This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ninety-five Theses article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Ninety-five Theses is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 31, 2017. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on October 31, 2004, October 31, 2005, October 31, 2006, October 31, 2007, October 31, 2014, October 31, 2015, October 31, 2016, October 31, 2018, October 31, 2019, and October 31, 2021. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"This would allow the person relief of 100 days in purgatory, ". The Catholic doctrine of indulgences has never been that the days attached to an indulgence were for relief of those number of days in purgatory. (this is not the place to go into what it really means). The issue here though is not to cite the Catholic doctrine correctly, but to cite what was taught at the time, and what Martin Luther was objecting to. If someone can show me that this ("relief of 100 days in purgatory") is what was actually taught, then it's fine. Otherwise it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Javaman59 ( talk • contribs) 21:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
[Update] The statement, re. 100 days in purgatory, is wrong, and makes the whole para misleading. I could try and correct it, but the para itself looks irrelevant to the 95 theses. It refers to events in 1507, and 1520, whereas the theses were posted in 1517. Background to the relics in Wittenburg is provided in the previous paragraph, and the main issue, Tetzler's preaching, is in the following paragraph. The paragraph itself doesn't demonstrate its relevance to the topic. I've deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Javaman59 ( talk • contribs) 21:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
This article is rediculous if it doesn't actually list all 95 Theses. Copyright? What copyright? This document is legally and completely in public domain. I'm sure that someone has an English version of the Theses that was written a couple of hundred years ago that is well outside of any copyright!! -- Solascriptura 11:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Solascriptura. When I look up Martin Luther's 95 theses, I want to see THEM, not just talk about them. Yes there is an obscure link to them on the page, but it is hard to find. Thus I have added a link to the "WikiSource:95 Theses" in the article text, making the actual Theses easier to access. CTSWyneken's point is taken, but this policy interpretation potentially makes Wikipedia articles less user friendly - not the goal, I suspect. I note that when I look up "United States Bill of Rights", the actual content of the Bill of Rights is right there on the page, without need for further linking. Why should the 95 Theses be any different? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trappem ( talk • contribs) 18:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I also agree, the theses themselves should be explicitly in the article unless they are too cumbersome and then at least there should be a clear link to them. Burying them in the sources is unacceptable, and if that is wiki policy then the policy is stupid and should be changed.
Jonny Quick ( talk) 17:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Jonny Quick
What if Martin Luther had been burned at the stake in 1521? Would the Reformation movement have flourished as it did? Would the Catholic Church have mantained its political and social power? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.174.169.109 ( talk) 18:33, August 27, 2003
To whoever placed the Kingdom Now link on this page - this is not a political sounding board, and that link is being removed and completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. -- L. 17:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Fellow editors:
I've put all the current information on the copyright of Martin's Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies into the copyright topic page. For future reference, I'll put anything new I discover there and will answer questions about the status of this and other works at that location. -- CTSWyneken 16:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Luther is said to have posted the 95 Theses on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany, on October 31, 1517. Some scholars have questioned the accuracy of this account, noting that no contemporaneous evidence exists for it.
I added all of the 95 theses. Go Me! Arctic-Editor 16:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Readers, please note: what's posted in the article is a tremendously weak paraphrase, that in many cases bears no resemblance to what Luther said. Check the Project Wittenberg link below.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.83.234.164 ( talk • contribs) .
