Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lutheranism/Assessment

Re-Assess, Please

Please re-assess Martin Luther College, thanks! 1-29-09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lieperjp (talk • contribs) 02:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment Issues

As the quality (class) assessment is pretty much standard across wikiprojects, I doubt we will have many issues with that. However Importance is a little more tricky, as it is specific to each wikiproject -- and is thus the place where we are most likely to have differences of opinion based on our particular affiliations.

I have been giving some thought to this, and wonder if some general guidelines might help. I will post my thoughts here as a starting place, and once we get some consensus I will post it on the main assessment page.

Top Importance: Reserved for those things of universal importance within Lutheranism (i.e., if you were going to write a short introduction to Lutheranism, you would have to include this).
Colleges: Put them all under "Low Importance" with a few notable exceptions (which would go to mid-importance)
Seminaries: Put them under "mid importance" with a few notable exceptions.
Individual congregations: "Low importance" with some notable exceptions (mid) and a few very notable exceptions (high)
Pan-Lutheran Organizations: I would put LWF and ILC, as the main international pan-Lutheran groups into TOP. LWR, LDR, and LSA should probably be high.
I'm not sure about denominations - the main national denominations and the largest (LCMS, ELCA WELS) American denominations I would probably put in High, with the so-called "micro-synods" in Mid.
Middle judicatory (Synods/Districts) should probably go in Mid.
Biographies are a case by case situation, as are theological concepts (bearing in mind the definition of TOP above).

Any thoughts, suggestions, or criticisms? -- Pastordavid 16:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One concern, based on my own ignorance. I agree that the majority of schools probably qualify as low importance. But are there any groups in the history of Lutheranism similar to the Oxford Movement? If there are, then that group's school might be pushed up to higher importance. John Carter 17:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes. Neo-Lutheranism has been described as “German Puseyism” and, like the Oxford movement, was more concerned with theological development than with corresponding ritual embellishment (the latter of which was taken up by the Ritualists and the Evangelical Catholics respectively. Currently, the article on neo-Lutheranism doesn’t have a rating or importance. I personally feel it should be classified as a “Start” and that someone should come along and add more information. As for importance, I think it’s is relevant to keep in mind that neo-Lutheranism never made quite the same impact on German Lutheranism that the Oxford movement had on the Church of England. I did, however, upgrade the rating on Johann Konrad Wilhelm Löhe to “B” from Start (since there’s not much more than this written about him in English]] and set the rating at mid because of his connection to the neo-Lutheranism movement.

jackturner3 16:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack - the move from "B-Class" to "start" is actually a move down the quality scale, not up. John, there are very few schools within Lutheranism that are tied to a movement like Oxford U is to the Puseyite/Oxford Movement. Absolutely there are some notable exceptions for schools, though. Gettysburg Seminary is the oldest Lutheran Seminary in America, and is tied to significant theological debates in the late 19th century ... Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg is the direct descendant of the original University of Wittenberg where Luther taught; it was merged with the closest equivelent to what you mean, the original University of Halle was the center of the 18th century German Pietist movement ... and I am sure that there are others. I tried to leave wiggle room in my suggestions for such notable exceptions. -- Pastordavid 17:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By and large, I like your ideas on this score, David. I've done a few dozen ratings myself and it breaks down just about that way. Having given this thing a whirl, I keep wondering if we need yet one more degree, say between high and mid. There are some I've stuck in high that I didn't feel comfortable going mid, but not a slam dunk high.

Now, trying doctrinal articles, see if you like how I've been rating them. Signature Lutheran doctrines (ones only Lutherans confess in quite the way we do) Top (Simul justus et peccator, Law and Gospel, Real Presence, Divine monergism in conversion, Christ as the central subject of Scripture, etc.) High for ones important to us, but not necessarily unique to us or among us (the solas, means of grace) Mid for those important to some of us, but not all of us (liturgy, ecumenism, unionism, millennialism) or in controversy among us (Women's ordination, close(d)communion, infallibilty of Scripture) and low for those where some Lutherans resonate with other Christians, but the topic is not normally on the top of the list in our teachings (tithing, Church Growth) What do you all think?--CTSWyneken^(talk) 18:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, I think that those sound like some ~~good~~ great guidelines to use as a starting place for theological concepts, and then if we find ones that we disagree on (or unsure of) we can just talk it out. Unfortunately, the rating system is what it is as far as levels of importance and class ratings - it is a universal grading system used across wikiprojects. -- Pastordavid 19:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David, I was under the impression that B is higher than Start becuase the latter is described as "needing significant clean-up" and the former is described as "decent article" in need of "further editing." That's why I moved the Löhe article from Start to B. Also, I would consider Pietism sort of the anthesis of the Oxford Movement since, to my mind, it appears to be more closely similar to Low Church Anglicanism than anything else. But, then agian, you're the guy with the M.Div., not me.

