"==Torture== 

 Okay, get this straight; I am NEVER going to allow the portion of this phrase in italics: ""Calvin's acceptance of torture is reprehensible to modern sensibilities."" Torture is wrong today, yesterday, and tomorrow, no matter who commits it, for what reason, and no matter how rarely he did it or how common it was elsewhere. To assert otherwise smacks of those stupid, masturbatory arguments over whether Hitler or Stalin was ""worse"". I don't care how solemnly everyone else agrees to it. I am absolutely unimpressed by the various cheats slipped in here and there which seem to try and imply that Calvin wasn't ""all that bad"" because he ""only"" presided over one man's death by burning. Calvin is on record in his own hand as supporting burning and torture in principle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by    

 :Welcome to Wikipedia.  

 :Firstly, I'd like to recommend that you review WP:Civil for official policy regarding edits. 
 :Secondly, I think you may be misunderstanding the phrase that you are remarking on. It does not condone torture nor make any statement regarding the morality of Calvin's viewpoints or actions.  Far from being an excuse for torture, it is an expression that describes the commonly-held viewpoint on torture, and it invites comparison between changes in the viewpoint over time. 
 :An excellent comparison, in my opinion, is the discussion of Thomas Jefferson as slaveholder. 
 :  

 :This sounds a lot like  from further down in the discussion. You've lost consensus, so don't try to edit war again.   

 :Hey dude, 
 :It's probably a not a good idea to loudly denounce the consensus in a forum that relies on consensus. Please be practical. Folks here can see that the same pattern of edits keeps appearing from multiple anonymous IP addresses. If you want to be taken seriously, I can't imagine a worse tactic than this one.   
 ::Admin speaks up: this IP editor is in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OWN.  Wikipedia doesn't take that type of position editorially - it's a slippery slope.  I've semi-protected this article. e!  

 ==What's in a name?== 
 Jean Calvin was his real name. This should be mentioned. Is he know as John Calvin in english speaking countries ?  22:39 Sep 7, 2002 (UTC) 

 :Yes, that's how he's known by English speakers.    

  
 ::He was born with the name Jean Calvin but later in his life it changed to John Calvin. 
 

  
 Jean Chauvin was his real name and like many people of his time he adopted a latinised version of his name —Preceding unsigned comment added by   •   

 Chauvin or Cauvin. Spelling varied in France as everywhere else. I've never seen a C16 French source that said Jean Calvin. My sense is that the most common form is Jean Cauvin.  

 Refreshing my reading on Calvin, I turn up in A. McGrath's biography the recognition that during Calvin's lifetime, the form of his first name was Jehan, and he refers to a document from Calvin's early life from the records of the Noyon chapter that refers to Calvin in this form. In light of this, I'm editing the page, with a reference to McGrath.   

 ===Jean Calvin?=== 
 There is scarcely a single reference to him in English language scholarly works that every calls him anything other than John Calvin, and here it is again on Wikipedia, written up as the article title and in the first paragraph as if that was his baptized name.  His beliefs were associated with a certain kind of Christian presbyterianism, particularly in Scotland, consequently I have seen Scottish person after Scottish person described as ""Calvinist"" or having suffered a ""Calvinist upbringing"" or being a ""Dour, Calvinist Scot"".  This was so extensive that I spent at least half of my life under the distinct impression that ""John Calvin"" was a Scotsman.  In my view, this Anglo-centric view of him should cease, forthwith.  John