The current external link to the Project Wittenberg seems to have expired. The same text via wayback is: http://web.archive.org/web/20050331084919/www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/ninetyfive.html 205.201.10.244 20:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
In the second paragraph, it says each relic provided 100 days of relief. When there were 19000 such relics, the total amount would be 1.9 million DAYS, not YEARS as indicated. On the other hand, if each relic provided 100 YEARS of relief, then the toal amount is correct. I can't tell which unit is wrong so I can't make the correction. I'll leave it to the original author to verify the values.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierre Rioux ( talk • contribs) 12:32, October 11, 2006
19000 x 100 / 365 = 5205.5. Sounds right if 19000 is an approximate number to the nearest 100 relics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.105.57 ( talk) 12:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I was disappointed that there is very little discussion of what the 95 theses actually say. Yes, I see the Wikisource link, and I'm aware of WP:NPS, but I was hoping that there would be some summary and analysis of the theses. Something along the lines of "Theses 1 through 15 deal with ... Scholars think that ... The Lutheran church and other protestant denominations implemented them by ... Theses 16 through 25 ..." Given WP:NOR, I'm not expecting Wikipedians to do the summarizing, but I'd be absolutely stunned if such an analysis hasn't already been published.
I'm particularly disappointed that there is no mention of which theses are the 41 that Leo X wanted retracted, why, and why the other 54 were not viewed so harshly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.112.125 ( talk) 10:07, January 3, 2007
It starts out talking about relics and doesn't explain how this had any impact on Martin Luther and caused him to write the 95 theses. The article should start out with what the 95 theses were and why Luther decided to write them. If you want to talk about how the relics affected Martin Luther that should be later in the article. Someone please rewrite this or at least reorganize it. Dr. Morbius 21:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
How exactly does this explain what the purpose of the theses was? It talks about relics and selling indulgences, and only links these to the theses at one seeminly minor point at the start of the second paragraph. Having read the whole article I still have very little knowledge of Martin Luther or the 95 theses. I don't know anything about 'Luther's actions', and I don't see what makes the relics so important to selling indulgences in general. Is viewing the relics the only way to get indulgences? What is an indulgence anyway? Is it just a reduction of time in purgatory or can they be used for other things as well? None of this is made clear. I really can't see what the 'Purpose of the Theses' part is trying to say. This article is generally in dire need of some care and expert input, and someone who actually knows about the theses should at least do a rewrite of the purpose part. -- Haridan 23:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Per discussion (and silence) at Talk:Martin Luther, I am moving an external link in the Martin Luther article containing the 95 Theses in Turkish to this page for safe keeping. Since there is a Turkish language Wikipedia, I am not certain we need the external link to the Turkish translation of the Theses at all. Here is the link:
Keesiewonder 20:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
What about Tetzel's reaction? He wrote "95 Anti-Theses" or something like that. Brutannica 23:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I believe the specific title for Tetzel's anti-theses is One Hundred and Six Anti-Theses. 65.31.128.168 17:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:NCD. Thoughts?-- Flamgirlant 22:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
No, that doesn't work. The is a part of the title of the work. 95 Theses could be any such thing (several folk have mimicked Luther) The 95 Theses, however, is the match that lit the medieval powder keg. -- CTSWyneken 13:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
If there is a possible confusion, then why does 95 Theses redirect here?-- Flamgirlant 16:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
did i say "luftballoons?" .. i meant "Theses." Perhaps we should avoid the rather unscholarly-lookin' reliance on numerals to name numbers in the text. if i am not mistaken, the title of this page should be "The Ninety-Five Theses," not "95 Theses," and the redirect should go the other way about. (if you look up "95 theses," you should land at "The Ninety-Five Theses," right?)
thoughts? _-- Johndoh75 ( talk) 18:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
RE: I think that the title should be The 95 Theses, because I think that's what they were actually called, so I agree with you.