jackturner3 20:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have assessed (and classified) articles beginning with A-E. In my work, I have tried to use the following formulas in addition to the ones above:

National churches have been assessed at "High" when they have more than 1 million members, "mid" when membership is below that.
Historic national churches or contiental synods (in the case of North American Lutherans) have been rated as mid (this includes all ELCA predecessor bodies).

Hopefully, what I've done won't cause too much controversey, but if anyone disagrees with my rankings, please feel free to change them as you discover them. jackturner3 15:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have finished F-L, and I have rated all the articles that have been classified. The only thing that should be left are articles that are both unclassified and unassessed, but we will see about that when the bot updates tomorrow. I'm taking the weekend off an will be back to work on this on Monday.

jackturner3 20:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Importance of the Confessions

One other very specific topic - the Confessions. May I suggest the BoC, Sm Catechism, and Augsburg Confession for Top; the F of C, Lg Cat, and Schmal. Art. for High, and everything else at mid ??? -- Pastordavid 19:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that all of the contents of the Book of Concord really belongs in top. From 1580 until the last two centuries, the contents of all of them were the consensus position of Lutherans in general, even where they were not all formally subscribed. For high I would go with books that have had pretty universal influence among Lutherans: The Bondage of the Will, the three 1520 tracts, 95 Theses, and culturally, Table Talk; then those that must be addressed, pro and con, like the works of subsequent Lutherans (Spener's Pia, Bonhoeffer's Cost of Discipleship, etc.), the rest at mid or low. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 19:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying, but don't know that all of the Confessions are held in the same esteem by all Lutherans. For example, in my experience with European Lutheranism (ok, LWF European Lutheranism), most of the state churches formally adhere only to AC. Perhaps a compromise: TOP=AC, Sm. Cat, Lg Cat, FC, and Schm. Art.; High=Apology, Power & Primacy. (NB: not trying to argue a person position, but reflect the broadest estimation by contemporary Lutherans). I think you are right on with your other suggestions from LW - although I would probably put the Pia in high, but that's a tough call. -- Pastordavid 19:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that some Lutherans do not think of these documents as definitive for them, but since they are definitive for a lot of Lutherans, especially in ages past, it is still of highest importance. Even those who do not hold these documents as normanitive still have to address them when the doctrines in these works are in play with their confessionalist cousins. The reverse is true for confessionalist Lutherans re: Pia and JDDJ... The issue really isn't worth a lengthy debate, however, since the only function I can see for the importance scale is to help us decide what to work on first. So whereever we want to rate them is OK with me. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 19:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good points all ... especially on the rationale for not getting too worked up about the improtance rating. I think then that we put the entire contents of BoC into Top, per your reasoning. -- Pastordavid 20:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the Project page

trying to prepare the above conversation for posting as guidelines on the project page. Please edit mercilessly. -- Pastordavid 19:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Importance Scale

Top Importance: Reserved for those things of universal importance within Lutheranism that are also specific to the Lutheran tradition (i.e., if you were going to write a short introduction to Lutheranism, you would have to include this).
High Importance: Are of importance to most - but not all - Lutherans, and may overlap with other Christian traditions.
Mid Importance: For those topics that are not entirely unique to Lutherans, and whose importance is in significant dispute in among contemporary Lutherans.
Low Importance: Topics either generally shared with other Christians, or which have very little importance even within the study of Lutheranism.

