Talk:Johann Eck
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
editRemoved the following warning from the article introduction. Is relevant point for the discussion page, however, so I am pasting it here:
WARNING!!!: Much of the following article appears to have been written by someone either engaging in a pro-Lutheran, anti-Catholic polemic, or relying upon such a polemic for their information. It is not at all clear that Catholics would regard Eck's positions as Semi-Pelagian, or that references to his physical appearance are in anyway relevant. Caveat lector!
Assesment (needs citation)
editI assesed this article as a B as although it is thorough but as noted above it still contains NNPOV and is in desperate need of citation.
- A pitty there's no C-class. My investigation in assessment instead indicate something like start class. I'll add a few templates: the article is in heavy need of more inline citations. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 20:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Defender?
edit"Defender" of catholic faith? That's not a neutral description: he started to harass Luther for heresy so that the Reformation became much more exaggerated. That's not a defence proper, rather it is an offensive attack. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 20:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Neutrality questioned
editNeutrality of this Article is to be questioned. Sections "Disputations with Luther and Karlstadt", "Attacks on Luther and Melanchthon", "Papal emissary and inquisitor" and "Zwingli and his followers" lack sources all together and seem to be written by pro-lutheran bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.66.215.213 (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Most of the article appears to be a direct copy-paste from the first source in the list of references, the New Schaff–Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (third ed.). There is a digital version of that reference here: http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc04/htm/ii.iii.ii.htm. Recognizing that the reference is in the Public Domain, it is still considered plagiarism in the form of Copying from a source acknowledged in a poorly placed citation, per Wikipedia plagiarism guidelines (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Free_and_copyrighted_sources). BSMet94 (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- I've put in the inline citations. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)