When you Google the 95 Theses and look for the Wikipedia article, it only says "95 Theses," with no tag afterwards. If I'm not mistaken, normally it should say "95 Theses-Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia." Can someone change that or look into it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.168.148 ( talk) 02:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
not sure why this edit, which is incomplete was made - looks to be quoted from another page: of Saxony]]. At that time pious veneration, or viewing, of relics was purported to allow the viewer to receive relief from temporal punishment for sins in purgatory. By 1509 Frederick had over 5,000 relics, purportedly "including vials of the milk of the Virgin Mary, straw from the manger [of Jesus], and the body of one of the innocents massacred by King Herod." [1]
Have reverted to previous, but if someone knows can they fix it please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.242.146.210 ( talk) 15:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
References
I don't believe the use of [brackets] in the article is an appropriate convention or tone. This is usually an editorial aside, implying a POV. These brackets should be removed and the bracketed passages should be cited. -- btphelps ( talk) ( contribs) 21:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
More needs to be said on early prints of the theses. Where were they made, by whom, in what numbers and in what language, have any specimens be preserved and where are they today, etc. If you know anything about this please add this information. -- 92.229.228.216 ( talk) 07:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
the article says that the theses rallied enormous social changes, such as the discovery of the Western Hemisphere. That is not correct, as Colombus discovered North America in 1492, and Brazil was discovered in 1500 by portuguese explorer Pedro Álvares Cabral. Carnildor ( talk) 14:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I propose to remove this part of the sentence, seeing as Columbus did land in the Americas about 20 years before Luther posted his Theses. If anyone has a good reason to revert my edit, than by all means please do so. 24.45.190.14 ( talk) 14:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
"and the rediscovery of the Western Hemisphere.[6]" This makes no sense at all. -- 58.9.190.95 ( talk) 18:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
This article is completely useless. It tells the reader more about the reaction to the Theses and a rumour about their origin than what the Theses said. Am I the only person who sees this as a massive issue with the article? 87.113.183.234 ( talk) 22:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)CatholicReader
There are several problems with the English and Latin of the very first sentences. The English title "Ninety-Five Theses on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences" does not translate correctly to or from the Latin text "Disputatio pro declaratione virtutis indulgentiarum", and the Latin in the article's text "Disputatio pro declaratione virtutis indulgentiarum" does not match the Latin in the article's image: "Disputatio de virtute indulgen", which also doesn't translate to "Ninety-Five Theses on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences". I think that one or both of the Latin versions was translated from the original title into English and then back again to Latin with different wording, seeing as they are somewhat similar. Which of the Latin titles is the actual title of the document, if either of them are? Also, where did the English version of the title come from? Is it a translation of a later reference to the document by Martin Luther, a modern phrase used to reference the theses, or was it just made up by the original author of the article? 71.38.232.120 ( talk) 21:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
This sentence does not maintain a neutral point of view:
"In 1522, much of the city began celebrating Lutheran services instead of the Roman Catholic services. Luther's popularity grew rapidly, mostly due to the general Roman Catholic church members' dissatisfaction with the corruption and "worldly" desires and habits of the Roman Curia coupled with the preaching of Biblical truth, rather than Catholic doctrine.[8][9][10]", particularly "the preaching of Biblical truth, rather than Catholic doctrine". Catholics maintain that there is no distinction between Biblical truth and Catholic doctrine, nor does the person who originally authored this sentence offer any example, explanation, or justification for his biased assertion. Nor is his assertion confirmed by the referenced articles from the Catholic Encyclopedia.
