Talk:Ninety-five Theses

Reduction of time in purgatory

"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)

Where are the 95 Theses?!

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)

The reason why the theses aren't here ins because it is Wikipedia policy to keep texts in Wikisource and not in the articles themselves. --CTSWyneken 14:07, 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

Burned at the stake?

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

Probably would have went the way of Jan Hus. But this isn't the place for that discussion, though it would be great, we are here to put relevent and helpful facts, this is were we discuss those facts.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.32.20.136 (talk) 12:49, January 2, 2006

Also, if it weren't for Gutenberg's printing press, would the reformation have spread as it did?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.220.15.14 (talk) 21:01, July 24, 2005

Kingdom Now

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)

Copyright of Martin Luther's Works Updated

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)

What's wrong with this picture?

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.

Am I the only one who reads Wikipedia to note the extreme, extreme, extreme irony that the "scholars" referenced in the footnotes here were Jesuits? 76.16.160.102 01:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

95. theses

I added all of the 95 theses. Go Me! Arctic-Editor 16:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't have done that. - Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources 81.79.47.179 10:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• I think the 95 Theses is a critcally important piece of religious history (and thats coming from a non-practicing person). The 95 Theses should be posted here, not simply their reactions. The 10 Commandments gets full treatment. Is this a case of discrimination simply because 95 is more then 10? I don't even know which religion these Theses go along with, but if theres going to be an article on them it should certainly contain all 95. -Ghostalker

• In support of Ghostalker above, I re-added and crosslinked the 95 theses. They are in the public domain, and they are an important piece of church history. Similar articles 10 Commandments, John 3:16, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZuG (talk • contribs) 17:42, August 5, 2006

• I too think the 95 Theses should be listed on the page. It is just as important to one religion as the 10 comandments are to another. I say put them back. --Midnight Rider 04:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As per WP:NPS, something of this size should be placeed on Wikisource and linked from there. This page should be for a general description and citing other sources about the Theses themselves. -- Kesh 04:39, 3 January 2007 (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) .

Agreed. This is a horrible, misleading translation. I removed it, and placed a prominent link to wikisource, in accordance with Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources. Elcocinero 17:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I just visited wikisource and the document is tagged for deletion over copyright issues. So I guess its days are numbered... --Monotonehell 06:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I just checked our link to the Wikisource listing of the theses. The version there is from Project Wittenberg. I added the source info, but don't have the time at the moment to format it correctly. Would someone check it? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 10:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

External Links

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)

It is working now. I'm puzzled, because at least this site has always worked. 8-) --CTSWyneken 23:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

19000 relics...

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

I noticed that too.--Oreo Priest 20:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Content of 95 theses?

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

All excellent points, which is why you should register a username and do the fixing! Akradecki 15:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. On the other hand, the contents aren't particularly important in detail -- it's nothing that others were not saying already -- it was the way Luther put it and the fact that in landed in the hands of non-academics... --CTSWyneken^(talk) 17:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, what were the 95 theses? Wheres the link to them? The article is named 95 theses after all. And which 41 were asked to be removed? Its important to know as it shows that the Catholic Church was willing to accept the remaining 54 theses, thats more than half of the paper. Tourskin

The style guide for Wikipedia requires that documents not be put in Wikiepedia in their entirety at all. There's a link to Wikisource version of the text. By the way, this is not unusual for encyclopedias. Very few full texts are present in them at all. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 17:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This article isn't very good

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)

Feel free to wade in and edit. This was started from the main Martin Luther article, seeding it with from there. The result is the beginnings of a more tightly written main article. It does, however, not make for sparkling prose. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 21:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Purpose of the Theses

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)

Agreed. The article needs some serious help. I don't have the time to properly research it right now, but it's getting added to my list of articles to clean up. -- Kesh 00:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The 95 Theses in Turkish

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:

• Full text of the 95 Theses in Turkish

Keesiewonder 20:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Tetzel's reaction

What about Tetzel's reaction? He wrote "95 Anti-Theses" or something like that. Brutannica 23:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd never actually heard of this guy until now. Very interesting stuff, and absolutely relevant to the article. Time to gather references! -- Kesh 00:12, 20 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)

Move page to 95 Theses

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)

Because we moved it from that title to the current one, for the reasons above. --CTSWyneken 15:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

95 [sic] luftballoons

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 it...

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)

Hanging edit

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."

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

Quote?

• Is this paragraph a quote from somewhere? If so it needs quotation marks:LCpl Stephen Bolin, USMC^talk 04:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

"On October 31, 1517, Luther approached the competent church authorities with his pressing call for reform. On this day he presented them with his theses and the request that they call a halt to the unworthy activities of the indulgence preachers. When the bishops did not respond, or when they sought merely to divert him, Luther circulated his theses privately. The Ninety-five Theses spread quickly and were printed in Nuremberg, Leipzig, and Basel. Suddenly they were echoing throughout Germany and beyond its borders"

[Brackets] in text

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)

Are you talking about the brackets in the text of the Ninety-Five Theses (which shouldn't be here, by the way)? It's standard procedure to add words for better understanding and although it may influence interpretation, it normally isn't considered POV. By the way, removing that section; there's a reason for Wikisource.  Aaron  ►  06:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Early printed versions?

