Talk:Wilhelm Busch (pastor)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because <it is bibliographical article as any other, present in various national Wikipedias with present links and person as a Nazi resister is especially important for subject on Lutheran-ism and confessing Church>. — Stephfo (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I have declined the speedy delete nomination. Looks like this article is likely to survive AfD too, especially now that it has been improved since it was nominated. Good work! ~Amatulić (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Title (priest?)

I am not sure that "(priest)" is a good disambiguator. I am not a native speaker of English and may be wrong on this point, but to my ears "priest" has reasonably strong Catholic or Anglican connotations even though I understand it can be used also for Lutherans. I think "pastor" or "clergyman" might be better. Google seems to have a lot more hits for "Lutheran pastor" than for "Lutheran priest". Hans Adler 19:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. You are correct that "priest" can be used in a broad sense, but more often carries a Catholic meaning which clearly does not apply here. "Pastor" seems preferable, since that's the term used in the article so far. Unless anyone objects, I can go ahead and make that move.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree as well. I'd say wait until the AfD closes before making the move, though. No hurry. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Yup, that's what I'm waiting for. I withdrew the nomination, so whenever an admin gets to it.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

If there's a clear consensus that keeping the article is not controversial, you don't need an admin. As the nominator you can close your own AfD if you withdraw it. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

For most Protestants, pastor or minister is more commonly used than priest. Please make the change when the AfD is closed. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

If you'd perform the change, please adjust it also in wikiquote and commons.Thanx.--Stephfo (talk) 03:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for not looking at the discussion before moving it. I just wanted to fix the issue of Stephfo's cut-and-paste move before the new title acquired any history. I thought "clergyman" was a sufficiently neutral term to use in a Lutheran context. --Hegvald (talk) 12:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but clergyman is from protestant Lutheran perspective even more odd than priest, IMHO, please revert your changes back to consensus on pastor. Thanx.--Stephfo (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't find "clergyman" odd (cf. List of Lutheran clergy), but if you prefer "pastor", I have no major objections (to me, "pastor" has some shade of non-established church use, e.g. baptist, methodist etc., but that may just be my subjective notion). --Hegvald (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It very much depends on particular Lutheran, if he is member of pietist and confessing church movement then clergy is more than odd, IMHO, please implement the consensus. Tahnx--Stephfo (talk) 13:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't. You need an administrator to move the article to your preferred title. That is not a result of my move but of your own original cut-and-paste move. I have already asked you to take a look at the message from User:Theroadislong on your own talk page (and you should have done so in any case). That message explains this issue. --Hegvald (talk) 14:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I read it several times and I cannot find there any call for action wrt. this article let alone justification for your change against consensus but rather just the general guidelines for the future. It does not explain why consensus on pastor should be replaced by clergyman whatsoever.--Stephfo (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems rather pointless to continue this discussion when you have no interest in reading explanations already given to you. --Hegvald (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Stephfo, are you even reading what other users are writing? I'm beginning to think this language barrier is too much of a problem... You copied the article to (pastor) incorrectly, and the only way to fix it was to move it to (clergyman). Now, the only way to move it back to (pastor) requires an admin, and we need to wait for that. Please be patient.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but this is quite odd explanation, you can revert any removal without the need to create anything on top of that, IMHO. There is nothing indicating that revert of priest to its original form should not be possible.--Stephfo (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but this is quite odd explanation, you can revert any removal without the need to create anything on top of that, IMHO. There is nothing indicating that revert of priest to its original form should not be possible, let alone any mention of clergyman.--Stephfo (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

This may sound rude, but to edit Wikipedia competence is required. Several people have explained to you that there are technical restrictions. You made a copy and paste move. That was wrong. That is forbidden. Nobody blames you because you could not know it, but it was still wrong. Because it creates problems. One of the problems is that now we can no longer move the article to the best name. It was your mistake and we cannot fix it for you. Only an admin can fix your mistake. And an admin will not do it before the AfD is over. Is it so hard to wait 4 days? Is it better to make several editors angry with your absurd insistence that it is somehow our fault? Hans Adler 22:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

To say it in easier language: We all agree that Wilhelm Busch (priest) is a better title than Wilhelm Busch (clergyman). But none of us is able to move the article. We must ask an admin to do it. Some people think that articles should never be moved while there is an active AfD discussion. Therefore, if we ask an admin before the AfD is over, the admin will likely not do it. Therefore we must wait until the AfD is over, and then ask an admin. Hans Adler 22:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for that, my mistake, I took on trust the honesty of declaration "I withdrew the nomination" and had no idea that it is in discrepancy with reality. --Stephfo (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not "in discrepancy with reality". Mann jess has withdrawn the nomination with this edit by writing I'll withdraw the nomination. The next step is that an admin sees this and closes the AfD. I have seen that this is not the first time that you have accused a fellow editor for dishonesty for no valid reason at all. If you continue with this behaviour your career here will be short. Hans Adler 23:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Then I publicly apologize to Jess, the word "honesty" was really surplus, I could use better wording. He was writing in past tense hence I wanted to point that in discrepancy was claim with actual status of withdrawal in terms of closed AfD, my wording was really bad. Thank you for showing me my mistake. --Stephfo (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Moving

I can perform any move to any name, but since I participated in the AfD I cannot close it. Another admin must do that, or Jess can do that if he wants, since he's the nominator and the consensus to keep is obvious. Just decide what to call it, and I can perform the move even if the target name already exists. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Really? Well, I participated in the discussion, but I still closed it. As a non admin. Per WP:IAR. StAnselm (talk) 00:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Yup. I was just about to close it, but StAnselm beat me to it. We should be good to go on the move. (BTW, according to Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure#Appropriate_closures, regular users can close an AfD when it qualifies for speedy keep, so no IAR necessary)   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The IAR bit came from me being a participant in the discussion. WP:NACD says "Closing discussions in which you have offered an opinion... should be avoided." StAnselm (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

For my part, I don't recall ever having to invoke IAR, but I guess that was a good call since the nominator indicated it should be closed. In any case, WP:SNOWBALL applies here, so all is well.

