Talk:Thomas Schirrmacher

This article is way to short

This article is way too long - Mr Schirrmacher's importance doesn't warrant more than a few lines, if indeed Wikipedia should have an article about him at all. I recommend vigourous editing or deleting the whole thing.

He is listed in Marquis Who is who and 15 other world leading biografical dictionaries. He has four earned doctorates, teaches on four contintens and is the chair of Theological Commission of the World Evangelical Alliance, thus one of the leading Protestant theologians. He has written 70 books translated into 18 languages. They are much less important people in Wikipedia who have a full article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.232.250.165 (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It is obvious that Schirrmacher is notable with about 150 publications. But Hrafn removed all the "sources" 2. You cannot remove literature because it is "not sourced" - This is nonsense. Literature itself is a source. Somebody should prolong the article and describe his main books and positions more detailed. --Moi Ossi (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTDIRECTORY of articles by the topic. It is meant to be an encyclopaedic article based upon third-party sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You are right. So please contribute instead of delete with wrong comments

The books and articles are only a selection. He wrote more then 100 books and in the article are only six. Please tell me more detailed which parts of the article are in your opinion only a directory. --Moi Ossi (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Additional Sources

Lithuanian

• Lietuvos politika: Teisingumo ministerijos dievų miškas

As should be blindingly obvious...

This is an ENGLISH language article -- please DON'T TRY AND WRITE IT IN GERMAN! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is an English article, yet it is not forbidden to cite German sources. So please don't vandalize anymore. Notability is given by numerous German (and English) sources. Just instead of wiping out everything You personnally cannot verify, look for new and better sources Yourself. In the meantime use google translater to verify German sources. --Moi Ossi (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

No, but you should not be citing them in German -- e.g.: {{Internetquelle|url=http://www.fthgiessen.de/downloads/BA_Handbuch_2010-2011_Downloadversion.pdf|titel=Personal- und Vorlesungsverzeichnis|titelerg=|autor=|hrsg=FTH Gießen|werk=fthgiessen.de|seiten=10|datum=08/17/2010 13:52:45|archiv-url=http://www.webcitation.org/5wf86699K|archiv-datum=2011-02-21 |zugriff=2011-02-21|sprache=de|format=|kommentar=|zitat=|offline=}} If you wish to contribute to the English wikipedia, kindly do so in English! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I would further point out that the (liberally-employed) webcitation.org links appear to all be non-operative. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You also used non-English names of articles that had English names -- resulting in confusing redlinks -- e.g. Theologische Universiteit van de Gereformeerde Kerken for Theological University of the Reformed Churches. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

which I and not You corrected, so what? --Moi Ossi (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

the webcitation-links usually operate, but today webcitation has a breakdown.

Why has the English wikipedia a template:internetquelle if it is forbidden to use? But I started to use template:Web Cite instead as You can see. The only problem is: I have no bookmarklet for the latter. Do You know, where I can find one? --Moi Ossi (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

notablilty

@Hrafn: You can not at the same time question the notability of Schirrmacher and wipe out the sources for the notability like who is who.

You cannot comment: Rvt: badly malformed -- this is an ENGLISH language article --please do not cite the whole thing in GERMAN -- it makes the whole damn thing unreadable/unmaintainable) and delete nearly all information sourced, only because the sources are German. It is only naturally that You find most and best information about a German in German language. --Moi Ossi (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Evidently notablilty is given, as You know because of the lots of books, he wrote. --Moi Ossi (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

1. Kindly read WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 9#Marquis' "Who's Who" as RS? -- it's neither a RS nor establishes notability.Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

As I allready stated on this page (#Who is who and Notability), I got this point and removed this section. --Moi Ossi (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

2. Yes I can make that comment as the "sources" ENTIRE CITATIONS and many of the proper names are in German.Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

No not the Citations are in German, but only in the process of translating the German template for citing was reused, which is valid, because it has a counterpart here in English wikipedia. German sources are valid, see Wikipedia:Notability:

• Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. --Moi Ossi (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

3. "Evidently notablilty" guidelines are a mystery to you -- as they put great emphasis on THIRD PARTY SOURCES -- something ENTIRELY missing from Firefly322's laundry list.

