Talk:Protestant Reformation

Guide? FTT?

I love how different users contribute to this article and add more facets and places to the topic. Is there any realistic chance this article could be promoted to guide status and selected as featured travel topic for October 2017, on occasion of the 500th anniversary? WV:Travel topic status is not very specific on which criteria make a guide; and I have never participated in a FTT selection, so I do not know if this is feasible at all. --RJFF (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I cannot really think of more sections other than "understand" and "see", neither can I think of more activities. There will probably be some reenactments or theatrical performances linked to the reformation anniversary in 2017. Should we mention them, even if they are just temporary? Of course you can always listen to lectures or sermons, but do they count as activities? --RJFF (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure they do. The problem is that such a list might be hard to curate. And then are performances of music by Protestant composers like Bach relevant? I think we should keep the focus rather narrow, on the Reformation specifically as a matter of history, and not diffusely on Protestantism as an ongoing practice ever since.

As for 2017 anniversary events, they should be listed somewhere, and this seems like a good place for them. The listings can be deleted or suitably edited when they events are over. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Ikan, the article should focus on the reformation, not on protestantism in general. --Erik den yngre (talk) 08:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I do see your point. But Bach is not just a Protestant composer, many of his chorales and cantatas are directly based on texts (and in some cases even melodies) by Luther, which is why I saw a strong connection with the topic. I admit that I have written most of the article by free association: A traveler interested in Protestant Reformation may also be interested in Bach's music, so if they go to Leipzig (as a place strongly related to Reformation), why not also visit the Bach museum or a concert (perhaps a cantata with Luther texts or melodies) once you are there? Nevertheless, I acknowledge that Bach lived nearly two centuries after Reformation, so I have no problem with removing the sentence. --RJFF (talk) 12:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think a single sentence is an issue, but I would point out that J.S. Bach is in no way unique in using Luther's chorale tunes. Those have been staples of Lutheran music since Luther wrote them, and were certainly used big-time by other German Lutheran composers such as Heinrich Schütz and Dietrich Buxtehude. And Lutheran cantatas were inherently liturgical, regardless of who wrote them. J.S. Bach is the most famous Lutheran composer now, but he never was until after the rediscovery of the St. Matthew Passion by Felix Mendelssohn in 1829. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think a general remark about music is problematic either, it just shouldn't become a specific list of Bach performances or anything like that. The suggestion to enjoy a concert with Lutheran music for an extra experience is actually travel relevant, so I'd include it. The article as a whole is still a bit fact-heavy, but that's a problem with all these religion-articles. I would say that for a feature, the travel relevance needs to be as clear as possible. The Understand section mentions that Calvinism became predominant and hugely popular in The Netherlands and the US, but these places don't have any practical travel-mention later on, for example. Are there any sites? JuliasTravels (talk) 12:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure, anything related to Puritanism in Massachusetts. Plymouth Rock is a boring monument, in my opinion, but it does have a historical significance. There's a museum in Plymouth that's very good and has exhibits about colonial life in Plymouth. This is off the top of my head; I feel sure there would be something relevant in Boston and Salem, too, and maybe some other places. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the emigration of Puritans to the North American colonies is a new story and merits a topic of its own. If we define the subject of this article too broadly, it risks to lose coherence. --RJFF (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. The risk of splitting the stories too much, is that you end up with rather encyclopedic articles and relatively little travel/destination info. That is already slightly the case here, for my taste. For me, ideally, our travel topics should be inspired by travel - used to group travel information in a coherent way. It should be a really clear connection, like with our Silk Road article. Religions themselves have a clear travel relevance, but in practice, our articles about them often enough seem to come from an encyclopedic background, with travel and destination information on a second place. I could think of dozens or even hundreds of religious sub-topics for which some destination information could be found, but it would often be a stretch and I rather doubt they really fall into our scope when we split them up too much. I would suggest including the information on the US sites- at least mention the destinations. If the article becomes crowded or confusing, we can always split it off later. But that's just my two cents. JuliasTravels (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I wish that we had some more flexibility of linking to Wikipedia on travel topics such as these. At best our content will be second best, and still distracts us from focusing on the travel aspects. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I do not think that our background contents are necessarily just a "second best" alternative to Wikipedia. The aim and audience is simply different. Wikipedia articles on a certain topic are often very detailed and high-brow. Our "understand" texts can be more condensed, focus on the essentials and perhaps the entertaining or surprising facts, omit less interesting aspects (that could not be admitted at Wikipedia, for the sake of completeness), and written in a language that is easier to understand. Slight oversimplifications are forgivable (or even desirable) in a background section for Wikivoyage, while they would not be accepted in Wikipedia. Someone who is just looking for some background knowledge for his or her next journey perhaps does not want to read a whole Wikipedia article with all that "knowledge ballast". A Wikipedia article about Protestant Reformation needs to be theologically exact, a Wikivoyage article does not, and that may be a plus for some readers! --RJFF (talk) 12:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Of course, but it still applies only as long as our understand and background information are in service of our travel content - and that's the real challenge. It's also a question how realistic it is to think people base their destination choices on any given topic. I can perfectly see visitors of Wittenburg looking for some background information on the Reformation, but I'm not sure our article would then move them to plan their next trip to another place more or less connected to the Reformation. I'm not saying they wouldn't, or that this article shouldn't exist. My point is simply that the more detailed our background story becomes, the less likely it is that there's actual travel impact, and therefore I'd be wary of making these kinds of travel topics too fine-grained. JuliasTravels (talk) 14:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Next year there will be lots of special offers and events with regard to the anniversary of Reformation, at least in Germany (not sure about other countries), and I find it quite likely that some travelers will indeed seize this occasion and plan their journey "in the footsteps of Reformation". This is why I would like to feature this topic in 2017 and not anytime later. --RJFF (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ In Norway, protestantism eventually led to basic, universal education (so that all should be able to read the bible), although interesting historically it happened 200 years later, just like Bach, so it is a bit peripheral for a travel article. --Erik den yngre (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Luther's rampant Jew hatred

