The essence of the mass and its sacrificial character was also included as a subject of discussion. - This probably needs more explanation for the lay reader.

I added another sentence. It is described again in the Theology section (from a different source), but I don't think the redundancy hurts the article. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so either. Sometimes readers have to read things several times, anyway. Awadewit | talk 20:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Is it more accurate to refer to "communion" as the "Eucharist"?

Hmm, there are probably differences of opinion on this. In lay usage, "communion" is used almost exclusively. "Eucharist" is found in more advanced discussions. The reason I used "communion" in describing Zwingli's new liturgy is partly because that is what is written in the sources. Also "communion" has connotations of being more limited so it is appropriate to use it to describe Zwingli's simple liturgy. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok - I just wanted to check that there wasn't some esoteric difference I was unaware of. Awadewit | talk 20:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• His later writings continued to show characteristic differences from Luther - such as?

Added one example from Stephens. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Crucial example! Awadewit | talk 20:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• (English titles are those of Stephens, Introduction, pp. 171ff.) - I would move this information to a footnote.

Done. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Web citations need a publisher and any foreign-language sites need to marked with the appropriate language.

Done. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we are supposed to mark external links that are in foreign languages - I went ahead and did that. However, I'm not sure if the source was in Swiss German. If it is, I'm not sure what the template is for that. Awadewit | talk 20:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I missed that one. The source is written in High German. Schwyzerdütsch is rarely written, although I was rather shocked recently to find an Alemannic Wiki exists (see Zwingli article in the Zürich dialect). --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is well-written overall. I found a few wordy passages and tried to fix them on my own. Another pass by a fresh pair of eyes would probably improve the prose still further, but the article is already clear and flows well from one section to the next. Well done! This article was a pleasure to read. Can I talk you into John Calvin? Awadewit | talk 07:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your support, comments, and copyedit! I will address your comments over the next few days and respond line-by-line above. I have considered Calvin as a future project as I have access to some good sources where I am located. As I live in a non-anglophone country, that has been my major limitation in my choice of subjects to work on. --RelHistBuff (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That's why I suggested Calvin! I thought he might be a good project for you and he is so important! You can start working on a featured topic of important Reformation figures. :) Awadewit | talk 20:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

8-o <--emoticon, big eyes. Now that is a tough WP:FT project. Calvin could get controversial, but I think FA is potentially reachable. However, I would have to decline participating in Martin Luther. That one went through a wrenching NPOV/OWN war which caused a very good contributor to leave Wiki. Some of the editors there are, umm,... rather scary. Very sad. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That's too bad, especially since he's such a crucial figure and deserves a good article. Awadewit | talk 18:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I did participate a few times and then I saw the mob delisting it. Maybe after a while they will go away. --RelHistBuff (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Section break

Support after issues addressed. Great work! Oppose for now, based on a few quibbles: Will be very happy to support once these are clarified.

Resolved concerns from Ealdgyth

• Life section, early years subsection. How do we know his father and uncle disapproved of him becoming a dominican?

I added the cite. Potter said, "News of this was heard in Wildhaus by his parents and by his uncle with marked disapproval." --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Same section and subsection. I'd like to see some sort of citation for the last sentence of the second paragraph. It's not a requirement, however, it just looks a bit odd that it doesn't have a source citation.

Added cite. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Same section and subsection. Third paragraph, I'm unclear how the first sentence is connected to the second sentence. Also, when did he actually take holy orders and when was he consecrated a priest?

The "characterised by inner growth and development" phrasing is from Gäbler. I guess it is his shorthand for "characterised by scholarly studies, humanist correspondence, and an encounter with Erasmus". According to Potter, he was apparently ordained by the bishop of Constance on 14 September, but he adds in a footnote that no record has been preserved. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Same section and subsection, third paragraph. Is Glarus the canton or the capital of the canton? I'd assume the capital, but might be best to make this explicit.

The wikilink pointed to the capital, Glarus, but I added "town of". --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Same section and subsection. The way you've worded "The Swiss Confederation was embroiled in various campaigns with its neighbours: The French, the Hapsburgs and the Italian papal states." leaves the impression that there were more than one papal states and that there were papal states not in Italy. Maybe try "The French, the Hapsburgs and territories of the popes in Italy"? I'm not sure that is the best way to phrase it either.

I capitalised "Papal States" and dropped "Italian" --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Same section, Zurich ministry subsection, second paragraph. You bring up Hofmann, then leave him hanging for most of the paragraph before bringing him back up at the end of the paragraph. Consider moving the first information on Hofmann closer to the rest of the information.

Moved the text. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Same section and subsection, third paragraph. When did Sanson come to Zurich? I know you say January, but which year?

Added year. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Same section, Zurich disputations. I think it's safer to say that "the unrest between Zurich and the bishop continue"

Agreed. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Same section and subsection. I'd suggest linking iconoclastic in the third paragraph.

Wikilinked. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Same section and subsection, third paragraph. The sentence "An invitation for the 26 October 1523 disputation was sent out to the Zurich clergy and the bishop of Constance as for the first." is incredibly muddled. I'm not sure what is trying to be expressed here. As for the first what?

Yes, I don't how that mess of a sentence came about. Probably I had too much wine that night? Fixed now. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

MUCH better. It makes sense now! Ealdgyth

The sources look good to me. All in all, a very nice article. I too suggest trying Calvin next! Ealdgyth | Talk 02:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments. I will answer your comments line-by-line. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've struck through the ones taken care of. Were you wanting more sources/information? I have a few books on the Reformation, if you'd like I can look through them. They aren't as strong on the pre-Calvin Swiss Reformation as I'd like, but there are a few. Ealdgyth | Talk 02:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I was looking for something on Bullinger, but I think I got enough now in the Legacy section. I have posted a question to the help desk and I think the photo of the Münch relief might get deleted from Wikimedia Commons. The photographer had other photos of Chagall stained glass that were deleted for similiar reasons. Thanks for the heads-up. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I got an answer back from the help desk. It seems the law in Switzerland allows one to take pictures in public places and the pictures can be published. See on commons page. So it looks like it is possible to bring the Münch picture back. --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Being a photographer, I know what is up with US law on that sort of thing, but had no clue on Switzerland. Better to be sure than to be wrong. Struck through that one. Just a tiny quibble on the Bullinger stuff and looks like it's good to go for me! Ealdgyth | Talk 18:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support This looked pretty good at peer-review and I've just been through it again (yesterday, thrice, for AE/BE issues). I'm not an expert on the subject but it seems comprehensive and well-written. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Tentative Support Looks great so far, but I'm going to do a more thorough review presently. Jolly good, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.