Talk:Huldrych Zwingli

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Huldrych Zwingli article.
Article policies
Featured article star Huldrych Zwingli is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 4, 2008.

Contents

[edit] Schaff teference

Schaff is an excellent resource and public domain. But as it is available on the net, it might be better to link to it - just a suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.49.27.71 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 5 March 2003

Yes, this is true. (70.176.9.7 (talk) 08:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Info at [1]

A lot of information at http://16.1911encyclopedia.org/Z/ZW/ZWINGLI.htm not used. --OldakQuill 17:37, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Can s/o compare Calvin & Zwingli - not just Zwingli & Luther

Both John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli contributed to the Reformed Churches so some analysis would be of value. Paul foord 08:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] doctor biblicus

I can guess what this means, but it might be better to explain it. The immediate searches I get on it are in the exact same context and give me no more confidence in my guess, otherwise I would update. John (Jwy) 23:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging "Theology: sacraments and covenants (Zwingli versus Luther)" with "Theology of Zwingli" article

I am against it. It seems like there should be mention of Zwinglian sacramantology in this article, as this part of his legacy is quite notable. Notthe9 16:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this article should have at least a summary of Zwingli's view and how it differs from the other Reformers' views, and I don't think the merge would remove all mention of his theological legacy. The article on Zwingli's theology can and should cover it in greater depth, however. --Flex 19:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] marriage date conflict

Ulrich Zwingli's wedding date is April 2, 1524 at Wikipedia and other sources but is July 2, 1524 in Catholic Encyclopedia and a few others.

This wedding was announced publicly on one of these dates.

It would be nice to find actually document of announcement or some logical explanation of the difference. Daytrivia 01:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zwingli and politics

I know nothing about this topic, and the sedond paragraph of this sectoin is confusing. It sounds like it was written in the jargon of serious protestent discourse.

I am going to attempt a "layman's" rewrite. If my rewrite is mistaken, please attempt a better one.


Nwbeeson 15:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

The material from the Catholic Encyclopedia linked at the bottom of the article states that Zwingli was the third of eight sons and the top section of the article claims that he was the seventh of eight. Someone should get this page to agree with itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.186.133.125 (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Suggested restructure

I would recommend starting with the section "Zwingli's life", i.e., his biography, and then following with his contribution to the Reformation. --RelHistBuff 10:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I changed the order of the sections as above. I have gathered several books on Zwingli and unless there are any objections, I would like to proceed on a rewrite. --RelHistBuff 13:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bolded Text: Music?

Does the text that he didn't dislike music need to be bolded? It feels out of flow and un-encyclopedic.Gordon CSA (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New article Theology of Huldrych Zwingli

I have created a new article, Theology of Huldrych Zwingli, because I would like to make a serious expansion of the theology section in the Huldrych Zwingli article using the Stephens reference. At the same time, I noticed the Huldrych Zwingli article is already becoming quite large just covering his biography and adding the theology info would make this article quite cumbersome. There is information of his theology sprinkled throughout this article (such as in the Marburg section, I am expanding it now). Therefore I would like to remove the theology section here to be replaced by the new article. Anyone have any thoughts on this? --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good application of WP:SUMMARY. Keep up the good work! --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
My work plan is as follows:
  1. Rewrite and cite the Kappel Wars section
  2. Rewrite and cite the Legacy section
  3. Rewrite and cite the Theology section trying to reduce it to about two paragraphs
  4. Submit article to WP:PR, which will take some time to get a response
  5. While waiting, work on the Theology of Huldrych Zwingli article
  6. After the peer review, go through citations/sources again
  7. Proofread, copyedit, ask for separate reviews, check with WP:MOS
  8. Submit to FAC
--RelHistBuff (talk) 08:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

excellent plan. Thanks for adopting this article .dab (𒁳) 12:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I already see that I should add
3.1 Rewrite and expand lead section
I would like to remove the "Literary production" section. The complete list of works is around 200 items and it is rather difficult to pick out the best ones (for example for a "Selected works" section). Within the article itself, several works of Zwingli are already noted so I think there is no need to make a separate list of works unless someone wants to start a list-type article. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zwingli and music

