Talk:Peter of Bruys

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Peter of Bruys article.
Article policies
Good article Peter of Bruys has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
August 23, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page


Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

[edit] Burning

In the article the burning is said to be brought about "by an enraged populace, instigated by the clergy of the Catholic church."

a) where is the quote from? b) in what way was the burning instigated by RC clergy? {unsigned}

It's a common quote. I can't find the primary source right now, but found a secondary which makes it verifiable. From what I understand the clergy at the scene instigated a mob against Peter, called him a heretic, devil, etc.. -- Stbalbach 00:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not verifiable, the secondary source doesn't cite it either. In fact, very little in this article was verifiable as written. It was cited by a handful of untrustworthy sources, all from the same couple of websites. Everything that is KNOWN about Peter of Bruys comes from the work of Peter of Cluny and Abelard. Nothing else was made of him until the 1800s and it can be nothing other then speculation. Wikipedia is not the place for speculation, original research, or oppinion. I rewrote the article using accepted sources and corrected POV to meet wiki standards. I don't think the article can grow much more because, sadly, the acticle already includes almost all verifiable info on the man. -- SECisek 05:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


DISPUTATION OF THE CURRENT ARTICLE: This article has been altered from the documented truth that was here in July 2007. It is a lie that the Petrobrusians were heretics. They held the same Biblical doctrines of the Donatists, Novationist, Waldenses, Antabaptists, and other ancient Christians as well as modern Baptists. They were hounded to death during the Dark Ages by their Roman Catholic persecutes who were the real heretics. They were ancient Baptists. Can you add to your posting rules, "Be truthful." -- LandmarkBaptist, 4 Aug. 2007

[edit] GA review comments

As per usual, hereafter follow the comments of me pertaining to WP:GAC.

  • Don't put spaces between citations or before them, per WP:CITE.
  • "Peter was likely born at Bruis in south–eastern France." - something more along the lines of "It is likely that Peter was born..." or "Sources suggest Peter was born..." - and cite it.
  • "...deprived of his office by the Church hierarchy..." - why?
  • "The bishops of dioceses of Embrun, Die, and Gap suppressed..." - this is a challenging read for non-experts. Perhaps somehow expand for people like me!
  • "...but they gained adherents..." - I guess this is implying that the original suppressors were supported by others? Query rather than suggestion, by the way!
No, this was unclear and I have corrected.
  • Space after the citation before the next sentence, and order citations numerically.
  • Is there some background to Peter the Venerable which could be incorporated here for context other than just heading into his criticisms of Peter of Bruys?
Good call!
  • "...according to the author" - reassert Peter the Venerable here to stop readers losing their way.
  • Did Peter the Venerable really write in American English? e.g. dishonor, baptized?
He wrote in Latin. I reproduced the translated quotes as I found them. If there are more to fix please point me to them.
  • "...in the least.” Again: “The good deeds..." - why are these quotes joined with Again:?
  • While the criticisms are pretty self-explanatory, it may be worth thinking about expanding on them rather than just quoting them?
Think I added some value.
  • Wikilink cross on its first use, not second use.
  • "...cast him into the flames..." - which flames?
  • Wikilink Cluniac.
  • Ref [6] needs to be moved per WP:CITE.
  • Who's Matthew Paris?
  • Last sentence of penultimate para and all of ultimate para in Death and legacy section are uncited.
  • Ref [2] needs a full date for when last accessed.

As usual, I'll place the article on hold until the points above can be addressed. Hurrah. The Rambling Man 16:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

More? -- SECisek 19:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
More. Not much more, though.
  • "...killed him soon after the year 1130..." vs c.1131 in opening sentence & infobox. Perhaps make consistent?
  • "The idea was very quickly becoming accepted as orthodox doctrine at the time of the attacks by Peter of Bruys." - says who?
  • Red links in accessdate tags, use 2007-08-22 to represent today rather than standard markup, it'll work fine, trust me!
Those should do it. By the way, great work on expanding the criticisms of Pete the Old'n'Wise, much more interesting to read and superior context than just a direct translation. Good stuff. The Rambling Man 20:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
More? Or no More? -- SECisek 20:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
no More. It's a great effort again, particularly the late expansion. Really well done. The Rambling Man 21:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Pass

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, T Rex | talk 04:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)