Where should we mention Martin Luther's rampant hatred of Jews, which he expressed in writing more than once? This article? Judaism? Both? I don't think this is merely academic, after all, the worst persecutions after the reformation did not necessarily happen in Catholic lands, and I think Luther bears a certain part of the blame. Some even say that Hitler (who was a Roman Catholic, but let's not get side-tracked) more or less "followed Luther's advice"... Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

It could be mentioned in both articles. I think it's certainly relevant to mention it here, and also to mention that at least some Lutheran denominations, such as in the United States, have quite recently apologized for those remarks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

In Germany it seems to me that this year, even secular authorities are relatively uncritical in their celebration of Luther. If his antisemitism is brought up at all, it is by anti-religious people, the radical left (and not even all parts of the radical left agree on it being a huge issue) and the institutions responsible for "political education". At any rate, yes it should be mentioned. I think you are better in not letting your biases slip through when writing something like that. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Really? I'm not so sure, being a Jew myself. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

However, I added a paragraph with paraphrases and a quote from w:Martin Luther and antisemitism and w:On the Jews and Their Lies. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I think your wording is fine, and yes, I have gotten in some pretty ugly "debates" with people who accused me of making an antisemitic mountain out of a "totally not antisemitic" molehill... I'm pretty passionate about the topic, as it turns out. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Anyone who'd make that argument about Luther, considering what he wrote, would have to be a Jew-hater themselves, I'd have to think. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Well let's just say there is a lot of uncritical hero-worship about him in Germany, especially this year, and his Jew hatred is swept under the rug quite a lot. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Apostolic succession

The Church of Norway, unlike the Swedish (Svenska kyrkan), does not claim succession. In fact, succession-line was broken by the Reformation. --Erik den yngre (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Point taken. Anyway, I agree with RJFF's decision to delete the mention of this. It seems a very unimportant point for a traveler to know about, and moreover, in the denominations for which the claim is still made, that is a commonality rather than a difference with Catholicism. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree. No need to mention this detail as it is not informative for the traveller. Erik den yngre (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)