I suggest that the sentence be either edited to show that the congregants preferred preaching more focused on reflection on specific Bible passages, literal interpretations, etc., if even that claim can be properly substantiated, or simply ended after "Curia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.249.21.199 ( talk) 12:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Just noted the same thing and have fixed it. "Biblical truth, rather than Catholic doctrine" is something of an insult to Catholic doctrine, just for starters, since Scripture *is* one of the three traditional sources for such doctrine. 108.20.74.63 ( talk) 00:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Many edits have been done and reversed. But the nagging question remains. Why 95? The Wikipedia article doesn't clearly specify that there were 95 specific and distinct theses Luther proposed and the uniqueness of each of the 95 thesis on its own or else he wouldn't have put them in 95 thesis would he? He would have written one long thesis and called it "My thesis" for all I know. We are NOT asking for the COMPLETE TEXT to be put here, even if it is free domain. All we are asking is an understandable codification, a certain resumé of exactly what Luther was saying in his great moment of illumination, like Theses 1 to 6 of his 95 thesis deals with issue X, 7 to 15 with issue Y, Thesis 95 is a grand conclusion of thesis 1 to 94 combined etc... This article does not address this basic question. Why 95 and not 94 or 96 for example. Why precisely 95, not one more, not one less. AND WHAT ARE THEY, THESE 95 THESES? The article (thankfully) refers to one single thesis, the so-called Thesis 86, which poses the question: "Why does the pope, whose wealth today is greater than the wealth of the richest Crassus, build the basilica of Saint Peter with the money of poor believers rather than with his own money?". Thank you for that, but this just wets our appetite for the other thesis 1-85 and 87-95... Unless this matter is tackled by a notable historian or religious scholar, this article will remain a mystery that just doesn't want to address the main name it carries of so-called Ninety-Five now very mysterious and alluding notions nobody knows nothing about. After all, this is a quintessentially important document of the beginning of the Reformation, not some passing document of undefinable gibberish that somebody wrote we don't know for what purpose and God knows just why he stopped at 95 and didn't go further, or God knows how come couldn't have stopped or didn't want to stop at say, for all I know, in his 85th thesis? werldwayd ( talk) 13:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC) werldwayd ( talk) 15:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Should the title be "The Ninety-Five Theses" or "Ninety-Five Theses"? 108.202.210.233 ( talk) 11:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be an inaccuracy about indulgences. The indulgence is not in asking for or getting foregiveness from sins. Rather an indulgence is asking for mitgation or reduction in the punishment for sins. This is the Catholic concept of purgatory that says even after we have confessed our sins and asked God for foregiveness, our sins are foregiven, but there is still a punishment for our sins. This is based on the dogma that God is All-knowing, All-caring, All-loving and All-just. This last one, All-just means that God is pure justice and it would not be just to foregive everyone of thier sins without some kind of consequence. Thus, purgatory is where we pay for our sins (punishment) by being separated from God for some period of time.
The uses of the words foregiveness and inulgence does not conform to the church's teaching and thus may provide error displayed as fact in this article. I, however am not authoritative on this and so this issue should questioned and addressed by the appropriate experts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfnordstrom ( talk • contribs) 00:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to Ninety-five Theses — Amakuru ( talk) 12:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The Ninety-Five Theses →
Ninety-Five Theses –
WP:The. Most sources do not capitalize the definite article in running text. Very commonly referred to as "Luther's Ninety-Five Theses". In Luther's Works it is "Ninety-five Theses".
JFH (
talk) 18:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Amakuru, please change your close on this to just removing the 'The' (which is what the RM is about) and putting back the capital letter in 'Ninety-Five'. If the RM was on the caps then it's an entirely different RM, and should be put up as such with notifications to pages and projects which would have editors who could comment more knowledgably than either of us. Bottom line, this RM was about the "The" in the title, and nothing more. This very major change in Wikipedia's history and religion collection seems incorrect and quite unwarranted given the stated scope of the RM. Thanks. Randy Kryn 11:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Coemgenus ( talk · contribs) 16:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I'll review this one over this next few days. -- Coemgenus ( talk) 16:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Was Luther's professorship literally 'moral theology' rather than just 'theology'? I note the link is to the 'catholic moral theology' page that makes no reference to the practice of division of professorial titles in the 16th century. 1f2 ( talk) 05:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
The format of the first full date used on this article was month-day-year. This is the edit. Kablammo ( talk) 17:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I see that the Nuremberg version circulated has a calligraphic flourish I could not quite decrypt, and then I find another version indicating the ampersand symbol, and so it dawned on me: Martin Luther likely wanted to indicate this as a symbol for et cetera, which is to say, "and so on and so forth".