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)

Reaction to the 95 theses

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)

Obvious trolling. Part of Europe is in the Western Hemisphere anyway. 91.105.39.9 (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Useless article

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

Add something then, while remaining neutral and avoiding copyright infringement. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 18:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

English and Latin Text

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)

"Biblical truth"

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)

The nagging issue of why exactly 95 theses?

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)

Title

Should the title be "The Ninety-Five Theses" or "Ninety-Five Theses"? 108.202.210.233 (talk) 11:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Inaccuracies of the description of indulgences

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)

Requested move 25 April 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Ninety-five Theses  — Amakuru (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Clarify close following message below: There is a consensus to remove "the", and also I see a consensus to move to "Ninety-five" rather than "Ninety-Five". Three supporters expressly preferred that capitalisation, and it is preferred by our house style at MOS:HYPHENCAPS.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:08, 4 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)

• Comment can't see why both these titles don't redirect to Luther's Ninety-Five Theses, that would be the most helpful and precise title. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose our capitalization is because we always capitalize the first letter in titles. "Ninety-Five Theses" seems somewhat ungrammatical to me - most sources use the "the". Luther's Ninety-Five Theses can of course be a redirect, and now it is. Johnbod (talk) 04:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

  ??? The first letter is N if we drop "the". The caps of Five appears to be an error. Sources mostly don't do that, but treat "Ninety-five Theses" as the composition title. Dicklyon (talk) 05:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

???? Yourself! If we don't it's "T". Actually that ngram is a fairly mixed picture in recent decades - it could well show "Five" gaining ground. I think you, like the nominator, misunderstand the grammar of the many academic-type works that normally need a "his" or a "the", but don't necessarily treat this as part of the title. Johnbod (talk) 10:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Works that normally need a "his" or "the" but don't treat it as part of the title shouldn't have it in the article title. This is similar to Ten Commandments or Thirty-Nine Articles. --JFH (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, and yes it looks like I misinterpreted Johnbod's point. I've filed an RM for fixing the caps in Thirty-Nine at Talk:Thirty-Nine_Articles#Requested_move_26_April_2016. Dicklyon (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support Ninety-five Theses with downcasing of Five like in the article. Dicklyon (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support, saw this awhile back and wondered why the 'The' was included. A few redirects would point anyone looking for it to this page. Randy Kryn 11:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I'm changing my support to Ninety-five Theses given the ngram, the title in Works mentioned in the nom, and I also note the recent Selections From His Writings. --JFH (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support "Ninety-five Theses". DaltonCastle (talk) 02:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Incorrect close, please change this

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)

See my reply at Talk:Thirty-nine Articles § Seems to be an incorrect close. Please centralize discussion there. wbm1058 (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a different issue. This RM was not to change anything besides the removal of the word 'The' from the title. I'd suggest another RM to change the title to what may be the common name, 95 Theses. In any case, this close overstepped the opening argument, and for such an important topic changing the name of the page aside from removing the 'The' seems like a controversial move and not a standard non-controversial name switch. Randy Kryn 16:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Arriving at a consensus besides the original proposal is common in RMs. I don't see it as particularly controversial either. At this point if you still disagree I would take it to WP:MR. --JFH (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ninety-five Theses/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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)

Checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

Images

• Everything is appropriately licensed and captioned.

Stability

• No edit wars or on-going talk page issues.

Background

• Is there a citation for the sentence that begins "This led to the popular saying..." I've heard it before, but it feels like something that needs a cite. (Or does the cite after the next sentence cover it?)

• The cite at the end of the next sentence covers it.--JFH (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

General comments

• Other than that one minor point, I have nothing to critique here. Excellent article, I look forward to promoting it.
• Unrelated to whether this article passes GA: it might be good to translate Hieronymus Schulz for an article on en-wiki. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you very much, Coemgenus. I am planning to get that one and several others started up as part of an effort to take over DYK on 31 October. --JFH (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Great, good luck with those. I'm happy to pass this one, and I enjoyed reading it. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Moral Theology?

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 cited source says so and I see a few more reliable sources saying so when I search Google books. I'm not sure if it is a formal title or a description of what he lectured on. --JFH (talk) 23:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

If the cited source is the link page, then I think it is inadequate. I suspect that 'moral theology' is very modern and catholic division of the theology discipline. In my reading I have never seen a such a mention. I think it would be safer to say without a specific source, that that Luther was a professor of theology, as opposed to a professor of arts, which was the basic division of professorships in that period. But I will check my sources.1f2 (talk) 10:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The cited source is footnote 2, the Cambridge Companion to Luther. --JFH (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Date format

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)

Before I rewrote the article last year, it was in dmy (https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Ninety-five_Theses&oldid=709564234). --JFH (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I believe our policy dictates continued use of the format first used in the article, unless there is a close connection between the subject of the article and a specific format. Kablammo (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

MOS:DATERET talks about the article "evolving". If you really want it in mdy I won't stop you, but seems like a waste of time. --JFH (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there are better things to spend our time on. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

(although there may be a part of me that secretly hopes that someone on Wikipedia will correct the King: [1])

Kablammo (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Slightly Different Versions of the 95 Theses By Typeface, Calligraphy, and Symbols

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)