Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Martin Bucer/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 17:53, 21 April 2009 [1].

Martin Bucer[edit]

Nominator(s): RelHistBuff (talk) 09:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As this is a long article and some people have mentioned that this is a near non-notable topic, I thought a blurb is needed to attract some reviewers. This is about a character of the Reformation, an equivalent of Martin Luther, but who is nearly unknown except among historians (check out the scholarly books on him on amazon). But consider this: he personally mediated between two of the best known rivals of the Reformation, Martin Luther and Huldrych Zwingli and he tried to make them the best of friends; he housed and mentored another better-known Reformation character, John Calvin; and he contributed to Thomas Cranmer’s second edition of the Book of Common Prayer which is more-or-less the edition that survives today. So he ended up touching upon every major historical Protestant group, i.e., Lutheranism, Calvinism, and Anglicanism. Add to that, as an early ecumenist, he even advocated unity between Protestants and Catholics within Germany. Almost modern in his thinking, he was once one of the most influential figures in European church history. And like a typical European diplomat, he would have been a gold member of the frequent-equestrian-miles programme. Too bad he wasn’t more successful. I welcome your comments and criticisms. RelHistBuff (talk) 09:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (Who the HECK said he wasn't notable???? Many of my bishops are less notable than Bucer!) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to clarify, I have been trying to make the case that Bucer is mid-importance in the Christianity Wikiproject and a couple of the regulars insist that he is low-importance (which in my mind strikes me as equivalent to near non-notable). Ok, maybe that statement was a bit of a hyperbole; it wasn't an AfD candidate... --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose at least for the moment on the grounds of POV and comprehensiveness. A spruced-up (if not whitewashed) version of Bucer is present in the article, which doesn't specifically cover, or glosses over, negative aspects. Thomas Murner was not just a "satirist" who attacked Luther, he was a poet and Franciscan who published pro-Catholic tracts, and whose press was attacked. The article says that "emotions reached boiling point", and "angry mobs formed and broke into the monasteries, looting and destroying" without saying anything about the role of Bucer's preaching in this. Treger, "left Strasbourg" after the riot and imprisonment. Nothing is mentioned about the many other priests and canons forced to flee.
Bucer's four year campaign, described by others as intimidatory, for the suppression of Catholicism in Strasbourg is not mentioned. The article here uses weasel words like, the reformers asked the council to "completely abandon the mass". No. Those who wanted to had abandoned the mass. Bucer demanded that the worship and preaching of Catholics in the city be completely banned and suppressed. He argued the same in Ulm, Augsburg and Bern. There ius the same pussyfooting with regard to the Anabaptists, who Bucer wanted to recant or be expelled from Strasbourg. The article says only that he and his pastors were "calling for better enforcement of ethical standards and the preaching of true doctrine." The expulsion is blamed on the Council, with no mention of Bucer's role in this.
Another serious omission is the failure to deal with Bucer's beliefs that the State had authority to rule the Church in all respects including doctrine and appointments. In the section "Organising the Strasbourg church " blame again is placed on the Council while no attempt is made to portray Bucer's views. Again, amazingly, there seems to be no reference at all to one of the most controversial and scandalous events in Bucer's career - his promotion and advocacy of the bigamous marriage of the powerful Philip Landgrave of Hesse. these are all serious omissions of material that should be in this article. Xandar 01:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. In order to avoid crowding this FAC with discussions on these points, I suggest we move to the article talk page in order to come to a resolution. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I have criticized some previous nominations for lack of notability, but there is no doubt at all that Bucer is notable -- he was a major figure in the Reformation. However this article very badly needs a major copy-edit, and I'm not sure FAC is the place to do it. There are tons of awkward or malformed sentences. Looie496 (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will see what can be done about this. --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brianboulton has kindly done a copy-edit. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical Review
I did see the disambiguation page, but I noticed that the page itself defined what is a religious colloquy so I was not sure what to do. I have now created a new page with the definition and added the wikilink to the disambiguation page.