Is this indirect evidence of monastery labor output throughout Central Europe after the creation of the Gutenberg printing press? Jakewayd ( talk) 00:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ninety-five Theses article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Ninety-five Theses is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 31, 2017. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on October 31, 2004, October 31, 2005, October 31, 2006, October 31, 2007, October 31, 2014, October 31, 2015, October 31, 2016, October 31, 2018, October 31, 2019, and October 31, 2021. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"This would allow the person relief of 100 days in purgatory, ". The Catholic doctrine of indulgences has never been that the days attached to an indulgence were for relief of those number of days in purgatory. (this is not the place to go into what it really means). The issue here though is not to cite the Catholic doctrine correctly, but to cite what was taught at the time, and what Martin Luther was objecting to. If someone can show me that this ("relief of 100 days in purgatory") is what was actually taught, then it's fine. Otherwise it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Javaman59 ( talk • contribs) 21:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
[Update] The statement, re. 100 days in purgatory, is wrong, and makes the whole para misleading. I could try and correct it, but the para itself looks irrelevant to the 95 theses. It refers to events in 1507, and 1520, whereas the theses were posted in 1517. Background to the relics in Wittenburg is provided in the previous paragraph, and the main issue, Tetzler's preaching, is in the following paragraph. The paragraph itself doesn't demonstrate its relevance to the topic. I've deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Javaman59 ( talk • contribs) 21:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
This article is rediculous if it doesn't actually list all 95 Theses. Copyright? What copyright? This document is legally and completely in public domain. I'm sure that someone has an English version of the Theses that was written a couple of hundred years ago that is well outside of any copyright!! -- Solascriptura 11:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Solascriptura. When I look up Martin Luther's 95 theses, I want to see THEM, not just talk about them. Yes there is an obscure link to them on the page, but it is hard to find. Thus I have added a link to the "WikiSource:95 Theses" in the article text, making the actual Theses easier to access. CTSWyneken's point is taken, but this policy interpretation potentially makes Wikipedia articles less user friendly - not the goal, I suspect. I note that when I look up "United States Bill of Rights", the actual content of the Bill of Rights is right there on the page, without need for further linking. Why should the 95 Theses be any different? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trappem ( talk • contribs) 18:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I also agree, the theses themselves should be explicitly in the article unless they are too cumbersome and then at least there should be a clear link to them. Burying them in the sources is unacceptable, and if that is wiki policy then the policy is stupid and should be changed.
Jonny Quick ( talk) 17:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Jonny Quick
What if Martin Luther had been burned at the stake in 1521? Would the Reformation movement have flourished as it did? Would the Catholic Church have mantained its political and social power? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.174.169.109 ( talk) 18:33, August 27, 2003
To whoever placed the Kingdom Now link on this page - this is not a political sounding board, and that link is being removed and completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. -- L. 17:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Fellow editors:
I've put all the current information on the copyright of Martin's Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies into the copyright topic page. For future reference, I'll put anything new I discover there and will answer questions about the status of this and other works at that location. -- CTSWyneken 16:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Luther is said to have posted the 95 Theses on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany, on October 31, 1517. Some scholars have questioned the accuracy of this account, noting that no contemporaneous evidence exists for it.
I added all of the 95 theses. Go Me! Arctic-Editor 16:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Readers, please note: what's posted in the article is a tremendously weak paraphrase, that in many cases bears no resemblance to what Luther said. Check the Project Wittenberg link below.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.83.234.164 ( talk • contribs) .