There are a lot of Third Party Sources in the article (See #Sources: step by step for more details.). And I can insert more, if You stop just deleting facts and show me where a sources are needed most urgend. --Moi Ossi (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The article remain substandardly written and poorly-sourced (relying mainly on WP:SPSs). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

No, thats wrong. Only a few sources are Self-published sources - In order to prove that I started the table on this page. Look at #Sources: step by step for more details. --Moi Ossi (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources: step by step

Please, dear Hrafn tell me step by step, which source is not reliable and should be substituted.

actual source	primary source	secondary source	comments
1 ^ http://cb.oxfordjournals.org/content/9/2-3/227.short
2 ^ a b "DNB, Katalog der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek" portal.d-nb.de 2011-02-21 archived from the original on 2011-02-21
3^ http://www.professorenforum.de/professorenforum/content/artikeldatenbank/Autoren/SchirrmacherThomas.pdf
4 ^ Who is Who in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 6 (1999), Wien.
5 ^ a b c d e f g h i http://www.contra-mundum.org/schirrmacher/bio.pdf
title= specified when using {{Cite web}}" .thomasschirrmacher.net
7 ^ a b c d e f g Personal- und Vorlesungsverzeichnis. In: fthgiessen.de. FTH Gießen, 08/17/2010 13:52:45, S. 10. Archiviert vom Originalam 2011-02-21. Retrieved on 2011-02-21. (de)
8 ^ Thomas Schirrmacher (West University of Timisoara) Books. In: simulabor.com. 05/16/2011 16:12:06. Retrieved on 2011-05-16. (en)
9 ^ http://www.dijg.de/ueber-uns/wissenschaftlicher-beirat-des-dijg/
10 ^ a b c Schirrmacher, Prof. Dr. Thomas. In: dw-world.de. Deutsche Welle, 05/16/2011 16:11:36. Retrieved on 2011-05-16. (EN)
11 ^ Dozenten. In: fthgiessen.de. 02/21/2011 13:43:22. Archiviert vom Original am 2011-02-21. Retrieved on 2011-02-21.
12 ^ a b Martin Bucer Seminar: Akademische Vita. In: bucer.org. Archiviert vom Original am 2011-02-21. Retrieved on 2011-02-21.
13 ^ http://en.scientificcommons.org/31676901
14 ^ http://www.bucer.org/uploads/media/WEA_GIS_3_-_Thomas_Schirrmacher_-_May_a_Christian_Go_to_Court.pdf
15 ^ http://contra-mundum.org/schirrmacher/HumanRights.pdf
16 ^ Kuratioriumsvorsitzender von Gebende Hände. In: gebende-haende.de. 02/21/2011 12:41:43. Archiviert vom Original am 2011-02-21. Retrieved on 2011-02-21.
17 ^ Karl Farmer Individuelle Freiheit oder staatliche Lenkung?: Markt und Staat im Lichte christlicher Wirtschaftsethik. LIT Verlag Münster, 2000. ISBN 3825850749, page 255.
18 ^ South African Missiological Society: Missionalia. The Society, 2005. Volume 33, page 193.
19 ^ http://www.vkwonline.de/downloads/Prospekt_VKW_III_Schirrmacher_nach_Jahren.pdf
20 ^ Prof. Dr. mult. Thomas Schirrmacher, D.D.. In: fthgiessen.de. 02/21/2011 12:52:53. Archiviert vom Original am 2011-02-21. Retrieved on 2011-02-21.
21 ^ Holger Dainat, Lutz Danneberg: Literaturwissenschaft und Nationalsozialismus. M. Niemeyer, 2003, ISBN 9783484350991, p. 429.
22 ^ Christiaan Janssen: Abgrenzung und Anpassung: deutsche Kultur zwischen 1930 und 1945 im Spiegel der Referatenorgane Het Duitsche Boek und De Weegschaal. Waxmann Verlag, 2003, ISBN 9783830913351, p. 184-186.
23 ^ "Wer" ist die IGFM. In: igfm.de. International Society for Human Rights (ISHR), 02/21/2011 12:49:39. Archiviert vom Original am2011-02-21. Retrieved on 2011-02-21. (de)
24 ^ http://contra-mundum.org/schirrmacher/HumanRights.pdf
25 ^ "ISLAM – Religion of Violence or Peace?: Reflections concerning the events of September 11th, 2001". Dr. Christine Schirrmacher.
26 ^ Neu im Hauptvorstand: Dr. Christine Schirrmacher und Ekkehart Vetter - Deutsche Evangelische Allianz. In: ead.de.02/21/2011 13:45:43. Archiviert vom Original am 2011-02-21. Retrieved on 2011-02-21.
27 ^ Helmut Zander: Hitlers Religion. In: nzz.ch. NZZ, 02/21/2011 14:08:29. Archiviert vom Original am 2011-02-21. Retrieved on2011-02-21. (de, Recension)
28^ DNB, Katalog der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek. In: portal.d-nb.de. 02/21/2011 13:09:14. Archiviert vom Original am 2011-02-21. Retrieved on 2011-02-21.

