Talk:Augsburg Confession

message: 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.  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)
replies: text: There are some LCMS contributers on Wikipedia who use Lutheran articles as a means to denounce the ELCA, and this may be a case of such. It makes me sick.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.146.160.51 (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: NOTE: This is my very first Wikipedia comment/edit of any kind so I may not be doing it properly. I was annoyed when I read this article and would like to comment. This article is too “Lutheran” focused. I originally came to it while researching Baptists and Radical Reform. The word Lutheran in the articles might be substituted with Protestant in order to be more accurate. The Influences sections should mention it's wide influence. Known Augsburg Confessors include members of many denominations including: Waldenses; Walloon; Huguenots; Mennonites & Amish; Schwenkfelders; Schwarzenau Brethren; Swansea Baptists; and the Church of Scotland; as well as, many of the intellectual elite of Europe some of whom had Manichean tendencies even though most later were divided over specific issues. I am struck by how regional documents of a Protestant nature are secularized much like the people of a region are defined by their rulers. I have a lot of learning to do before I feel comfortable making any edits but wanted to get this out there into more capable hands. Perhaps this comment is also inappropriate since the signers were regional rulers who were greatly influenced by religions leaders who later founded a specific religious denomination. It just seems too restrictive since I cannot find the word Lutherans in the original document. It also seem inflammatory by using terms like Turks instead of Ottomans and could use further clarification on the purpose of the article. DVitaleCox  —Preceding undated comment added 16:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversial claims stated as fact removed

message: 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)
replies: text: Wikipedia prefers to use well documented research from reputable scholars. Your opinions on the Augsburg Confession are certainly ones I share, entirely, and the articles to which you refer are very nice, but they represent original research, and are not well documented. As such they are simply a blogger's private opinions, which is not preferred on Wikipedia as reliable sources of scholarship and information. By the way, please create an account on Wikipedia and if you are able, please identify yourself, your background, etc. Thanks. The other factor here in not recommending the "external link" is that it does give every appearance of being more promotion of a particular blog site, the blog owner being rather famous for aggresive self-promotion of his blog site, than actually referring to an external scholarly source on the Augsburg Confession. Ptmccain 00:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
*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.[?]
*There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Person, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
*This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with THE FOOTNOTE. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add .[?]
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 16:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review Javascript 

message: 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)
replies: text: I like the table. Thank you. --Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't the summary table, although very useful, fall under the category of WP:NOR? Perhaps a secondary source with a similar summary be referenced to avoid WP:NOR. Wkharrisjr (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of the Articles 

message: The current text reinterprets the millenial-part Statement XVII to mean:
:This article rejects notions of an millennial kingdom before the resurrection of the dead.
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)
thread_title: Statement XVII

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930015434/http://www.ctsfw.edu:80/etext/boc/ap/confut/ to http://www.ctsfw.edu/etext/boc/ap/confut/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090913092249/http://retinenda.com:80/2009/05/confessio-augustana-pars-prima/ to http://retinenda.com/2009/05/confessio-augustana-pars-prima/
*Added  tag to http://ia311502.us.archive.org/zipview.php?zip=/2/items/concordiacyclope009499mbp/concordiacyclope009499mbp_flippy.zip&file=0062.jpg
*Added  tag to http://ia311502.us.archive.org/zipview.php?zip=/2/items/concordiacyclope009499mbp/concordiacyclope009499mbp_flippy.zip&file=0063.jpg
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified