This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Diet of Worms article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 28, 2005, January 28, 2006, and January 28, 2007. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Someone do a write-up? This was an important historical event. --Dante Alighieri 16:22 Dec 3, 2002 (UTC)
I've read about the Diet of Worms before, in connection with the Reformation (in Encyclopaedia Brittanica), but it was referred to as the Imperial Diet of Worms. It caused me no end of headscratching as, without knowing the specific meaning of the word 'diet', it could be interpreted very differently. But anyway, I digress. Is the use of the word 'Imperial' important and something that should be mentioned here? cferrero 17:31 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)
I am going to edit this line: This argument struck at the heart of the Roman Catholic Church's teachings that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, and not Scripture. The way it is currently written might lead one to believe the Church sees itself as superceding scripture. Any objections to my edit? DKK
That might be what you believe, but... Catholics believe that three things is the heart of teaching; Scripture (bible), Tradition (teachings passed down via word of mouth), and the Magisterium (the ruling body of the church; pope, bishops, etc.) Some Catholics say it is like a three legged stool; taking out Tradition and the Magisterium would make the stool fall over, and hence not stand. It needs all three to stand.
umm, didn't the church see itself as superceding Scripture (which is precisely what the problem was)?
Thank you for editing~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.62.93.89 (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should the British or American spelling be used? Defence of Defense? Does Wikipedia have an official preference?
Several of us are editing the Martin Luther article to simpify it and thought this text would helpful here. Please feel free to adjust it.
--CTSWyneken 12:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest rewording the part where it says "during his return to Wittenburg he disappeared". It is explained later in the article what is meant, but it would be nice to be more specific at this point.
Number 2 & 3 are the same. Number 6 is similar to them. Anonymous__Anonymous 12:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been told it is pronounced not like the little wiggling fishbait, but rather more like "VAHRMS." Would some knowledgable person find a way to put it in the article with correct phonetic pronunciation? Edison 05:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading a document that referred to the Edict of Worms without mentioning the Diet. It was nice that Wikipedia had an article on this. I ask that the community re-consider merging/deleting the article on Edict of Worms and keep it as an article in its own right. Bounton 02:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence should be corrected. The Edict is not the Reichstag. The Reichstag was the assembly. The Edict was the pronouncement that was made there, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sejtam (talk • contribs) 13:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Information on this page regarding the Church's demand seems inaccurate, at least according to the main article on the Exsurge Domine. This article says
"The previous year, Pope Leo X had issued the Papal bull Exsurge Domine, demanding that Luther retract forty-one of his 95 theses and other writings related to or written by him that criticised the Church."
The article on Exsurge Domine says
"While the bull did not directly condemn all the points of Luther's doctrines, it did specifically demand that Luther retract 41 errors (some drawn from his 95 theses, some from other writings or sayings attributed to him) within sixty days of its publication in neighboring regions to Saxony."
The latter claims that the 41 "errors" were not each from the 95 theses, but spread across his various works. The former implies something different. Clarification is necessary, whichever the true case is. 69.134.147.146 21:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)DD[reply]
Indeed, the English pronunciation of this conjures up a less-than-appetizing image.
Thankfully, in the German language, the second vowel is the one pronounced. So "diet" is pronounced "deet." The letter 'W' in German is pronounced 'V' ... therefore no more eating of worms. :) 69.148.120.237 (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed this and I have no idea how to get rid of it. Just telling people that its there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.166.2.43 (talk) 09:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The intro talks claims Martin Luther consumed a literal "diet of (earth)worms." Half the article is in German.This needs some attention bad, and I'm not the one to do it.Iamme2008 (talk) 11:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth are you talking about? Troll? Sejtam (talk) 04:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has been changed now, but it had been terribly vandalized.Iamme2008 (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article says that: "When the counselor put the same questions to Luther, he said: "They are all mine, but as for the second question, they are not all of one sort." Luther went on to place the writings into three categories". Unfortunately the question referenced isn't anywhere to be found. I don't think that I can edit it properly myself, hopefully someone else can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smors (talk • contribs) 18:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{{redirectstohere|'''Edict of Worms'''}} ++[[template:expert|History or Theology Expert help needed]] MISSING COVERAGE OF [[Edict of Worms]] (redirect target)
Somewhere I read that bock beer from Einbeck was brought to Luther to "sustain" him during the Diet of Worms. Anyone know anything about this? (Maybe it was to make the diet more palatable!) Sca (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The citations within this article is just plain terrible and needs to be changed...and much of this is plagiarized as well. Theology10101 (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The "Diet of Worms" is from German and pronounced as "Deet of Vorms"."
The modern German word is Reichstag, not Diet. I assume the spelling "Vorms" means /'vɔrmz/. Any sources for how "Diet of Worms" is pronounced in English? Lfh (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Diet of Worms had been called to deal with the Turkish threat, NOT Luther. Before he even stuck up the papers preparations for the diet had been underway for quite some time and yet this article is entirely about Luther and nothing but. Yes the most important thing now is Luther, but at the time most people didnt care, it was a sideline, it was not the key issue of the meeting.
Which is the actual correct translation Here I stand; I can do no other or Here I stand; I can do no otherwise I no its a technicality but which is actually correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.3.250 (talk) 02:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This edit from Oct. 05, 2010 was copied verbatim from here, with a single "-Dennis Bratcher" attached at the end as acknowledgment. Perhaps the original author did this revision? If so, it would be nice to have proof, and the name stuck on the end needs to be expunged. Otherwise this should be deleted. 216.195.28.24 (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, 'The Edict of Worms 1521 ... was a [should be 'an'] edict ... and is most memorable for the Edict of Worms (Wormser Edikt)'. The Edict was an edict which is most memorable for the Edict? No kidding. Also, should 'edict' maybe redirect to Edict rather than Reichstag (institution)? I found that a little confusing.--Lopakhin (talk) 09:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone offer help regarding this quote which is often attributed to Martin Luther as having been said at The Diet of Worms: "Since your Majesty and your Lordships ask for a plain answer, I will give you one without either horns or teeth. Unless I am convicted by Scripture or by right reason (for I trust neither in popes nor in councils, since they have often erred and contradicted themselves) - unless I am thus convinced, I am bound by the texts of the Bible, my conscience is captive to the Word of God."
Is this a true quote? Was their a transcription of The Diet of Worms? Was it said by Luther at any point? I've seen it listed in books such as "The Life and Letters of Martin Luther" by Persevered Smith and many other books which quote the Persevered Smith book, but is their any original material that supports this claim - I was unable to gauge Persevered Smith's research into this matter. Does the quote exist anywhere prior to Persevered Smith's work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.183.13.58 (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this also known as the Concordant of Worms, or is that something else?--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to source this page at the moment, but I found some good sources that a lot of the facts are in if anyone else has time. [1] [2] Islandcalypso (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Diet of Worms. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the introduction to the article omits the most important information, namely the questioning of Luther and a description of the Edict. I would suggest writing an additional two sentences based on the material in these two sections. I'm very far from an expert, however, and hesitate to write these sentences myself. Ishboyfay (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I overcame my hesitation. A real historian should take a careful look at the new introduction. Ishboyfay (talk) 06:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
== Editing Diet of Worms (section)
Editing Edict of Worms (section)