So Hrafn, now You can tell me which sources You like or not and why. --Moi Ossi (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources: NOT step by step

1. What possible reason would you have for thinking that I'd want to trawl through a (very messy) mess of badly documented webpages individually?
2. The main problem with these sources is not each one taken individually, but the general balance -- the vast majority of them are WP:SPS/WP:PRIMARY/affiliated-to-the-topic or similar (as far as I can tell only 3 out of 28 have been formally published). Per WP:PSTS & WP:ABOUTSELF such sources (i) should not predominate & (ii) do not add to notability.
3. Please cite sources IN ENGLISH, using {{cite web}} (or equivalent), ENGLISH descriptions, proper names, etc, so that an ENGLISH reader can understand them. Just because a source is written in German does not mean that it has to be cited in that language.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

1. The reason would be respect to me and other editors of this article and thoroughness which is necessary in every article and in particular in biographies.

2. I see your point with general balance, but You solve this problem not by mass deleting but by contributing new sources. I hope, You are able to do that, are You?

3. As You can see, yesterday I started citing with the normal English template. But nevertheless - as You Yourself stated above - it is valid to use an equivalent of {{cite web}} - this is {{Internetquelle}} - in the meantime.

4. It is vandalism if You destroy the valid template {{Internetquelle}} by inserting nowiki-tags.

5. Please don't shout at me repeatedly, this is very unfriendly, see WP:CIVIL, WP:BITE, WP:INSULT. I am an newbie in this wiki with only moderate English skills. Please give me friendly advice instead. --Moi Ossi (talk) 06:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

1. Given this, your tardy demand for "respect" comes across as more than a little WP:POT.Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I would sincerely apologise, if you would tell me what was wrong with inserting a headline and show the notability of Schirrmacher by referring to his about 150 publications.

2. How would you suggest dealing with messes-upon-messes of poorly-documented, poor-quality sources? Cutting the Gordian Knot would appear to be a valid solution.Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

therefore You first have to proof that all the sources would be poor-quality. You failed to do that. --Moi Ossi (talk) 10:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

3. I was attempting to highlight the to-the-English-reader illegible nature of these templates -- which compounded the problem of the sources being in German, to make WP:Verifiability (the whole point of having citations) unreasonably difficult.Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

This attempt is on the wrong page. You should write it on Template talk:Internetquelle. --Moi Ossi (talk) 10:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

4. Please don't be obtuse and I'll try to refrain from shouting. Given that I've generally had to say things over and over before you get my point, the temptation to resort to shouting is rather strong. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

(Your point 4 was my point 5 before) Please don't call me obtuse - because I'm not. But I cannot understand You If You SHOUT instead of describe. Surely not mainly language barriers detain me from understanding You. Id didn't help a Iota to repeat yourself time after time. It only helps if You explain Your point and answer my questions. --Moi Ossi (talk) 10:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

5. Point 5 (which was my point 4 above) is missing. You want others to apologise, but it seems You Yourself are not able to do that. That is a weak basis for collective working on an article. --Moi Ossi (talk) 10:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Who is who and Notability