Specific Topics

Colleges: Put them all under "Low Importance" with a few notable exceptions (which would go to mid-importance)
Seminaries: Put them under "mid importance" with a few notable exceptions.
Individual congregations: "Low importance" with some notable exceptions (mid) and a few very notable exceptions (high)
Pan-Lutheran Organizations: I would put LWF and ILC, as the main international pan-Lutheran groups into TOP. LWR, LDR, and LSA should probably be high.
I'm not sure about denominations - the main national denominations and the largest (LCMS, ELCA WELS) American denominations I would probably put in High, with the so-called "micro-synods" in Mid.
Middle judicatory (Synods/Districts) should probably go in Mid.
Biographies are a case by case situation, as are theological concepts (bearing in mind the definition of TOP above).

Just a thought: wouldn't it be better (or at least more consistent) to assign seminaries to the same category as the colleges?

jackturner3 20:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking (however flawed that may be) was that the rating proposed reflects the different roles that colleges & sems play in the life of the church. Seminaries tend to have a more direct affect - both through the students and the faculty - than colleges (of course there are exceptions to this general tendency). If other disagree, go ahead and change it. -- Pastordavid 01:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can certainly accept that reasoning.

jackturner3 13:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with David. We must remember that it is an art, more than a science, though. The 16th theological faculty at Wittenberg is almost a top in importance considering their leadership and literary output was everywhere that Lutherans went until the 20th century. Starck's works, Habermann's prayer book, Dietrich's explanation of the Small Catechism, all came to the American and Australian frontiers in the luggage of German immigrants. So, there is some wiggle. The same can be said of colleges -- some are more significant than others, but most have little effect on the course of Lutheran history. The same is true with most seminaries, although places like Gettysburg and the St. Louis sem have a little more influence than others.--CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ELCA Colleges and Seminaries

Ok, I have put tagged all the college articles with class and importance, and all the seminary articles with class since I had a comment (above) about the importance rating for seminaries. I did the importance in line with the above established criteria. I will try to get to the LCMS schools tomorrow. jackturner3 21:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work, thanks. -- Pastordavid 01:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, everything under the category Lutheran universities and colleges has been rated and classified. jackturner3 14:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updating Table of Assessments

Is this something anyone can do? If so, how is it done? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 21:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the graph that shows the articles by quality and importance? If so, it is updated by bot everyday around 12am (UTC) - hypothetically, though I've noticed that it really runs every other day. I've been running it occassionally manually lately to get more frequent updates as we've been getting so much done as far as assessment ... but we shouldn't do that too often I would think. -- Pastordavid 22:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That really is fine. I didn't notice much of a change, so I wondered if it were stuck or we were just finding a lot of new articles. 8-) --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and manually ran it around noon today (central time). One thing I find helpful is if you go to the history for the graph, you can open a previous version and see the progress we are making (for example, look at the table for March 26 versus today). -- Pastordavid 18:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done!

Well, that was fun!! With the exception of a single article, everything that has been tagged so far by the Lutheranism project has received a classification and an assessment according to the scale that PastorDavid suggested in this page. I checked on a few of the other related Wikiprojects, and none of them can boast such a claim!

That being said, there were few issues that I noticed in doing my work:

A lot of politicians are tagged by the Lutheranism project, but many of them have little to no connection to Lutheranism within their articles. I think I have found three different types of individuals in this case

Individuals who were raised Lutheran or who have Lutheran family connections but are only Lutheran in that sense (don't know if these people should be kept)
Individuals who were Lutheran but have changed religion at some point (these people should be de-listed)
Individuals who are practicing Lutheran (these people should be kept).

I don't have an exact list of individuals, so we would just have to go out and find them (though most of them are "low" on the importance scale). It seems to me that we should be able to directly state their connection to Lutheranism within the main body of the article somewhere or the person should be removed. Other thoughts?

I noticed the same problem with actors/entertainers/celebrities.
Most of the articles for the state churches in Germany are carbon copied stubs of each other and need to be diversified.
The articles for the LCMS districts and the ELCA synods are severely lacking and need added information (most of the ELCA synods don't even have an article)

Those are my general observations that I picked up while doing the assessments. Furthermore, I have done my assessments to the best of my ability, and if anyone feels differently about an individual case, please feel free to discuss it. I have probably erred in my effort to get the "grunt" work out of the way, so have no fear of bruising my ego too badly.

jackturner3 20:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the last article was just assessed. Hooray!

jackturner3 20:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great work!! Wow. Thanks so very much. I will go ahead and run the bot. The only other thing is to check and make sure that all relevant articles have the banner ... but it easier to keep the ratings up with all this leg-work done. -- Pastordavid 20:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]