The current external link to the Project Wittenberg seems to have expired. The same text via wayback is: http://web.archive.org/web/20050331084919/www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/ninetyfive.html 205.201.10.244 20:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
In the second paragraph, it says each relic provided 100 days of relief. When there were 19000 such relics, the total amount would be 1.9 million DAYS, not YEARS as indicated. On the other hand, if each relic provided 100 YEARS of relief, then the toal amount is correct. I can't tell which unit is wrong so I can't make the correction. I'll leave it to the original author to verify the values.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierre Rioux ( talk • contribs) 12:32, October 11, 2006
19000 x 100 / 365 = 5205.5. Sounds right if 19000 is an approximate number to the nearest 100 relics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.105.57 ( talk) 12:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I was disappointed that there is very little discussion of what the 95 theses actually say. Yes, I see the Wikisource link, and I'm aware of WP:NPS, but I was hoping that there would be some summary and analysis of the theses. Something along the lines of "Theses 1 through 15 deal with ... Scholars think that ... The Lutheran church and other protestant denominations implemented them by ... Theses 16 through 25 ..." Given WP:NOR, I'm not expecting Wikipedians to do the summarizing, but I'd be absolutely stunned if such an analysis hasn't already been published.
I'm particularly disappointed that there is no mention of which theses are the 41 that Leo X wanted retracted, why, and why the other 54 were not viewed so harshly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.112.125 ( talk) 10:07, January 3, 2007
It starts out talking about relics and doesn't explain how this had any impact on Martin Luther and caused him to write the 95 theses. The article should start out with what the 95 theses were and why Luther decided to write them. If you want to talk about how the relics affected Martin Luther that should be later in the article. Someone please rewrite this or at least reorganize it. Dr. Morbius 21:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
How exactly does this explain what the purpose of the theses was? It talks about relics and selling indulgences, and only links these to the theses at one seeminly minor point at the start of the second paragraph. Having read the whole article I still have very little knowledge of Martin Luther or the 95 theses. I don't know anything about 'Luther's actions', and I don't see what makes the relics so important to selling indulgences in general. Is viewing the relics the only way to get indulgences? What is an indulgence anyway? Is it just a reduction of time in purgatory or can they be used for other things as well? None of this is made clear. I really can't see what the 'Purpose of the Theses' part is trying to say. This article is generally in dire need of some care and expert input, and someone who actually knows about the theses should at least do a rewrite of the purpose part. -- Haridan 23:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Per discussion (and silence) at Talk:Martin Luther, I am moving an external link in the Martin Luther article containing the 95 Theses in Turkish to this page for safe keeping. Since there is a Turkish language Wikipedia, I am not certain we need the external link to the Turkish translation of the Theses at all. Here is the link:
Keesiewonder 20:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
What about Tetzel's reaction? He wrote "95 Anti-Theses" or something like that. Brutannica 23:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I believe the specific title for Tetzel's anti-theses is One Hundred and Six Anti-Theses. 65.31.128.168 17:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:NCD. Thoughts?-- Flamgirlant 22:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
No, that doesn't work. The is a part of the title of the work. 95 Theses could be any such thing (several folk have mimicked Luther) The 95 Theses, however, is the match that lit the medieval powder keg. -- CTSWyneken 13:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
If there is a possible confusion, then why does 95 Theses redirect here?-- Flamgirlant 16:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
did i say "luftballoons?" .. i meant "Theses." Perhaps we should avoid the rather unscholarly-lookin' reliance on numerals to name numbers in the text. if i am not mistaken, the title of this page should be "The Ninety-Five Theses," not "95 Theses," and the redirect should go the other way about. (if you look up "95 theses," you should land at "The Ninety-Five Theses," right?)
thoughts? _-- Johndoh75 ( talk) 18:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
RE: I think that the title should be The 95 Theses, because I think that's what they were actually called, so I agree with you.