--RelHistBuff (talk) 08:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support It is more comprehensive about his life than the Martin Luther article is for his. While it doesn't follow a pro-Catholic POV, it does present an equitable summary of his relations with a variety of other people. Bucer is very notable.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was the first of two who stated that we did not consider the subject to be particularly significant to the Christianity WikiProject as a whole, as it is now arranged. While he did have some importance to each of the groups mentioned, in comparison to many other articles relative to those same subjects, this is rather less significant than many of them. Basically, as the first "priority" reviewer, I gave him a "Mid" priority for some of the groups, which, in general, tends to be brought down a notch for the Christianity project as a whole. One of the other coordinators of the project implied that the subject might be of high priority to a Reformation group, but no such group exists at this time, and the subject is virtually unknown in most of the groups he impacted today. If the author's representations of the comments of others are indicative of the way he writes articles, I very much urge everyone to check for exaggeration and/or mild misrepresentation. John Carter (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason why RelHistBuff would deliberately exaggerate anything. As for mild misrepresentation, that's always a risk with Wikipedia, and I expect we are all unintentionally guilty of it. To be honest, I regard your comment as off-topic: it is up to you to find some specific faults in the article and then to bring them here. In my experience, RelHistBuff always tries hard to be objective: in all his articles on religious history, I've never been able to detect what his own beliefs are. qp10qp (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support An observation to the negative vote above: As objective encyclopedists we should be ready to post and download all the information, even the skeletons in the closet; however, one is struck with two aspects of the prevailing philosophy in academia: 1) one must take a jaundiced view toward famous Christian religious leaders of the past and 2) one must be sure to emphasize all of their shortcomings and peccadilloes. We should assume the good faith of the editors, who are sprucing up this article. Perhaps those with the prevailing attitude should provide the derogatory material they feel is missing. I am sure that the knowledgeable editors will take it into consideration for inclusion. --Drboisclair (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A featured article is required to be comprehensive, and NPOV, however. I don't think my objection is intended to insist on "all shortcomings and peccadilloes" being in the article, but certain major strands that are covered in some detail in the sources. While some of my concerns have been dealt with, I did propose an amendment on the article talk page which would make some reference to the remaining ommissions that raised concern. That was a week ago, but the article nominator has not responded so far. Xandar 22:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, been away due to real life. Will get back to this soon. --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
I am almost ready to support this article for FA. I think it is really interesting and well done, even if it is a bit long. I made some minor copyedits and I have a few recommendations for improvement:
  • Bucer's stepdaughter is mentioned in the Death and Legacy paragraph but I can not find where she is first introduced in the article. I see he married a former nun but I think it would be nice to mention children or lack of and let Reader know from where the stepdaughter originated.
  • The lead does not mention one of Bucer's major contributions, the concept of religious pluralism listed in Death and Legacy.
  • There really is very little in the article about his personal family life. I am not going to oppose for lack of, I just think it would make the article more complete if more could be included. Perhaps modern scholarship skips this and I would completely understand if my comment is asking you to unreasonably find things that are not discussed by scholarly experts on the subject.
Otherwise, I thought the article was well done. NancyHeise talk 00:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
adding to above - I see that somewhere along the way he married a woman named Wilbrandis Rosenblatt [2] who is the mother of Bucer's stepdaughter. Something should be included about the end of his marriage to the nun (did she die?) and his marriage to Rosenblatt. NancyHeise talk 01:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also found this source [3] that tells us his first wife died of the plague along with all but one of their children and that this first wife asked him to marry Rosenblatt after she died. Neat info that should be included in this persons life story. He is more than his accomplishments, he is a man with a family! : ) NancyHeise talk 02:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. The personal life information is unfortunately revealed in small snapshots as his biography progresses and there is not much available in the sources. To improve this I will add a few clauses to try and tie together the personal life bits better and add some details about his children and also what happened to Wibrandis. Concerning what appears to be missing details:
  • Bucer's first marriage to Elisabeth Silbereisen (the former nun), is mentioned in the fifth paragraph of "Early life". The death of Elisabeth by the plague is mentioned in the last paragraph of "Colloquies, controversies, and the imperial diet". It also mentions that Elisabeth asked Bucer to marry Wibrandis Rosenblatt. It is also here that mention is made of Wibrandis' previous marriage to Wolfgang Capito (who was the father of Agnes).
  • As for religious pluralism in the last section, I used a different word as a synonym, "ecumenism", in the lead. Ecumenism is probably more accurate, but Greschat noted his "theological pluralism".
--RelHistBuff (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added some family details: Bucer's surviving son, Nathanael, the family's move to England (including Agnes Capito), and Wibrandis' return to Basel. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fruitful discussions here and on the talk page seem to be improving the article. I hope to support at the end of this process. If there is anything in the sources on Bucer's position(s) on the use of religious images, and his actions on the issue, this would be a very welcome addition. It's the sort of thing theological historians tend to neglect, as not reflecting their current interests, but is actually significant in a wider perspective, given his power over large numbers of masterpieces of medieval art at various points. On a quick google search, I see there is some coverage here. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since he was a reformer, I don't think he would have promoted their use. So I guess your question is where did Bucer's views lie on the scale between mild rejection to extreme iconoclasm. I will have to take a look at the sources. --RelHistBuff (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Martin_Bucer/archive1&oldid=1138466529"