Dear Hrafn, I got Your point with

He is listed in Marquis' Who's Who in the World, Dictionary of International Biography, International Who is Who of Professionals, EU-Who is Who, Who is Who in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 2000 Outstanding People of the 21st Century, 2000 Outstanding Intellectuals of the 21st Century, International Who's Who in Distance Learning, Kürschners Gelehrten-Kalender, Kürschners Deutscher Sachbuch-Kalender.<ref name="ContraM"/>

and I removed it. But then the notability is clear now. As You can see I put in a lot of new references yesterday. --Moi Ossi (talk) 05:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

1. No, notability is NOT clear now -- see #Sources: NOT step by step #2 above. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

so please make it clear. What source is missing actually. Please let us go through, point for point. --Moi Ossi (talk) 06:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

"What source is mission actually." is not grammatical, or comprehensible, English. And no, I'm not going through that mess "point for point". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the help (It was just a typing mistake). If You don't comprehend, I ask You again:

Which source (for which fact) do You thing is needed most? --Moi Ossi (talk) 06:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

A biographical source that doesn't read like yet-another-potted WP:RESUME. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

(at least a second glimpse of humour: WP:RESUME)

Please correct me, but I thought, a curriculum vitae, hosted at an University was an acceptable biographical source for a professors curriculum. Is this wrong?--Moi Ossi (talk) 10:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Please correct me, but I thought, even a "who is who" was an acceptable biographical source in order to prove a birth date. Is this wrong?--Moi Ossi (talk) 10:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

2. You insist on using GERMAN citation templates, GERMAN descriptions, and GERMAN proper names (even piping a English-titled article to its German name for some idiotic reason) in an E_N_G_L_I_S_H language article.Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

No is it not. I piped the original Dutch name. Why shouldn't I? --Moi Ossi (talk) 06:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Because this is an E_N_G_L_I_S_H language wiki, so uses E_N_G_L_I_S_H names in preference. If you aren't comfortable with that fact, then why are you editing it? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I know that this is an English wiki. But are proper names in the language of origin banned? Where can I read that? Please give me a link. And stop SHOUTING at me, please. --Moi Ossi (talk) 06:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Is being sensible banned? Read WP:EASTEREGG -- E_N_G_L_I_S_H names are INTUITIVE for an E_N_G_L_I_S_H language wiki. Have a WP:TROUT and get a clue. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I read WP:Esteregg already after You mentioned it first. Please don't Shout at me, it does not make Your points clearer. At lest Your citation of WP:TROUT shows a little bit of humour. That is a beginning. As a compromise I put the Dutch name in brackets exactly as it is in its own article. Can You live with it? --Moi Ossi (talk) 09:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

3. Most of your citations are bare-links, meaning (i) they are subject to WP:LINKROT & (ii) making it even more difficult for an E_N_G_L_I_S_H reader to work out what they are and how reliable they are. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I used bare links only because of You insisting not to use Internetquelle - but hey it is a wiki, You can improve that. Feel free. (By the way: only some, not most are bare links) --Moi Ossi (talk) 06:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Both are as bad as each other to the English reader. This is an English wiki -- is it unreasonable to expect the citations to be written in English (particularly when the sources themselves aren't)? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not unreasonable. Therefore yesterday I started to rewrite them. If You would not have constantly used my time here with SHOUTING at me and similar destructive techniques we would be much further now. --Moi Ossi (talk) 06:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's a hint you keep saying STUPID, OBTUSE AND ANNOYING things like "But are proper names in the language of origin banned" and I will feel an overwhelming urge to SHOUT AT YOU UNTIL MY LUNGS ARE BLOODY WELL HOARSE! Your whole aim here seems to be 'how can I slip as much non-English as possible into this article, without being too obvious about it'. This is an English language article. Therefore everything should be in English unless there is a compelling reason not to. Subverting WP:ENGLISH by piping English articles to non-English names IS NOT A COMPELLING REASON! Got that? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Please calm down. Nobody wants to hurt You or Your sacred English language. But in some scientific circles it is common to be not so arrogant and change foreign names more then necessary. If You proof me that an English name is more common we can use it. If You don't prove it, we should keep the original name, because it is understandable for more people in the world including these of the land of the origin. Don't forget: Not only English Native Speakers read the English Wikipedia but also a lot of other people via Google translator.--Moi Ossi (talk) 08:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

