User talk:MurdoMondane

Welcome!

Hello, MurdoMondane, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! BracketBot (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Thomas Müntzer may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Müntzer

Hello, I want to tell you that I find your incessant interventions against the sources I put in the article on Müntzer unpleasant. You thus orient the sources in an Anglo-Saxon, Lutheran, capitalist or pseudo-university sense, and refuse those that would be more favorable to Müntzer. You don't seem to know much about the subject and its topicality… --Japhet777 (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

==========================================

@Japhet777:

Thank you for your message.

The word ‘incessant’ is interesting: back in July 2018 I discussed with you about your inclusion of Profetyk’s books, and you seemed to accept then that they were out of place. I even offered to retain the link to the Anarcho-christian website, but you did not seem bothered, so I removed it. And here I am again – ‘incessantly’, it would seem – doing the same thing for the second time.

Let me explain in detail:

1. Wikipedia’s policy on citing sources does not recommend using self-published sources that are not in some way peer-reviewed. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources. Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources This is not a matter of trying to make things ‘academic’, simply a matter of verification. And in 2020, now that we have disposed of Donald Trump, why would anyone complain about having a policy of fact-checking and verification? A rigorous attitude towards sources and citations keeps Wikipedia as a repository of facts (and not opinions).

2. From what I can see of the two books you wished to cite, one (Credo du Christocrate) appears to be a personal statement of beliefs; and the other (Christocrate: La logique ...) - as far as I can tell since I do not have full access to the volume - contains perhaps 3,000 words on Müntzer. (I refer to the web-page: https://www.christocrate.ch/cinq-solas/ ) While I do not disagree with most of what that analysis says, it adds nothing at all to our knowledge of Müntzer that has not already been said by many others in the past 50 years. The author indicates that his source material for Müntzer’s words is a 1992 edition of ‘écrits choisis’ – he has not even bothered to read the whole corpus of Müntzer’s works. (And the volume he cites was actually dated 1982, not 1992).

Profetyk himself says here that ‘’Malheureusement, les quelques déclarations que Müntzer nous a laissées ne donnent que très peu d’informations concernant le nouvel ordre qu’il préparait … Son but aurait été « une chrétienté, où tous serait égaux » … Mais on n’en sait pas plus…” It all seems very vague!

3. A complete bibliography of works by and on Müntzer runs to over 3,200 books and articles. See: Dammaschke, Marion; Vogler, Günter, eds. (2013). Thomas-Müntzer-Bibliographie (1519–2012) . Of those, some 700 have appeared in the past 30 years. Most of them have at least the word ‘Müntzer’ in their title. Only 25 books have been selected for the Wikipedia article – not all by me – on the basis of their accepted value as source material or as recognised influential critiques. So should we be adding works which neither mention Müntzer, or barely scrape the surface of his complex life and work? If the answer to that is ‘yes’, then please feel free to add about another 4,000+ works to the Reading List!

4. It is rather difficult to cite sources which are not ‘Anglo-Saxon’, given that about 90% of all those 3,200 works have appeared in Germany, USA or UK. As for ‘Lutheran’: that is a bit harsh – most of the works on Müntzer in the past 70 years were generated by historians in the German Democratic Republic, some Lutheran, some Catholic, most atheistic. And many of the studies printed in the USA were written by Baptists. A question for you: have you actually read any of the works cited in the Wikipedia article?

5. Believe me that I have no ‘Lutheran, capitalist or pseudo-university’ agenda. I have been an atheist for 55 years, have raised funds for and agitated against capitalism and imperialism for 50 years, and have not been inside a university for 45 years. My aim in promoting the name, works and legacy of Thomas Müntzer is to ensure that as many people as possible understand what he did, why he did it, and how he did it. A tract pushing a ‘modern’ religious message is hardly helpful to this goal. I have studied and promoted Thomas Müntzer for almost 50 years, so please do not advise me that I don’t know much about the subject and am unfavourable to works supporting him. I am delighted that he is still topical – I am aware of new works appearing in Italy, France, Spain, Germany and elsewhere which bring him to public attention. That is all to the good. But such topicality must be based on the facts, not on someone’s opinions.

Please feel free to debate this further with me or anyone else. But please do so after reading and understanding what has been discussed above.

MurdoMondane (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I thank you for your more complete answer which allows me to better understand your point of view.

As you certainly know, Müntzer was a theologian who was largely marginalized, ostracized, soiled, caricatured for many years by the various theologians and scholars of the established order. Besides, even the engraved portrait of van Sichem (or other) is a form of propaganda against Müntzer (the one made by Romeyn de Hooge in 1701 is already less bad). Some Marxists (Engels, Bloch, Pianzola…) have returned some of his honor to him, but unfortunately they have dismissed somewhat the whole spiritual and theological dimension of Müntzer's thought and action. Hence the interest, in my opinion, to put these books on display as well. For it is in my opinion really his faith that motivated his "class struggle" and not the other way around.

