![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 25, 2007, June 25, 2008, June 25, 2009, and June 25, 2010. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I removed the following text from the opening paragraph:
The Augsburg Confession is, by its catholic nature (meaning "universal" in its application to Lutheran churches), normative to all Lutheran Churches everywhere and in all times. The argument can then be made that not all liberal Lutheran churches today are truly Lutheran as they may not consider the Augsburg Confession to be normative today citation needed. The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA) does not require its members to accept it in its entirety as normative standards for modern life.
This material does not belong in the opening paragraph describing the document. This material is non-NPOV. This material accuses the majority of Lutheran churches in the U.S.A. of not being 'truly Lutheran' which is highly debatable and inflammatory. Discussions of what makes a 'truly Lutheran Church' should not happen in the opening paragraph of the Augsburg Confession article. Schlemazl ( talk) 20:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
A couple of links to Lutheran articles written about the Augsburg Confession were recently deleted. The person deleting them said, "Links to private commentary may be a violation of Wiki NOR and/or NPOV policies. The person providing these links needs to discuss them first. Thanks."
In looking through the NOR and NPOV material, it seems that its main focus is upon the page content and that the status of external links, whether factual or interpretive, is somewhat more open. A number of interpretive links exist throughout Wikipedia, usually clearly marked that they represent the views of a person or persons having "a dog in the fight." This is true with the article cited in the NPOV discussion, that on Abortion, which directs readers to such diverse sites as the American Life League and Planned Parenthood.
The deleted links clearly stated that they pointed to "Lutheran commentary on the presentation of the Augsburg Confession and the Variata versus the U.A.C.." I'm not quite sure how to address the NOR question, although the "original research" prohibition seems to be directed specifically at the content of the article itself and any supporting links or notes dealing with specific information that some might believe open to interpretation. Neither of the deleted links appear to have been used by any editors in establishing "proofs" for the articles.
Both of them, instead, address how Lutherans have traditionally treated the Augsburg Confession and they, themselves, are grounded in objective history, with any interpretive material plainly discernable. If the Abortion links are correct, I think that the Augsburg Confession links should be, also—perhaps with a preface similar to those used on the Abortion page, perhaps "The following links involve specific religious interpretations of the Augsburg Confession:"
I welcome any clarification other editors might provide.
-- 64.192.66.220 05:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Hieronymus
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
<div class="references-small"><references/></div>
.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 16:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The 300th anniversary musical information is peripheral and doesn't belong in the second paragraph of an article.
Charles Boyer
I reformatted the presentation of the articles to be in table format; hopefully to be an easier-to-read style of presentation. I also attempted summaries of the articles that were not already summarized; please feel free to criticize my short summaries of some rather long articles. Cothomps ( talk) 21:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The current text reinterprets the millenial-part Statement XVII to mean:
But the article itself rejects the notion that there will occur such a millennial kingdom being ruled by "the holy" just after the "ungodly" have been defeated. I think the phrase in the table overinterprets the meaning of Statement XVII by far. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 12:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Augsburg Confession. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ia311502.us.archive.org/zipview.php?zip=/2/items/concordiacyclope009499mbp/concordiacyclope009499mbp_flippy.zip&file=0062.jpg{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ia311502.us.archive.org/zipview.php?zip=/2/items/concordiacyclope009499mbp/concordiacyclope009499mbp_flippy.zip&file=0063.jpgWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Articles 23-25 state that 'Lutherans' permit/retain/uphold certain beliefs. Was that term actually used at the time, or is that a modern author's interpretation? If the latter, I have
WP:OR concerns unless it appears in a cited source. Which brings up my second issue: Why do we have no
WP:RS citation for The 28 Articles (the actual topic of the article) in the article? The lede states that this was one of the most important documents of the Protestant Reformation
. That makes the lack of inline citations... worrisome. I am not a subject-matter expert (I came here to learn), and hesitate to
WP:BEBOLD on such an important topic without such expertise.
