/Archive May 20, 2006

"Explanation" vs. "Exposition"[edit]

It is more accurate to speak of the Lutheran confessional writings as giving an exposition of Scripture rather than an explanation. "Exposition" means a "setting forth" while "explanation" has more of the connotation of "talking about something." The Lutheran Confessions do not talk about Scriptural doctrine, they set them forth. I don't think that exposition is that sophisticated a word.--Drboisclair 22:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave the link to creeds in the definition[edit]

Lutherans consider their confessional writings to be creeds, so I think that it is appropriate to leave this reference in this paragraph. The writings of the 16th and 17th Century dogmaticians could also be defined as simply making statements about Lutheran doctrine. The Lutheran confessional writings have more formal authority.--Drboisclair 23:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are just going to confuse readers. Lutherans do NOT regard the Lutheran Confessions on the same level as the Creeds proper. Ptmccain 23:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get that idea from? I know that the Confessions have a descending order of importance from the Apostles Creed to the Formula, but what is your authority for saying this? Please remember that this is a joint venture. We don't have to dumb things down here.--Drboisclair 01:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we are on the same page here. The Lutheran symbolical books, AC, Ap, etc. were not considered creeds as were the Apostolicam, the Nicenoconstantinopolitanum, and the Athanasiam. SDG!--Drboisclair 19:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creeds?[edit]

Confessional Lutherans certainly do consider the Lutheran Confessions to be equal to the three Ecumenical Creeds. Equally true, equally binding. What is at issue, exactly?

--Uac1530 06:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Issue was simply which word to use "exposition" or "explanation."Ptmccain 11:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary to turn this article into a stub[edit]

The excising of information of this article turns it into a mere stub. There is disagreement as to essential and non essential here.--Drboisclair 21:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overformatting[edit]

There is no good reason that I know of to bold and italicize every (less two) instance of The Book of Concord in this article. Discussion? Keesiewonder talk 12:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Agreed. I started to change it. Have at it. Justas Jonas 13:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bold is not needed beyond lead, but book titles should always be taged in HTML: <cite>Book of Concord</cite> since some search engines look for these tags to aid in indexing. --CTSWyneken(talk) 00:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I have done when I have been editing. Using the "i" inside the <> should not be used for book titles. I also think that employing double single-quotes is better than using this formating of text in italics. I have seen that that type of formatting in the "sandbox" tends to mess things up. Using double single-quotes is easier and works just as well.--Drboisclair 05:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Article without Discussion[edit]