So I think it's important to put books who are part of this theological thought, regardless of whether the author is marginal or otherwise. To put it another way, to my knowledge virtually none of the mentioned authors who have written about Müntzer share his religious beliefs. And that seems to me to be a problem.

But obviously I don't want to get into an edit war with you. I just don't understand your blockage or formalism. --Japhet777 (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Japhet777:

Thanks again for replying. And I appreciate that English is not your native language, so please be assured that I admire your persistence. I, too, have no desire to enter an edit war...

Yes, there is absolutely no doubt at all that Müntzer was first and foremost a theologian. And that it was his spiritual beliefs which turned him against the established order – both Lutheran and Catholic. I think I can safely say that none of the books on the ‘Further Reading’ list disagree on that. Indeed, the very best of them (for example, Tom Scott, Siegfried Bräuer, Günter Vogler and H-J Goertz) make that exact argument. These analyses are by historians with an excellent knowledge of religious and social history. I would strongly recommend that you read one or more of them if you can.

I think the thing to remember here is that this article is about Thomas Müntzer and his beliefs. It is not about the religious beliefs of anyone else, however ‘correct’ they may appear. For that reason – and because it is Wikipedia - we need to stick to the facts. Armed with the facts, people can make up their own minds and – if desired – place Müntzer within their own system of beliefs, historiography or whatever.

And I would repeat my main point: in a bibliography of 3,200+ books on Müntzer – his life, his revolutionary activities, his religious beliefs and his legacy – one short chapter in a self-published book which is not actually ‘about’ Müntzer is not good enough to recommend as reading, regardless of its sympathy to his beliefs. You must see that almost all of the books recommended or cited are historical studies, and not religious interpretations; to include religious studies (Lutheran, Catholic, Baptists or Anarcho-Christian) would be to go against the spirit of Wikipedia.

I hope this helps you understand a little more why I am anxious to keep the Wikipedia as clear of opinion as I can?

MurdoMondane (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer and your reading advice.

On the other hand, even if my English is not very good, your lines show a kind of confidence and hierarchy in favor of academic writing. I also like this kind of work, but unlike you, I do not disdain marginal writings which can sometimes be more reliable and better.

Let me give you a recent example: on the article Evangelicalism (in French) some Evangelicals have rewritten history by tracing this branch of Christianity (which originated rather from Lutheranism, Calvinism and the revival movements) back to the Radical Reformation. This is historically and theologically inaccurate. But there are more people on Wikipedia who think this and have at least one academic source. And this is how a false story can become a truth (on wikipedia or elsewhere).

And when you say: "I think the thing to remember here is that this article is about Thomas Müntzer and his beliefs. It is not about the religious beliefs of anyone else…"

Let me say that I do not agree so much. Because if someone else is close to Müntzer's ideas, isn't it worthwhile? There are Lutherans, wouldn't there also be "Müntzerans"? In other words, does Müntzer's religious thought have heirs today? Or is it only a 16th century thought? I think a book (whatever) or even a section on this would be interesting.

I don't know if you understand what I mean. If you do, I would be curious to know your point of view on it?--Japhet777 (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Japhet777:

There are ‘marginal writings’ and I have nothing against them. But then there are writings which are self-published and contain nothing new – which I believe to be the case with Profetyk’s essay.

I still disagree with you: this is an article about Müntzer and not about people who regard themselves as his ‘followers’ - “Müntzerans” as you say. As far as I am aware, there is today no body of people who call themselves “Müntzerans”, so it is difficult to state that they are part of his legacy. In the 16th and 17th centuries, there were plenty of them – mostly Anabaptists – as referenced in the Wikipedia article.

And you will notice that none of the ‘further reading’ books are written by either ‘Lutherans’ or ‘Catholics’ or indeed ‘Müntzerans’. And that is the whole point. These are all historical assessments, objective as far as possible . If we introduce the opinions of “Müntzerans”, then – in the interests of a balanced article - we must also introduce the opinions of Lutherans, Catholics, Baptists and so on. Where does that leave us?

The aim is surely to encourage an interest in Müntzer and I think that turning the Wikipedia article into a discussion forum on various Christian tendencies will simply discourage anyone who has no religious belief.

MurdoMondane (talk) 11:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's worth answering, you seem so convinced…

But please don't give me the objectivity argument. I know a little bit about how it works...

Wilhelm Zimmermann (Lutheran theologian) ; George Huntston Williams (rather socinian) ; Ernest Gordon Rupp (methodist, therefore of rather Lutheran tendency) ; Matthias Riedl (Central European University… founded by the capitalist Soros. No comment) ; Goertz Hans-Jürgen (mennonite, but ok)…

Do I need to do research for others or will I be okay? --Japhet777 (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Japhet777:

I also have no wish to continue this discussion much longer. You have avoided my central argument, which is that Profetyk’s 3,000 words commenting on TM’s theology are not good enough for inclusion in a short list of ground-breaking or widely accepted critiques. Nor have you said whether you (or Profetyk) have actually read any of the books used for citations, or on the Further Reading list. I would strongly suggest you get access to at least a few of those before you comment further. I repeat: this is an article about Müntzer – if you cannot read the texts referred to, then your arguments have no foundation.