Lastly, many articles on world religions (including many Christian ones) present the original text alongside the translation into English. It provides readers with a way to better understand and/or validate the info. The table for the The 28 Articles would very much benefit from (at minimum) the German version, and preferably the Latin wording as well. Also, since it was presented in both, which of the languages was originally considered the authoritative version? Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 12:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 25, 2007, June 25, 2008, June 25, 2009, and June 25, 2010. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I removed the following text from the opening paragraph:
The Augsburg Confession is, by its catholic nature (meaning "universal" in its application to Lutheran churches), normative to all Lutheran Churches everywhere and in all times. The argument can then be made that not all liberal Lutheran churches today are truly Lutheran as they may not consider the Augsburg Confession to be normative today citation needed. The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA) does not require its members to accept it in its entirety as normative standards for modern life.
This material does not belong in the opening paragraph describing the document. This material is non-NPOV. This material accuses the majority of Lutheran churches in the U.S.A. of not being 'truly Lutheran' which is highly debatable and inflammatory. Discussions of what makes a 'truly Lutheran Church' should not happen in the opening paragraph of the Augsburg Confession article. Schlemazl ( talk) 20:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
A couple of links to Lutheran articles written about the Augsburg Confession were recently deleted. The person deleting them said, "Links to private commentary may be a violation of Wiki NOR and/or NPOV policies. The person providing these links needs to discuss them first. Thanks."
In looking through the NOR and NPOV material, it seems that its main focus is upon the page content and that the status of external links, whether factual or interpretive, is somewhat more open. A number of interpretive links exist throughout Wikipedia, usually clearly marked that they represent the views of a person or persons having "a dog in the fight." This is true with the article cited in the NPOV discussion, that on Abortion, which directs readers to such diverse sites as the American Life League and Planned Parenthood.
The deleted links clearly stated that they pointed to "Lutheran commentary on the presentation of the Augsburg Confession and the Variata versus the U.A.C.." I'm not quite sure how to address the NOR question, although the "original research" prohibition seems to be directed specifically at the content of the article itself and any supporting links or notes dealing with specific information that some might believe open to interpretation. Neither of the deleted links appear to have been used by any editors in establishing "proofs" for the articles.
Both of them, instead, address how Lutherans have traditionally treated the Augsburg Confession and they, themselves, are grounded in objective history, with any interpretive material plainly discernable. If the Abortion links are correct, I think that the Augsburg Confession links should be, also—perhaps with a preface similar to those used on the Abortion page, perhaps "The following links involve specific religious interpretations of the Augsburg Confession:"
I welcome any clarification other editors might provide.
-- 64.192.66.220 05:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Hieronymus
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
<div class="references-small"><references/></div>
.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 16:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The 300th anniversary musical information is peripheral and doesn't belong in the second paragraph of an article.
Charles Boyer
I reformatted the presentation of the articles to be in table format; hopefully to be an easier-to-read style of presentation. I also attempted summaries of the articles that were not already summarized; please feel free to criticize my short summaries of some rather long articles. Cothomps ( talk) 21:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The current text reinterprets the millenial-part Statement XVII to mean:
But the article itself rejects the notion that there will occur such a millennial kingdom being ruled by "the holy" just after the "ungodly" have been defeated. I think the phrase in the table overinterprets the meaning of Statement XVII by far. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 12:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Augsburg Confession. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ia311502.us.archive.org/zipview.php?zip=/2/items/concordiacyclope009499mbp/concordiacyclope009499mbp_flippy.zip&file=0062.jpg{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ia311502.us.archive.org/zipview.php?zip=/2/items/concordiacyclope009499mbp/concordiacyclope009499mbp_flippy.zip&file=0063.jpgWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Articles 23-25 state that 'Lutherans' permit/retain/uphold certain beliefs. Was that term actually used at the time, or is that a modern author's interpretation? If the latter, I have
WP:OR concerns unless it appears in a cited source. Which brings up my second issue: Why do we have no
WP:RS citation for The 28 Articles (the actual topic of the article) in the article? The lede states that this was one of the most important documents of the Protestant Reformation
. That makes the lack of inline citations... worrisome. I am not a subject-matter expert (I came here to learn), and hesitate to
WP:BEBOLD on such an important topic without such expertise.
Lastly, many articles on world religions (including many Christian ones) present the original text alongside the translation into English. It provides readers with a way to better understand and/or validate the info. The table for the The 28 Articles would very much benefit from (at minimum) the German version, and preferably the Latin wording as well. Also, since it was presented in both, which of the languages was originally considered the authoritative version? Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 12:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)