What exactly did you think the 'en' in 'en.wikipedia.org' stood for? If you don't like WP:ENGLISH, then feel free to advocate for its modification or removal -- in the appropriate forum (most probably WT:ENGLISH and/or WP:VPP). But please do not expect people to look kindly on attempts to subvert it on an article-by-article basis -- doing so is disruptive. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

See #Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English): The title of an article ... Often this will be the local version'. I don't want to subvert Your language. I you would stop attacking me I had more time to improve the citations. Look into the article history I already proofed that I'm willing and able to to that.

I saw with much thankfullness that You finally interchanged the templates internetquelle and web cite instead to delete again them as you did several times before. So I think number 3 should be finished. If You give me some time I will change the last bare links into web cite-links, too. --Moi Ossi (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Non-English redlinks

Hrafn subsequently altered the headline of this thread, see #Non-English redlinks and pipes -- a thread explicitly and prominently citing WP:ENGLISH for his version. --Moi Ossi (talk) 10:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I would point out that WP:REDNOT states "Do not create red links to articles that will never be created, including articles that do not comply with Wikipedia's naming conventions", and WP:ENGLISH states "the title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language". Freie Theologische Hochschule Gießen & Staatsunabhängige Theologische Hochschule Basel violate these conventions.

Also piping the English title of an article on an institution to its Dutch name violates WP:EASTEREGG. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry In Wikipedia:EASTEREGG#Intuitiveness I cannot find a ban on using the original name of an university. Please prove, why You think another title for Freie Theologische Hochschule Gießen & Staatsunabhängige Theologische Hochschule Basel would be more common in the English language. Which titles would You choose instead? --Moi Ossi (talk) 06:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

You are being OBTUSE again, so I'm going to SHOUT at you. How can the Dutch name of an institution be more intuitive to an English reader than its English name? And if this wasn't the case, then why would we have WP:ENGLISH for titles in the first place? Given that I'm not familiar with either institution, I'm not in a position to judge its most common Anglicised name. I would however suggest that if either are sufficiently prominent to warrant an article (and thus a redlink) they are sufficiently prominent that some reasonably-standardised Anglicisation of their names exist. Now, if you are through being tendentious on this subject can we remove the WP:REDNOT redlinks? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Pleas don't call me obtuse or tendentious. This is not very polite. Do You know the Wikipedia:Etiquette?

Please don't be "obtuse or tendentious". WP:SPADE. My point on WP:EASTEREGG was perfectly obvious -- but you seem to insist on making a game out of it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

1. The piped article doesn't belong to the thread according to Your own headline. We already discuss that in #Who is who and Notability we should not have two treads for that.
   • Easily fixed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
2. A "Hochschule" is a University and therefore in every case notable. Both Universities have entries in the German wikipedia: de:Freie Theologische Hochschule Gießen & de:Staatsunabhängige Theologische Hochschule Basel. --Moi Ossi (talk) 09:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
   • Then there should be "some reasonably-standardised Anglicisation of their names " in existence. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Non-English redlinks and pipes -- a thread explicitly and prominently citing WP:ENGLISH

I would point out that WP:REDNOT states "Do not create red links to articles that will never be created, including articles that do not comply with Wikipedia's naming conventions", and WP:ENGLISH states "the title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language". Freie Theologische Hochschule Gießen & Staatsunabhängige Theologische Hochschule Basel violate these conventions.