RelHistBuff, you have removed the bit about Zwingli's music with the comment "replace, will expand": what will you expand, when and where? I will concur that the "legacy" section may not be the best place to discuss Zwingli-the-musician, but the topic is of some importance wrt his stance on music in religious service. Mention of his three surviving hymns should also be part of a comprehensive article on Zwingli. The 1960 article by Hannes Reimann (citation of which you have removed) is a good source for this. dab (𒁳) 13:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I put it in the liturgy section. However, there is more modern research on the three songs. I will get to this eventually. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I do imagine there is more recent literature :) I depend on jstor.org for this... since Zwingli's musical activity was precisely not liturgy, we might give some details on his musical education and talent in the "early years" section. dab (𒁳) 13:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem about putting something in on his musical education in the "Early years" section. Just remember to add the citation. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
On a related subject, the sentence, "Zwingli enjoyed music greatly and could play, among other instruments, the violin, the harp, flute, dulcimer and hunting horn", was in the original version of the article, but it had no citation. None of my sources mention the specific instruments that he played. I am going to check Locher's book; perhaps there might be something there. If you know of a source, could you add it in? --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The Reimann article is really quite comprehensive. It lists the known facts of Zwingli's musical education, and it lists the eleven instruments Bernhard Wyss claims Zwingli could play: lute, harp, pipe, bagpipes, tromba marina, dulcimer, vielle ("violin"), rebec, horn, cornett, boxwood flute/recorder. I know the article is 48 years old, but I really doubt the communis opinio on this topic has changed very much since. dab (𒁳) 14:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zürich Bible

The "Zürich Bible" is this publication, appeared 2007, ISBN 978-3-85995-240-9. The particular text contributed to by Zwingli is known as the Froschauer Bibel because it appeared with Christoph Froschauer from 1525. dab (𒁳) 18:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The sources explicitly give the name of the first translation as the "Zürich Bible". Perhaps the first translation is commonly called Froschauer Bibel among germanophones, but since the anglophone sources call it the Zürich Bible, then we have to respect the sources. What we could do is to add an clause such as "The Zürich Bible translation, commonly called the Froschauer Bibel in German,[1] traditionally attributed ...". But a citation should be added. --RelHistBuff (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


literature: Traudel Himmighöfer, Die Zürcher Bibel bis zum Tode Zwinglis (1531) : Darstellung und Bibliographie (= Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Europäische Geschichte Mainz 154), Mainz 1995 ISBN 380531535X. This English language review unambiguously talks of the "Froschauer Bible". Now please let us not make this more difficult than absolutely necessary. This has nothing whatsoever to do with germanophone vs. anglophone. "Zürich Bible" is correct and mostly sufficient given the context, "Froschauer Bible" is more specific, in both English and German, and you should use it if you wish to refer to the first edition specifically. If we are going to argue, can we argue about something more controversial and more intersting please? dab (𒁳) 18:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If you insist on changing it, then go ahead, I will not revert. But please add the footnote on "Froschauer Bible[2]". Neither Gäbler nor Potter used it, so the credit has to go to another source. --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

never mind. This isn't important enough. However, you appear to be relying on Gäbler and Potter over-much. If the "translation" I had removed here was really Potter's, I have grave doubts about Potter's reliability. There is a plethora of literature on Zwingli, and there is no need to rely on any one book in particular. At this point, I think you would profit from reviewing WP:OWN. As I say above, I am glad you have 'adopted' this article, but you'll need to recognize that it will not be "your" article. dab (𒁳) 09:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

ok, if you object to "Froschauer Bible", let's at least say "the Zürich Bible, printed by Christoph Froschauer", giving us the opportunity to link to Christoph Froschauer, who is certainly a person instrumental to the Zürich Reformation and Zwingli's impact. dab (𒁳) 13:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem with your suggestion. I personally do not object to calling it the Froschauer Bible. As I implied previously, I am simply trying to keep to the wiki-policy of saying only what the sources say and adding nothing else. I will look for more sources on the naming of the Bible. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

ok. You see, at the time of our discussion above, there had been no Christoph Froschauer article. I have created one since, and since we have one now "the Zürich Bible, printed by Christoph Froschauer" is clearly the optimal solution. --dab (𒁳) 14:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FA?

Why not nominate this for GA first? You will get valuable feedback that you can use in the drive for FA. -- SECisek (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I submitted it to GAN. The reasons I skipped GA were problems with the process and inconsistent reviews. Ian Thorpe is an example; it failed GA and passed FA at around the same time! Still, if a good reviewer takes a look, then it is worth the wait. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I am withdrawing the GA nomination. The peer review has brought in four good reviews; I had to make some special requests, but the criticisms has been useful. So we will see how it goes on FAC. --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The GA process is broken. I see no problem with going directly for FA. Submitting an article twice would be a waste of time. I have no basic objection to the present version qualifying as FA, except perhaps:

  • why did you remove the "Theology" section entirely? It's ok to have a dedicated Theology of Huldrych Zwingli, but a full article on Zwingli should focus on content (works, theology) just as much as on biographical detail.
  • the article appears to rely on two sources, Gäbler (1986) and Potter (1976) far too much. I am sure these are ok sources, but if you have access to them, it would be better to cite their sources directly. It would be much preferable if we can cite academic literature on specific points directly (such as Reimann 1960 for Zwingli and Music).