I concede that my argument about ‘objectivity’ is faulty. There is no such thing as a historian without philosophical baggage. Nor me, nor you. But your superficial labelling of several historians is even more faulty :

- Zimmermann – maybe a Lutheran, but he was the historian who pulled Müntzer from the dark pit where the Lutherans had placed him for 300 years. His work was greatly admired by Friedrich Engels. And he was, in his day, a revolutionary.

- Williams - “rather Socinian” – so what, exactly? I thought Socinians were anti-Lutheran and somewhat radical?

- Rupp – a Methodist – so that makes him “of rather Lutheran tendency”? Really? That is not my understanding of Methodism!

- Riedl – from the CEU, founded by Soros, but effectively closed down in Hungary by Viktor Orbán. Is Soros’ enemy now our friend? And who, these days, has the luxury to choose their employer or publisher? (Does Profetyk use Amazon for publication and distribution, I wonder...?)

- Goertz – “Mennonite, but OK” – I’m pleased he passes the test!

You have not mentioned Bräuer, Vogler, Fischer, Friesen in your list, nor Scott, Blickle, Engels, Scribner etc. Feel free to stick labels on them – but facile name-calling gets us nowhere.

I have tried to list works accessible to English-language readers: this is the English-language version of Wikipedia. (Plenty of German ones in de.wikipedia, and French in fr.wikipedia – as you know!) Sadly, there are not many English books/articles that are good, so there are German historians in there as well. But all of them provide facts and interpretations that are solid. And they are all by authors who took the time to read the sources, to read other critical studies, who have influenced several generations of students of Müntzer, and thus have brought him much more to the forefront of the historiography of the German (and European) Reformation.

I have said all I want to say – several times - about why Profetyk’s books do not meet the criteria for inclusion in this article. If you still disagree, then I propose that we ask for Wikipedia arbitration. I will accept whatever decision is made from that.

MurdoMondane (talk) 12:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, I don't want to get into an "edit war". You may be right on the form, but it's on the substance that I disagree with you. In the article in English and German, Müntzer's thought seems to be only a story that stopped in the 16th century, while on the French page there is still more topicality. And not only theological (christian anarchism). The book La Guerre des pauvres by Éric Vuillard (a kind of parallel with the revolt of the Yellow Vests), or even the comic book by David Vandermeulen (La passion des Anabaptistes). It's not necessarily very historical or academic, but it revives Müntzer a bit. This might be a cultural difference ? --Japhet777 (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Charles Cochrane in Colombia 1824.jpg

Hi MurdoMondane. What makes you think this image has been released under a {{CC-by-sa-2.0}} license? Only the copyright holder work can release the file under such a license and that would only almost certainly be the artist who painted it. Moreover, if this was really first published in 1824 or 1825, it most certainly be to old to be eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law. Did you just randomly select a CC-by-sa license when you uploaded the file? I also noticed you did the same for File:Charles Cochrane as JuandeVega 1830.jpg. If you're not sure about the copyright status of something you want to upload, it's better to ask for help at either WP:MCQ or c:COM:VPC to see what others might think, then to pick some random license just to get the file uploaded. I suggest you ask about these files at eitther of the places so that their copyright status can be assessed. In addition, the files needed to come from somewhere. Did you find them online? When asking about the files, providing more information on their provenance, including links to any websites hosting the files, will be helpful. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marchjuly. Thanks for your comments. Yes, I was in a hurry and chose a CC license almost at random. My apologies - but the array of possible licences is confusing. I have now amended this to "Public Domain", for both images mentioned, and supplied provenance. I hope I have now got the licensing correct?

I don't know how to get rid of the big warning notice for the file in question, though - can you help?

I would also like to know how to delete two poorer quality images loaded earlier yesterday, which are no longer useful to anyone. There seems to be no way of deleting unused uploads. Again, can you advise?

Thanks MurdoMondane (talk) 11:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can tag files that you've upload and which have not been modified in any significant another user (excluding bots) for speedy deletion per WP:G7 by adding Template:db-g7 to the top of the file's page. You can also remove Template:Wrong license for the files by going into editing mode an removing the template's syntax; however, I'm not sure you want to do that just yet.

The {{PD-art-life-70}} license you're now trying to use seems a bit odd to me because if the artists who created these works were born in the same year their work was created, they would've each be almost 200 years old this year. That means they would've been close to 130 years old if they died in 1954 (2024 minus 70 years)); moreover, even in Mexico with its 100 year p.m.a, they would still have been close to 100 years old each if they died in 1924. I suspect that unless these are reproductions of the original artwork that appeared in the books you're saying they came from, they probably meet c:COM:PD-Art, they would be considered published, could be licensed as {{PD-Art}} and tagged for a move to Wikimedia Commons. It would, though, probably be a good idea for you to ask about that possibility at c:COM:VPC just to make sure. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've made changes suggested - third time lucky! I've also flagged the two erroneous images for speedy deletion. I am hoping this is all correct now! Thanks for your help - much appreciated. MurdoMondane (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]