Also piping the English title of an article on an institution to its Dutch name violates WP:EASTEREGG. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

You are being OBTUSE again, so I'm going to SHOUT at you. How can the Dutch name of an institution be more intuitive to an English reader than its English name? And if this wasn't the case, then why would we have WP:ENGLISH for titles in the first place? Given that I'm not familiar with either institution, I'm not in a position to judge its most common Anglicised name. I would however suggest that if either are sufficiently prominent to warrant an article (and thus a redlink) they are sufficiently prominent that some reasonably-standardised Anglicisation of their names exist. Now, if you are through being tendentious on this subject can we remove the WP:REDNOT redlinks? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Please don't be "obtuse or tendentious". WP:SPADE. My point on WP:EASTEREGG was perfectly obvious -- but you seem to insist on making a game out of it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

1. • Easily fixed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
   • Then there should be "some reasonably-standardised Anglicisation of their names " in existence. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't answer to this thread. the headline was subsequently manipulated so I removed my comments. But see m< citation of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)#No established usage #This thread is WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT of #Non-English redlinks, which is EXPLICITLY on the topic of for an answer. --Moi Ossi (talk) 10:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

theology

(Hitler's) religion and christian liturgy are part of theology. Liturgy is the art of living theology, religion is what theology examines. --Moi Ossi (talk) 08:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Functionalism versus intentionalism is historiography not theology. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. It is far better then Your old headlines were.--Moi Ossi (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)

@Hrafn: Don't change my headlines. Read Wikipedia:Discussion instead: Resolve disputes calmly, through civil discussion and consensus-building on relevant discussion pages. --Moi Ossi (talk) 09:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works). This makes it easy to find, and easy to compare information with other sources. Often this will be the local version, as with Madrid.

@Hrafn: If You don't agree to names I inserted, please find reliable sources, which state a better version. As You can read above, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) does not ban the local version in general.--Moi Ossi (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I started this thread, because You put English again and again in different threads on the tablet. This thread is broader and here we can collect all Your concerns on preserving Your beloved mother tongue in Wikipedia (Not only the redlinks). It was because You obstructed nearly every discussion above with shouting "English". I didn't want to let Your responses disappear, but to give You the chance to declare yourself - and not only single points with no coherency, as You did before. --Moi Ossi (talk) 09:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

No it isn't "broader" -- it's the exact same thing all over again. Moving this WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT outside the WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT does not make it any less WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

This thread is WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT of #Non-English redlinks, which is EXPLICITLY on the topic of WP:ENGLISH

@WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT: ALREADY ANSWERED in #Non-English redlinks above. Simply creating a new thread to repeat your OBTUSE points does not make my response to it disappear. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

[Self-serving claim moved up into above section -- apparently if it isn't in a section marked WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT, you can pretend it's not WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC) ]

Reply to "I started this tread [sic]..": Given that everything you've done in this article has passive-aggressively 'screamed' 'I don't want to be writing this article in English', you should hardly be surprised that I've been belabouring the point. As I said before -- if you don't want me to shout things, then don't be obtuse about them. The point both here and on #Non-English redlinks is identical -- that in an English wiki, English titles are more easily understandable to the vast majority of readers (who are English speakers). This is the whole point of WP:ENGLISH, whose point also transfers to pipes via WP:EASTEREGG ("more easily understandable"=more "intuitive"). Given that this is an English wiki, I make no bones about applying a (limited) form of English-language-chauvinism here -- I would likewise expect a (perfectly reasonable) German-language-chauvinism on the German-language wiki. As I am not fluent in German, I do not edit there -- and would expect that somebody who was not fluent in English to have the good sense not to edit here (part of WP:COMPETENCE is competence with the language that a given wiki is written in). Edit here, or don't edit here -- but expect to be expected to edit in English whilst here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The German wikipedia is not so chauvinistic, it is Anglophile. And the English wikipedia is not so chauvinistic as You state:

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)#No established usage: It can happen that an otherwise notable topic has not yet received much attention in the English-speaking world, so that there are too few English sources to constitute an established usage. Very low Google counts can but need not be indicative of this. If this happens, follow the conventions of the language in which this entity is most often talked about (German for German politicians, Turkish for Turkish rivers, Portuguese for Brazilian towns etc.). --Moi Ossi (talk) 10:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Except that you have not established that "there are too few English sources to constitute an established usage" for Freie Theologische Hochschule Gießen & Staatsunabhängige Theologische Hochschule Basel -- and it is very clear that "English sources to constitute an established usage" do exist for Theological University of the Reformed Churches. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Marxism