When you Google the 95 Theses and look for the Wikipedia article, it only says "95 Theses," with no tag afterwards. If I'm not mistaken, normally it should say "95 Theses-Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia." Can someone change that or look into it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.168.148 ( talk) 02:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
not sure why this edit, which is incomplete was made - looks to be quoted from another page: of Saxony]]. At that time pious veneration, or viewing, of relics was purported to allow the viewer to receive relief from temporal punishment for sins in purgatory. By 1509 Frederick had over 5,000 relics, purportedly "including vials of the milk of the Virgin Mary, straw from the manger [of Jesus], and the body of one of the innocents massacred by King Herod." [1]
Have reverted to previous, but if someone knows can they fix it please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.242.146.210 ( talk) 15:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
References
I don't believe the use of [brackets] in the article is an appropriate convention or tone. This is usually an editorial aside, implying a POV. These brackets should be removed and the bracketed passages should be cited. -- btphelps ( talk) ( contribs) 21:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
More needs to be said on early prints of the theses. Where were they made, by whom, in what numbers and in what language, have any specimens be preserved and where are they today, etc. If you know anything about this please add this information. -- 92.229.228.216 ( talk) 07:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
the article says that the theses rallied enormous social changes, such as the discovery of the Western Hemisphere. That is not correct, as Colombus discovered North America in 1492, and Brazil was discovered in 1500 by portuguese explorer Pedro Álvares Cabral. Carnildor ( talk) 14:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I propose to remove this part of the sentence, seeing as Columbus did land in the Americas about 20 years before Luther posted his Theses. If anyone has a good reason to revert my edit, than by all means please do so. 24.45.190.14 ( talk) 14:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
"and the rediscovery of the Western Hemisphere.[6]" This makes no sense at all. -- 58.9.190.95 ( talk) 18:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
This article is completely useless. It tells the reader more about the reaction to the Theses and a rumour about their origin than what the Theses said. Am I the only person who sees this as a massive issue with the article? 87.113.183.234 ( talk) 22:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)CatholicReader
There are several problems with the English and Latin of the very first sentences. The English title "Ninety-Five Theses on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences" does not translate correctly to or from the Latin text "Disputatio pro declaratione virtutis indulgentiarum", and the Latin in the article's text "Disputatio pro declaratione virtutis indulgentiarum" does not match the Latin in the article's image: "Disputatio de virtute indulgen", which also doesn't translate to "Ninety-Five Theses on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences". I think that one or both of the Latin versions was translated from the original title into English and then back again to Latin with different wording, seeing as they are somewhat similar. Which of the Latin titles is the actual title of the document, if either of them are? Also, where did the English version of the title come from? Is it a translation of a later reference to the document by Martin Luther, a modern phrase used to reference the theses, or was it just made up by the original author of the article? 71.38.232.120 ( talk) 21:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
This sentence does not maintain a neutral point of view:
"In 1522, much of the city began celebrating Lutheran services instead of the Roman Catholic services. Luther's popularity grew rapidly, mostly due to the general Roman Catholic church members' dissatisfaction with the corruption and "worldly" desires and habits of the Roman Curia coupled with the preaching of Biblical truth, rather than Catholic doctrine.[8][9][10]", particularly "the preaching of Biblical truth, rather than Catholic doctrine". Catholics maintain that there is no distinction between Biblical truth and Catholic doctrine, nor does the person who originally authored this sentence offer any example, explanation, or justification for his biased assertion. Nor is his assertion confirmed by the referenced articles from the Catholic Encyclopedia.
