Talk:Waldensians

What the hell happened to the: Poor of Lombardy?

Under History, it reads: Because of the shunning of the wealth of the Roman Catholic Church clergy, the movement was early known as The Poor of Lyon and The Poor of Lombardy. - unlike the so-called Poor of Lyons and even though Lombardy being bigger both in terms of area and population, why are The Poor of Lombardy at no further point mentioned in the article? Indeed, why does this writeup lack an explanation as to why the Waldenses happen to go by two sundry names and places?

THE NAME: 'WALDESIANS' IS TAKEN FROM 'VALLEYS' NOT PETER WALDO!

EARTH TO TALKPAGE

THE NAME: 'WALDESIANS' IS TAKEN FROM 'VALLEYS' NOT PETER WALDO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.243.97 (talk) 04:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Capslock is not cruise control for cool, Wikipedia summarizes published mainstream academic sources, and Wikipedia does not use original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The Biblica Italica which was distributed by the Waldenses in scripture for hundreds of years prior to the mysterious Peter Waldo proves they had the original Bible scriptures. This should be mentioned in the article. Why hasn't the testimony of the Catholic Inquisitor Reinerous Sacco stating the Waldenses went as far back as the 4th century with Pope Sylvestor and even to the Apostles not mentioned in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.191.102.177 (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

If there are reputable sources, feel free to add the information into the article. I would suggest signing up for a Wikipedia account so that discussion could go along with the suggested edits as you make them, if you do add the material. Mikeatnip (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Britannica on the Waldensians

@Stetson7: As can be seen at http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/634415/Waldenses , the EB does not say or even imply that "there was another church movement highly advanced and in existance prior to Peter Waldo." It was original research to claim so, and we do not use original research (as has been explained before). Claiming that the EB supports that claim is like saying that Luke 6:29 proves Jesus supported assault. Also, a single source does not trump the majority of mainstream academics. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Stetson7: Again, Wikipedia does not use original research. If you want to add something, every single piece of information must be directly supported by the source cited. Where in the EB does it say that the Waldensians predate Waldo, without interpretation or inserting material? It does not say that anywhere. Therefore, you in any honesty or competency pretend that the EB "proves" there was a movement predating Waldo. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Britannica mentions that Peter Waldo was releasing scripture not of the Latin Bible but from another Bible which was the Biblica Itala this is very important as it proves the existance of another Christian group which the dishonest editors of this article are wanting to hide. The Biblica Itala bible is known as the only other Bible in existance at the time and for me to say a highly advance group with respect to the article by me not even mentioning they were Waldenses was quite noble and respectful of me. Biblica Itala must be mentioned as the scriptures PW was releasing thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stetson7 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

As has been explained for you over and over, Wikipedia does not say something that the original source does not make explicit. For you to claim that the EB says that the Waldensians predate Waldo, the EB must explicitly state that the Waldensians predate Waldo. We do not accept speculation from users based on sources -- we only summarize the sources without addition. If you did not mean to say that this hypothetical "advanced group" (that, again, is NOT mentioned in the EB) was not the Waldensians, then they are not relevant to this article. It is disingenuous to pretend that you were not implying that those were the Waldensians. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I would need to check my sources again, but my understanding of the story is that Peter Waldo was responsible for translating the Scriptures into the local language. The Peter Waldo article states it like this:

″The Waldensian movement was characterized from the beginning by lay preaching, voluntary poverty and strict adherence to the Bible. Between 1175-1185 Peter Waldo either commissioned a cleric from Lyons to translate the New Testament into the vernacular, the Arpitan (Franco-Provençal) language or was himself involved in this translation work. Regardless of the source of translation, he is credited with providing to Europe the first translation of the Bible in a 'modern tongue' outside of Latin.″

Perhaps Stetson7 is confusing this translation with a purported earlier one? That said, many people, including Waldensians from as early as the 1400s (The early Bohemian Brethren had contact with remnant Waldensians and spoke of this belief of continuity in their documents), believed that the Waldensian movement was but a continuation of a larger non-conformist movement disassociated with the larger Catholic/Orthodox movement. Sources to definitely prove or disprove this connection are missing, as far as I know, which is nothing uncommmon considering the paucity of any definite sources from the period. One author I read seemed to think the Poor of Lombardy were in fact a similar movement on the Italian side of the Alps that actually predated Waldo. In my opinion (totally opinion from my personal research), there was a pre-Waldensian movement that would have had a lot in common with what Peter Waldo stood for. No official connection with this movement is documented (that is, they did not help Peter Waldo start his reform), but in all probability there was likely some influence. It would be like the Moravian Brethren to the Methodists: The Moravian Brethren were an influence on Wesley, but they did not start the Wesleyan movement, and had no official connection to it. It is therefore wrong to say that the Methodist movement predated John Wesley, even though the Moravian Brethren have roots going clear back to the mid 1400s.

What I am trying to say is that there is probably some truth to the idea that the Waldensian movement predated Waldo, but only in the sense of a "Waldensian-like" movement. How to incorporate that into the article is beyond my ability at the moment, without spending a lot of time to find and cite the appropriate sources. But until those sources can be found and cited, the article needs to leave out all assumptions and personal interpretations, including my own (even though it may be correct). Mikeatnip (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I wish to have included the historical fact that Waldenses knew and possessed the Vulgate. But the Italic, the earlier Latin, was their own Bible, the one for which they died for . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stetson7 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 6 June 2015‎ (UTC)

@Stetson7: According to what reliable source did they have the Italic? We need a source that states specifically that they had it and used it. We can't infer or play connect-the-dots based on other pieces of information; that sort of synthesis is not allowed. —C.Fred (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I have seen how you operate C Fred and will not play your self deluded elitist game of saying outdated history or modern historians disagree Have fun with your corrupted historical wikipedia articles C Fred and Godbless you too — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stetson7 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

1487 order of extermination

"In 1487 Pope Innocent VIII issued a bull for the extermination of the Vaudois." Doesn't this statement need a supporting citation? What was the name of the papal bull issued that called for the extermination of the Vaudois? Piosdad (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

--- and why is the word: "Vaudois" being used over: "Vallenses", "Valdesi" and (wait for it) "Waldenses" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.233.98 (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Earlier historical name for Waldenses in English was "Woldsfolk"

Should I bother posting the source or are the Catholics/French still going to pretend the names: "Waldenses"/"Waldesians"/ "valdesi" and so forth are from so-called: 'Peter Waldo' rather the VALLEY PEOPLE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.69.58.27 (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Wold