What is not clear with Schirrmacher holding the Marxism as secular form of the Judeochristian religion? --Moi Ossi (talk) 11:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

1. Secularism and religion are near-antonyms.
2. Marxism is on record as stating that 'religion is the opiate of the masses'
3. Calling Marxism a 'a secular form of the Judeochristian religion' therefore is more-than-slightly in need of further explanation.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Relevance of Hans Naumann

Hans Naumans relevance is first based on his notability which brought him a wikipedia-entry and second he completes the differentiated picture of Schirrmachers view towards the Nazi-time.--Moi Ossi (talk) 11:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

1. The article on Hans Naumann is, to say the least, rather thin on detail (and elaboration on his notability)
2. In particular it leaves his relationship with Nazism rather vague -- simply a cryptic remark on book burning
3. Therefore it remains rather a mystery why anybody should care as to whether the basis of his relationship to Nazism was native xenophobia or a servile desire to polish his masters' image -- and why the answer to this question is more worthy of answering than the answer to the equivalent question about any of the hundreds of members of Category:Nazis and its subcategories.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I am willing to provide sources

This is an article about myself, but it is a mass, the German wikipedia article is much better. I am willing to provide hundreds of English internet sources, so someone can make a good article out of it. Who is interested to receive them? Religionssoziologe (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Denomination?

Does he belong to a denomination of Christianity? --Kaihsu (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

A pastor without a church and a bishop without a diocese? Kaihsu (talk) 07:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

In what sense is this person an Anglican bishop?

The community that purportedly consecrated him is hardly documented, and doesn’t belong to the Anglican Communion (though yes, I am aware of exceptions). The reference given was WP:PRIMARY and has become dead. Kaihsu (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The best I can figure out is Anglican realignment. – Kaihsu (talk) 13:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Notability

Article reads like ADVERT, and although overstuffed with sources, the claim to notability is not clear, nor is is clear that sources support it. An editor who sees notability here could clarify this point by reducing the article to material to SIGVOV that is supported by WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Kaihsu (talk) 07:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Complete Revision

Hello together. I think the notability of Prof Schirrmacher is no question. He is one of the most famous evangelicals in Europe (and maybe around the world). I had many problems with this wikipedia-entry: So first I tried to make it more readable as you can see. I hope that I succeeded in doing it? It was my main concern to emphasize the main focus of Schirrmachers work: The fight for human rights and religious freedom and also his ecumenical work.

I also deleted some references because most of them where still not available; I also deleted a reference on one of Schirrmachers doctoral dissertation because the reference only says where the dissertation was cited (and that certainly not completely) and that does not make any sense in my view. I have to admit that I am new to wikipedia and would have asked for deleting before doing it if I had known what I know now about working on wikipedia. So sorry for that!

I would further suggest to delete the complete "Views"-section because it is very selective and doesn't touch the centre of Schirrmachers work (Ethics, Persecution of Christians, Religious Freedom, Human Rights, ...). So it does not give a really good overall view of what Schirrmacher thinks and teaches.

I will try to add more of his Works and complete the Books and Articles. I am not a native english speaking person, so I need your help. I also would be pleased if we can rework the references because I think they are not always suitable and need some correction. Thanks and Greetings! Re145vision (talk) 09:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

PS: I will delete the Bibliography section because I can not see what the book mentioned there has to do with Schirrmacher!? Re145vision (talk) 09:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Thomas Schirrmacher. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://portal.d-nb.de/resolver.htm?referrerResultId=Thomas%2BSchirrmacher%2526any&referrerPosition=12&identifier=123883717
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://portal.d-nb.de/opac.htm?method=showFullRecord&currentResultId=atr%253D123883717%2526any&currentPosition=43
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/kultur/buchrezensionen/hitlers_religion_1.586888.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140103114317/http://www.thomasschirrmacher.net/blog/leopold-von-ranke-regarding-my-grandfather-friedrich-wilhelm-schirrmacher/ to http://www.thomasschirrmacher.net/blog/leopold-von-ranke-regarding-my-grandfather-friedrich-wilhelm-schirrmacher/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)