Talk:The Wittenburg Door
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Is The Wittenburg Door still in business? edit
Is the magazine still in business anymore? The web page doesn't mention subscribing and the online version does not appear to have been updated since 2008. If so this article needs to be updated to reflect that. --Beirne (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
This is John Bloom's ("Joe Bob Briggs") project. I emailed him and he's on temporary pause for The Door. I'll ask him again when he plans on resuming. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Did Luther really.... edit
Dear Walter (User:Walter Görlitz),
You removed my qualification of the Luther story out of hand, although among historians this story by Melanchton after Luther's death is considered a myth. Your references did not help me. So i copied the argument from the wikipedia article Martin Luther, see View history.
However, somewhere i read (don't remember where) that in 2008 notes by Luther's secretary emerged that mentioned Luther nailing his theses to the door all right! But the comment did not take this finding seriously! Perhaps you could dig out this source and add it? Then the article does not fool the reader, as it did before by blandly stating the story as a fact without discussion.
Thanks, Hansmuller (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- This article, using an obvious misspelling of the term, is not about the door on the church in Wittenberg, Germany. It does not need a history correcting misunderstandings of where the 95 Theses were or were not posted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- That is a new argument, you appeared to defend the actual nailing even with new references. The original statement just was not complete, that's all. People asked for factual proof etc, what a fuss. So now i think a sourced "supposedly" fits the bill, right? Hansmuller (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Not really. It's not about historical accuracy.
- As for not new arguments? I don't see it discussed here anywhere, so please humour me and discuss it now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- That is a new argument, you appeared to defend the actual nailing even with new references. The original statement just was not complete, that's all. People asked for factual proof etc, what a fuss. So now i think a sourced "supposedly" fits the bill, right? Hansmuller (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)