Please elaborate on the article movement war that seems to have started. Keesiewonder talk 13:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Makes more sense to title it this way. More descriptive and will make it easier for folks to find. Keesie, you do not have to stalk me on Wikipedia, do you? Since you've only been editing since last November or so, I'm sure you might not be aware of the Wikipedia guideline on harassment, but you really need to read it and follow it. WP:Harassment. Thanks. Justas Jonas 13:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, just like at Martin Luther, it is beginning to appear that you, JJ, are in the minority. I am not the only one who did not like your edit [1]; nor was I the first to question you about it. Probably no other regular editor besides us three has had a chance to see it yet. Since when does Justas Jonas speak for all English speaking Lutherans? If you can cite someone like the Bishop Mark S. Hanson or Rev. Matthew C. Harrison on this "ease of use" criteria, I'll be more interested. And, before you go around accusing others of stalking, consider, first, the possibility that the common denominator may be that you and I are both Lutheran, and, second, you may feel stalked because you appear to frequent less than 20 different articles. Keesiewonder talk 15:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find the accusation by Justas Jonas above both disturbing and completely unfounded. I am familiar with the user he has I believe unjustifiably personally attacked, and know that she has a pronounced interest in the subject of Lutheranism, as she is perfectly entitled to have, and is doing what she can to improve and manage articles related to the subject, for which she should be applauded, not condemned. I am also aware that she is a very active contributor on a number of subjects, and that her own comment above, that the accuser may have come to that conclusion because of his own comparatively narrow interests, is probably accurate. And it is a standard guideline to discuss moving a page or any other such drastic move before doing so, in accord with wikipedia's official policy on consensus. I strongly urge Justas Jonas to familiarize himself with these subjects, before his own misconduct potentially draws the attention of administrators. Badbilltucker 15:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BadBill, you may not be familiar with precisely what I'm talking about. Keesie has taken to tracking me about on Wiki and has posted conspiracy theory accusations about me on the arbitration boards, without following proper procedures, and without even bothering to inform me. So, there's more to this than you are aware of Bill. Of course she is entitled to edit however she wishes, but her problem is that from nearly day one she has persisted in running me down, telling me continually I'm a new user and she is so vastly experienced. Frankly put, the lady [assuming she is a lady], has some serious issues. It's just getting downright creepy. Justas Jonas 17:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, BadBilltucker. (Thankfully, I'm wise enough to know you are not stalking me! ;-) ...) Might you be comfortable moving this page back to where it belongs? Or shall we patiently wait for CTSWyneken? (OMG! Maybe he's stalking me too. Nah! I don't worry about such things.) Anyway, regarding the movement of this page, as it is now, it's broken and is favored by only one user who has yet to answer my questions regarding his being able to speak for all English speaking Lutherans. Thanks for your thoughts (BadBilltucker or CTSWyneken). Keesiewonder talk 18:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Keesie, the reason I know you are in violation of WP:Harassment is the fact that you are obsessing over my every edit and keep tossing up nutso accusations on the Admin boards. You seem to think that you need to be the Mother Hen over my edits and my participation on Wikipedia and it is truly weird. Just cut it out, ok. Go about your business and I'll go about mine. There is no Wiki policy requiring any user to get your permission before editing, or to provide his/her credentials to you in order to satisfy whatever list of qualifications you have created in your mind. This is just getting ridiculous. Stop harassing me and stop whining. Edit and be done with it. If you don't like what I've done, revert it. If I don't like that, I'll revert it. Or maybe I won't. Calm down and find something better to do with your time than stalking and harassing me. It's totally creepy!18:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The official policy for naming conventions comes into play here. To quote the nutshell summary of the page, "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." The shorter name is to my eyes the more easily recognized one, and, being shorter, makes inserting links to it in other articles easier. Also, there is not to my knowledge any other book called the "Book of Concord", so the qualification regarding ambiguity does not come into play here. On the basis of the above, I believe that the page would be best named "Book of Concord", as it best meets all of the qualifications quoted above. Badbilltucker 19:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Material from the German Wikipedia entry.[edit]

Do we still need this on the article's page? It didn't appear so to me ... so, I've moved it here for safe keeping, just in case ... Keesiewonder talk 16:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered about that too. I don't see any need for it in the article either Keesie. Gasp! Did we just agree on something? <g> Are you going to go through and remove the bold face words in the article that are out of place? I think they look odd. Justas Jonas 17:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of the German Wikipedia entry[edit]

Source: [2]

The Book of Concord was published [lit., "came out"] on June 25, 1580 in Dresden as [the] complete collection of the so called "symbolical books of the Lutheran Church" in the German language. In this sense it can also be described as [the] canon or corpus doctrinæ of the Lutheran Church. The authentic Latin text was published in Leipzig in 1584.

The Book of Concord contains:

The concept "ecumenical symbols," which had been used since 1577, however, has not been employed accurately.

Coming in like bulls in a china shop[edit]

Before removing things wholesale and moving articles editors should have the courtesy to discuss doing this. The article was fine as it was. The translation of the German Wiki article is a useful resource, since the Book of Concord is a German and Latin collection of documents.--Drboisclair 19:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRbois, you make some good points. It is kind of funny though that Keesie will throw a temper tantrum at my every edit and chew me out about not touching articles without discussing them, but then comes along and does a big chop job on the BOC article, which I actually happen to agree with, but it is truly amusing to see how she operates with a double standard. Funny! Hypocritical too. I don't see though any "value added" by using the German WIKI article. Is there something really new or different in it beyond what we have without it? I am not sure. Justas Jonas 19:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drboisclair. I completely agree about the article moving, and thank you for clarifying why you like seeing the German translation. Since we're on the English language Wikipedia, and since there is a high amount of overlap between the section now called Documents constituting The Book of Concord and the section called Translation of the German Wikipedia entry, it initially seemed quite redundant and a bit messy to me. There also was not any material in the talk page or the (then broken) archive link. But, I certainly do not feel strongly about the translated section; so, stay it does! Please take a few minutes to read the threads above if you have not already, and please accept my premature editing of the translated section. Kind Regards, Keesiewonder talk 19:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It provides for English speaking people in general and English speaking Lutherans in particular the way in which Germans, for whom most of the original language of the Confessions, define them. They have an advantage over us in that they can read the German documents like we would read the newspaper. It answers the question: In the Lutherland what do they think about the Lutheran Confessions today? I think that it is helpful, but I am only one editor among many. Thank you for responding so quickly and with respectful courtesy.--Drboisclair 19:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still wondering though why it is perfectly ok for Keesie, at least in her mind, to drastically change a page, but not others? Hmmmm?Justas Jonas 19:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point about the redundancy. Perhaps we could provide translation of the article that would remove redundancy. I could have footnotes to the listing of the various documents that have comments appended in the German article.--Drboisclair 19:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting perspective, Drboisclair, regarding how the Lutheran Confessions are described by today's "Lutherland" residents. Keesiewonder talk 21:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the redundant parts and have revised the translation to the present article in the German Wikipedia. I have also removed the sales links in this article, which are inappropriate here.--Drboisclair 21:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theological differences[edit]