that said, the article is certainly a good coverage of the topic. Well done. dab (𒁳) 13:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The summary of the theology section wasn't really good. It's a chicken and egg problem. The theology article is not finished yet and it is hard to give a decent summary of his theology before it is finished. So I took the summary out temporarily while working on the theology article. I will write a new summary once the article is finished.
Concerning sources, Gäbler and Potter has extensive footnotes quite often citing Zwingli's works (primary sources) and a host of scholarly literature (secondary sources). For the purposes of an encyclopaedia article, however, it is not necessary to cite journals and other academic literature such as conference/symposium proceedings. One can see this in FA Biography articles where most use biographies, not journals, as their major sources. The two sources I used are the best modern English-language biographies on Zwingli. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd suggest the better way to handle the theology section might be to leave it in place here with a {{sync}} template in that section referring to the other article. That way, readers who visit here during your research and creation phase aren't entirely without a theology section. --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, this was no objection to FA-worthiness. What is lacking is a "Works" section. We cannot FA an article on a notable author that does not include a decent discussion of his written works. The "Selected works" section in FA John Knox is a bare minimum in my book. dab (𒁳) 15:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The John Knox list was easy to do because it is based on a compendium of his works edited by Laing. It isn't very large. The list of Zwingli's works in the modern critical edition is over a hundred. The question is which ones to list? I could start with a list based on the works mentioned in the article. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the ones listed now, from the 1995 Schriften, are sufficient. English translations of the titles would be nice though. dab (𒁳) 16:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. There is an incomplete sentence for Vol XIII "Zwingli's exegetical notes on the Bible, published in ." --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

ok, I see the four volume edition is in modernized German, while the full edition is in the original Early Modern German. Consequently, the titles given are modernized. "Die freie Wahl der Speisen" is really "Erkiesen und Freiheit der Speisen" etc. It may be better to give the original titles and their English translations than taking the detour over Modern German. dab (𒁳) 22:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is best to keep the modern titles as stated in the four-volume edition and if necessary add the original titles in a parenthetical element. Otherwise we would be ascribing the original titles to the four-volume edition which might cause confusion if someone were to look them up. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
yes - I have doubts the present arrangement by volume of the 1995 edition is a good idea anyway. It restricts our freedom of selection. Maybe we should dump that structure and just list selected original titles? I found a decent English language index of Zwingli's works on google books (Stephens 1992), here, we might go by that. dab (𒁳) 10:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notes and suggestions

Hi all, RelHistBuff asked me to look over this article as a pre-pre-precursor to taking it to FAC. I'll do my best to help out! :) Willow (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  • The paragraphs of the lead seem rather short and don't always flow smoothly from one thought to the next? For example, I would devote the 2nd and 3rd sentences of the 1st lead paragraph to giving a "big picture" view of Zwingli's significance, before launching into his early history. I'm afraid that many readers may not be familiar with 16th-century Switzerland, or even the 16th century, or even the Reformation. Setting context will be important, I think, talking about the historical tides at work in Europe. Willow (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I like your idea of adding a "Historical context" section (mentioned below). From that I think a sentence or two could be added to the first paragraph. The lead does probably make for stilted reading, primarily due to me (as a mediocre writer), but also due to the limitation of WP:LEAD. Will work on this. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • My own feeling is that, for the lead, what Zwingli did is more important than than the exact church he did it from. So perhaps a few details could be sacrificed to make room for that broader discussion of Zwingli and his context? Willow (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Will look into this. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The names "Henry", "Gregory" and "Bartholomew" sound like Anglicanizations. ;) Were those really their names? Willow (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The names are from one of the sources (Gäbler). Potter uses "Heinrich", but retains "Gregory" and "Bartholomew". I believe the primary source of the names is a book on Reformation history by Heinrich Bullinger. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure that it's Apologeticus not Apologeticeus. More generally, I think Apologeticus archeteles would be better translated as "A Defence of Ultimate Principles", rather than "The First and Last Word". Zwingli's little pun on αρχη — which can mean "first" (εν αρχη ην ο λογος, in the beginning was the Word) but can also mean "principle" — is nice, but I think we should also give the main meaning as well for the reader. I won't change anything until we agree, though. Willow (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
It is Apologeticus. That was a typo on my part. The translation is from Gäbler. Stephens does not translate it at all just calling it Archeteles. Potter has more details on the Greek in a footnote. He said that it is an example of a composite noun which early 16th century humanists loved to invent. I can't type in the Greek words, but Zwingli supposedly merged two words "beginning" and "end". Potter then translates Archeteles as "once and for all". So Potter seems to support Gäbler's translation. By the way, the reason I chose Gäbler as the main source for title names and translations is because that source consistently gave the original German/Greek/Latin as well as English translations of all the titles. Stephens provides mostly his translated English, while Potter was inconsistent. That's not to say that Gäbler's translations are the best. I really could not agree with his literal translation of Burgrecht to "Fortress Law". Fortunately, I had other sources to resolve that one. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The titles of some of Zwingli's works read like High German, rather than Swiss German, e.g., Eine fruendliche Bitte, Schlußreden, Kurze christliche Einleitung? Were those the original titles, or have they been Germanified (hochdeutsch'd ;)? Willow (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The titles are from Gäbler. I have seen some of the original text and the German is definitely not modern German, so I am certain the titles were spelled differently. When the original titles are converted to modern German, one ends up with several choices of "conversions" as well. So I just stuck to one source. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I finished it, and it reads very well, but it still seems a mite "rough" for FAC. It feels as though it would benefit from a stronger flow, and more rigorous integration of the various facts, so that even a casual reader is swept along and doesn't have to stop and think too much. ;) I would suggest adding an initial section about "Historical context" that paints the big picture for such a casual reader, you know the start of the Reformation, the factors religious and political leading up to it and favoring its growth, the political situation in Switzerland, etc. As one example, I added something about Erasmus' publication of the Greek New Testament as being a catalytic event in new Biblical translations, but that might be better worked into such a "Historical Context".