I suggest that the sentence be either edited to show that the congregants preferred preaching more focused on reflection on specific Bible passages, literal interpretations, etc., if even that claim can be properly substantiated, or simply ended after "Curia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.249.21.199 ( talk) 12:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Just noted the same thing and have fixed it. "Biblical truth, rather than Catholic doctrine" is something of an insult to Catholic doctrine, just for starters, since Scripture *is* one of the three traditional sources for such doctrine. 108.20.74.63 ( talk) 00:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Many edits have been done and reversed. But the nagging question remains. Why 95? The Wikipedia article doesn't clearly specify that there were 95 specific and distinct theses Luther proposed and the uniqueness of each of the 95 thesis on its own or else he wouldn't have put them in 95 thesis would he? He would have written one long thesis and called it "My thesis" for all I know. We are NOT asking for the COMPLETE TEXT to be put here, even if it is free domain. All we are asking is an understandable codification, a certain resumé of exactly what Luther was saying in his great moment of illumination, like Theses 1 to 6 of his 95 thesis deals with issue X, 7 to 15 with issue Y, Thesis 95 is a grand conclusion of thesis 1 to 94 combined etc... This article does not address this basic question. Why 95 and not 94 or 96 for example. Why precisely 95, not one more, not one less. AND WHAT ARE THEY, THESE 95 THESES? The article (thankfully) refers to one single thesis, the so-called Thesis 86, which poses the question: "Why does the pope, whose wealth today is greater than the wealth of the richest Crassus, build the basilica of Saint Peter with the money of poor believers rather than with his own money?". Thank you for that, but this just wets our appetite for the other thesis 1-85 and 87-95... Unless this matter is tackled by a notable historian or religious scholar, this article will remain a mystery that just doesn't want to address the main name it carries of so-called Ninety-Five now very mysterious and alluding notions nobody knows nothing about. After all, this is a quintessentially important document of the beginning of the Reformation, not some passing document of undefinable gibberish that somebody wrote we don't know for what purpose and God knows just why he stopped at 95 and didn't go further, or God knows how come couldn't have stopped or didn't want to stop at say, for all I know, in his 85th thesis? werldwayd ( talk) 13:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC) werldwayd ( talk) 15:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Should the title be "The Ninety-Five Theses" or "Ninety-Five Theses"? 108.202.210.233 ( talk) 11:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be an inaccuracy about indulgences. The indulgence is not in asking for or getting foregiveness from sins. Rather an indulgence is asking for mitgation or reduction in the punishment for sins. This is the Catholic concept of purgatory that says even after we have confessed our sins and asked God for foregiveness, our sins are foregiven, but there is still a punishment for our sins. This is based on the dogma that God is All-knowing, All-caring, All-loving and All-just. This last one, All-just means that God is pure justice and it would not be just to foregive everyone of thier sins without some kind of consequence. Thus, purgatory is where we pay for our sins (punishment) by being separated from God for some period of time.
The uses of the words foregiveness and inulgence does not conform to the church's teaching and thus may provide error displayed as fact in this article. I, however am not authoritative on this and so this issue should questioned and addressed by the appropriate experts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfnordstrom ( talk • contribs) 00:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to Ninety-five Theses — Amakuru ( talk) 12:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The Ninety-Five Theses →
Ninety-Five Theses –
WP:The. Most sources do not capitalize the definite article in running text. Very commonly referred to as "Luther's Ninety-Five Theses". In Luther's Works it is "Ninety-five Theses".
JFH (
talk) 18:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Amakuru, please change your close on this to just removing the 'The' (which is what the RM is about) and putting back the capital letter in 'Ninety-Five'. If the RM was on the caps then it's an entirely different RM, and should be put up as such with notifications to pages and projects which would have editors who could comment more knowledgably than either of us. Bottom line, this RM was about the "The" in the title, and nothing more. This very major change in Wikipedia's history and religion collection seems incorrect and quite unwarranted given the stated scope of the RM. Thanks. Randy Kryn 11:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Coemgenus ( talk · contribs) 16:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I'll review this one over this next few days. -- Coemgenus ( talk) 16:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Was Luther's professorship literally 'moral theology' rather than just 'theology'? I note the link is to the 'catholic moral theology' page that makes no reference to the practice of division of professorial titles in the 16th century. 1f2 ( talk) 05:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
The format of the first full date used on this article was month-day-year. This is the edit. Kablammo ( talk) 17:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I see that the Nuremberg version circulated has a calligraphic flourish I could not quite decrypt, and then I find another version indicating the ampersand symbol, and so it dawned on me: Martin Luther likely wanted to indicate this as a symbol for et cetera, which is to say, "and so on and so forth".
Is this indirect evidence of monastery labor output throughout Central Europe after the creation of the Gutenberg printing press? Jakewayd ( talk) 00:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)