I have removed this paragraph:

The paragraph with footnote three overstates the position of the Book of Concord. The paragraph reflects a Lutheran perspective/opinion. Other Christian traditions such as Baptist would disagree with matters such as Baptism, and Catholics disagree in many matters including Consubstantiation for the Eucharist.

This material is gratuitous and in error. The article written NPOV expresses that this is the Lutheran position, and to say that Lutherans believe in "consubstantiation" is an error.--Drboisclair 20:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review Javascript[edit]

A few suggestions from a peer review javascript. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 16:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. *Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]

*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?] *There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 16:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, is there an applicable infobox? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 16:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The material in the introductory paragraph on "corpus doctrinae"[edit]

This article will be expanded: it is not a short introductory article as editor with IP address 68.94.95.118 has stated. If this editor wants a simplified article, he might want to consider writing an article in the simple English Wiki [3]. Why must we insist on dumbing things down? The idea is to give as much information in as terse a manner as possible.--Drboisclair (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is neelessly clunky and unhelpful as a basic introduction with the "Corpus Doctrinae" intejection. It is much cleaner as edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.157.172.78 (talk) 00:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a "basic introduction" but a fullblown encyclopedia article, so it is not "clunky"! In fact, your edit makes the article clunky. Besides that, banned editors should not be editing Wikipedia even if they elude detection by changing their IP address as you have time and time again. Luther might consider it a sin.--Drboisclair (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond that, your behavior on WP (that which led to your block and your actions since) are a disgrace to the institutions you represent.216.9.250.109 (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Appearance of the Book of Concord Page[edit]

Can somebody please clean up the Book of Concord article and get it at least formatted correctly so it does not look so hideously ugly? It is bad, especially that "corpus" section. Yuck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.92.251.63 (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, can't anyone do anything to clean up this ugly site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.172.138 (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with the article even if the foregoing poster does not like it. For some reason he disapproves of the term "corpus doctrinae" even though it is employed in the Concordia Triglotta.--Drboisclair (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The caption to the article now has the English version, which is appropriate.--Drboisclair (talk) 02:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have copy edited the section now entitled "Body of Doctrine" at the above suggestion since it needed some tidying up.--Drboisclair (talk) 02:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Content Irresponsibly Cut[edit]

The material that has recently been cut out of the article on the Book of Concord is helpful and important subject matter. The person cutting them out obviously knows little, or nothing, about the subject matter and he hacked the article about. For instance, the details on differences in English language editions is very germane, the online edition of the Book of Concord has the most extensive, free, collection of resources that provide an extensive collection of historical documents, not to mention an entirely free online edition of the whole book. The editor making these cuts gave no valid justification for making them. They have therefore been restored.

I edited out clear promotional tone. All your readditions clearly and completely violate WP:NPOV, WP:ELNO and WP:UNDUE. They will be reverted to a version that simply mentions a few details of the editions, not provides press release-like analysis. I would also advise you to pay attention to these justifications, which indeed have been given before, and also to sign your posts.oknazevad (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have not provided legitimate reasons for undoing the edits on the page, which are quite entirely appropriate. You are apparently grinding some kind of personal axe here and using a "slash and burn" approach toward the page. Stop tampering with a page that is perfectly fine.

The material is a clear violation of the Manual of Style. Therefore it has been removed as required. Anglicanus (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Book of Concord. 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:

When 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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Book of Concord. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Categories