I have added a new context section. Please tell me what you think. I hope you feel swept along. :-D --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Another thing you might consider adding would be some summary statement of Zwingli's theology, or at least the issues on which it turned. You do a great job describing it piecemeal, in its chronological development, but I think it warrants its own section.

In a previous section above, I mentioned that I drafted a theology section. But it really wasn't good enough, so I took it out. Since I am also working on the Theology of Huldrych Zwingli article, I will put in a new summary when it is finished.

Also, how about more about Zwingli's personal life? I thought the sentences about his marriage very interesting, and would've liked to have heard more about Anna and his children, and the predicaments that might've caused him.

Did you see the Anna Reinhard article in the "External links" section? It is a very nice description written in the 19th century. I was strongly tempted to add some details from that source. I have other books of that period where they go into wonderful details about personal aspects of past people's lives. But I was told, rightly so, by our historian wiki-colleagues (Awadewit and Qp10qp) to avoid the old sources as they are hagiographic and no longer reflect modern scholarship. <sigh>. Well, the old sources still make nice reading and conjures up nice fantasies. Anyway, I will try searching through modern sources for some details. It certainly would make the reading less dry! --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hoping this helps, Willow (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Balance

I have added a couple of small edits including clarifying a couple of more negative issues for balance that seem to have been missed so far eg Zwinglis abolition of Church music, and his confession of personal immorality. Xandar (talk) 12:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There are a couple of other questions here - particularly with reference to the seizure of the monasteries. It is stated that Zwingli wanted to close them in the high-minded interest of caring for the poor. It is implied that this is what happened. I do not know the details so far, but elsewhere in Europe, although this was the stated aim of suppression, very little of the money actually went to the poor, mostly ending up in the hands of the ruling elites. If this did not happen in Zurich it would be a big exception. Xandar (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] the Church, fasting, and the Confederation

I've read through parts of this article and found a couple things that struck me as being maybe not entirely geared towards a lay audience. Hope these comments help improve the readability and accessibility of this article.

In the second paragraph of the lead, "the Church" is introduced without any proper antecedent, nor wikilink. To those not familiar with European history or the Reformation, it may be confusing to what religious body "the Church" is referencing, because there are clearly disambiguation issues. I was wondering if the article could be changed to insert a wikilink full title to the religious body in question. Again, in the 2nd paragraph of "Early years", it could be helpful to state what Church Zwingli went to work for.

Under "First rifts", the idea of fasting is introduced, but not explained (or even linked to). Imagine a Protestant reader who was raised outside of the Church, or even a non-Christian reader. Do you think this section would be above their head? I think linking to, and perhaps having a short clause explaining what fasting meant back then would be a good idea. The phrase "thus not punishable by the Church" is confusing because it implies the Church punished people for fasting (or even punished people for sinning). Is that the case?

I read this article a bit out of order, so I'm not sure if this is that big of an issue, but in the 2nd paragraph of "Legacy", the sentence "Under Bullinger, the confessional divisions of the Confederation were stabilised." made absolutely no sense (without having read the "Reformation in the Confederation" section). I'm not sure if there is a creative way to expand that sentence slightly so it doesn't rely so heavily on previous text (and explain what a "confessional division" is, which is the only place that phrase is used in the entire article)?

Anyway, hope this helps.-Andrew c [talk] 19:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)