Talk:Diet of Worms

Write-up

Someone do a write-up? This was an important historical event. --Dante Alighieri 16:22 Dec 3, 2002 (UTC)

Imperial Diet

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)

No. In contemporary historiography, "Imperial Diet" typically is used to refer to all such assemblies or attendees thereof collectively, and an individual Diet is called "The Diet of x," where x is the location (typically a city or large castle) where the Diet took place. Generally speaking, regional assemblies were called Landstände or Landtage. "Imperial Diet of Worms" is overly precise, but not strictly wrong.--Masque (talk) 00:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

about to edit

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)?

No objection. My understanding is that the Catholic Church saw and sees tradition as unfolding the teachings of the Scripture. One Catholic told me it was like a rosebud opening. The whole rose is there, but when it opens it is more beautiful and fragrant. The argument Lutherans and Protestants make in reply is "yes, but not everything in the tradition of the Church was in that rose when it grew. 8-) What Luther challenged most was the notion of Papal and Concilliar authority. For Luther, it was Scripture alone, not the Scripture seen through the Church's interpretation. The attack on the authority of the church was what moved the Pope and the Emperor to act, and the Lutheran princes to defend. --CTSWyneken 19:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Both argument (and the claim itself) are opinion, and not appropriate for wiki. If you wish to include it, find a quote (and correctly cite it as a quote) from a reputable academic source on the subject, who could be expected to give an authoritative opinion on the matter. Rotovia (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for editing~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.62.93.89 (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Defence?

Should the British or American spelling be used? Defence of Defense? Does Wikipedia have an official preference?

In an article like this both are acceptable, so long as the usage is consistent --Mmartins 09:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

It's a matter of European history, so the spelling from a European language should do.

Simpifying Luther article

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)

It's "simplifying". With an L. -- Apocryphite

disappeared?

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.

Vandalism Target

• 1
• 2 a little funny
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8

Number 2 & 3 are the same. Number 6 is similar to them. Anonymous__Anonymous 12:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, 2 is pretty hilarious. I wonder if it's included in WP:BJAODN? Fuzzform (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation guide needed

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)

I'm not sure how the phonetics alphabet works, so I'm of little help there. The pronounciation depends on whether you're working in English or German. In English, it is like the slimy creature. In German, Ws are pronounced as is the English V. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 12:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been living in Worms now for 5 years. The residents of Worms pride themselves on speaking a special dialect known as "Wormserblatt" or Wormser Speak. Wormserblatt is very glutteral and is quite different from dialects found in Mannheim (High German) ...long answer to your question is that it is pronounced "Vohrms" I perceive the difference between your VAHRMS and my VOHRMS is that it's less nasal and more back of the throat. Hope this helps. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TurboManiacal (talk • contribs) 13:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

merger of Edict of Worms article

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)

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)

The Church's Demand

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

Pronunciation of "Diet of Worms"

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)

Actually, your reply about "diet" is completely wrong. "Diet" is an English word and not used in German. In German this is called "de:Reichstag zu Worms", "Reichstag" (literally "day of the state") meaning the same as the English word "diet". 194.100.223.164 (talk) 11:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Getting rid of the capital A in the MAy in the categories (bottom of page)

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)

This Article needs help!

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)

What on earth are you talking about? Troll? Sejtam (talk) 04:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It has been changed now, but it had been terribly vandalized.Iamme2008 (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Small consistency error

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)

REDIRECT Edict of Worms

• My edit summary is pretty clear:

{{redirectstohere|'''Edict of Worms'''}} ++[[template:expert|History or Theology Expert help needed]] MISSING COVERAGE OF [[Edict of Worms]] (redirect target)

• Ahem! A tad too important to be uncovered! // FrankB 20:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Beer

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)

Citations

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)

Could you give examples of where the bits have been stolen from? And bad citations are not a reason to tag it with a 'this article is not neutral' tag. Ironholds (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

"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)

Not About Luther!

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.

Exact Translation

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)

I'm curious about this, too. The article includes "Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise", which I find far superior to the ungrammatical "Here I stand, I can do no other" which I have heard many times. John Link (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Copyright violation

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)

Intro is a bit of a mess

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)

A quote commonly attributed to Martin Luther

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)

Yes, that quote is basically correct (although I do not know how literal the translation is). That is part of Luther's speech before the Diet of Worms. At this link you can find the speech in German, in a book from 1842 (p. 69-71), before Persevered Smith was even born. The German version is apparently translated from Latin. According to the book, the speech is found in the handwriting of George Spalatin, who was present at the Diet of Worms. -- Lindert (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Concordant of Worms

Isn't this also known as the Concordant of Worms, or is that something else?--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You're probably referring to the Concordat of Worms in 1122, which is indeed something else and predates this particular Diet of Worms by about four centuries. -- Lindert (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

found some sources

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. Islandcalypso (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

References

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120121113340/http://www.ctsfw.edu/etext/graebneral/soteriology.txt to http://www.ctsfw.edu/etext/graebneral/soteriology.txt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed 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).

• 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) 22:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Burying the lede

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)

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)

Link to other wikipedia-page not correct?

The link of Johann Eck in the article takes you a wikipedia page that might not be about the right Johann Eck. According to Graham Tomlin in his book "Luther and his world" (2002) the Johann Eck that questioned Luther at Worms 1521 was another man (a secretary of the archbishop of Trier) than the more well known Johann Eck that debated the protestants in Leipzig 1517. I'm not good at editing English wikipedia pages, but if I'm right some one else might? Hjommd (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

== Editing Diet of Worms (section)

Editing Edict of Worms (section)