So what do you want to call this fellow? Priest is apparently out. Clergyman works as a general-purpose descriptor. Would Pastor be better?

Might it be best to use the way he was referred to during his lifetime? I note that some clergy are called "Vikar" in Germany (see Vicar#Lutheran usage), but I don't know if that applies here either.

Looking through Category:Lutheran clergy and subcategories, I find an article with the disambiguator "pastor" and another one with "Lutheran minister". There's also a whole category of articles Category:Lutheran priests and Category:Lutheran bishops, so perhaps "priest" isn't so far-fetched — or perhaps these categories need cleaning up. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I would say Wilhelm Busch (minister) is best. StAnselm (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. Minister is ambiguous, and for a minor German politician (which he also was) it's even worse than that: It is more likely to be read as member of a government because German has the word only in that context. Didn't we have a consensus for "pastor"? What's wrong about that? Hans Adler 08:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with "pastor" but it would be nice to know how the sources refer to him. As far as I can tell, the online German sources refer to him as an evangelist. I also see the term "Pfarrer" which translates to either minister or pastor depending on the dictionary. If he is known primarily for his evangelism, and that is what makes him notable, then perhaps Wilhelm Busch (evangelist) would be most appropriate. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

In German, I think there is a strong tendency to prefer pastor when someone is both pastor and evangelist. Probably because pastor is an office with high social prestige while an evangelist may be unemployed. For Germans that's an important difference. Whether to apply German or American standards in the disambiguation is a matter of judgement. Both are fine to me. Hans Adler 13:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and I really think we are wasting way too much time with this person. Hans Adler 13:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Good enough discussion. "Pastor" it is. Move complete. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

File:WilhelmBuschPriest1.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:WilhelmBuschPriest1.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the image again as it was clearly copied from here [1] without permission.Theroadislong (talk) 13:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

This image copied from a 1993 book cover, has been added again. Fair use suggests it is OK to use it to illustrate an article discussing the book in question but not anything else?.Theroadislong (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

File:WilhelmBuschPastor1.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:WilhelmBuschPastor1.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 5 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Legacy

I have removed the content about Ulrich Parzany I don't believe it has enough relevance to the article's subject. I have also re-added the quotefarm maintenance template since the excessive quote problem has still not been resolvedTheroadislong (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree on Parzany; that's irrelevant to Busch. Besides, the sources for that paragraph were rather poor: Primary sources linking Parzany to Busch, secondary sources about Busch's later importance which do not mention Busch at all. Even the primary sources did not support all we said in that paragraph. Huon (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree. It's about Busch's legacy and if he's influenced an important successor to someone like Graham, that seems reasonable enough to say. Of course, citations are important, but let's give the editor a chance, rather than reverting his efforts. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

From the sources we had, I cannot even tell how Busch influenced Parzany (the term used in the one source which has something to say about their relationship is "particularly affected", which does not tell much), and unless it is central to Parzany succeeding Graham, I don't see why Busch's influence on Parzany is any more relevant to Busch than his influence on all the other people who did not become Graham successors. Of course, if reliable secondary sources discuss Busch's influence on Parzany, please go ahead and add them. Huon (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed though if Ulrich Parzany really was an important successor to someone like Graham then he would surely have his own article and it might be a different matter.Theroadislong (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm not getting your point. As a matter of fact, Parzany was successor of Billy Graham in ProChrist evangelistic campaigns.

The information that [Billy Graham started ProChrist in Essen in 1993] [2] [3] (Dan Wooding chats with Billy Graham in Essen, Germany, during Mr. Graham's Pro Christ crusade there.) can be denied only by applying a great deal of narrow-minded thinking. I hope this is clear. And if you oppose that Parzany was successor of Billy Graham in ProChrist campaigns, then I think it is utterly illogical, because you are basically trying to say that this document (that was removed from article) stating about Parzany that "since 1994 [he has been] Head of the evangelistic project “ProChrist”"; as well as thousands of people who saw him preaching both in big halls and over satellite on multiple occasions during campaigns, had a mirage. I'm not aware of any WP policy that demands that if sources claim that someone was influenced by other people (Ulrich Parzany ...Durch die Jugendarbeit des Essener Weigle-Hauses - damals geleitet von dem Pfarrer und Evangelisten Wilhelm Busch - kam er 1955 zum Glauben an Jesus und wirkte bis 1961 ehrenamtlich in der missionarischen Jugendarbeit mit. (In English: Through the youth work of Weigle-Haus Essen – that time led by the pastor and evangelist William Busch – in 1955 he came to faith in Jesus and participated on a voluntary basis in missionary work with young people until 1961.) then this information is not acceptable by WP. Moreover, it does not take too much logical thinking to realize that if YMCA house activities were led by Busch and Parzany came to faith there, that the answer to your question is very simple: Parzany was influenced by the activities Busch was doing in this house which are very well described, and by attending them, i.e. by direct face-to-face contact. That's very obvious context used by source. Moreover, it sounds completely insane that any other sources than a person himself should know by whom he was influenced. From what other source they could have it if not from the person himself? Are they living his life? Are they going to contradict him: No, you were not influenced by him, it is just your false impression! Imagine that no other sources would say that Parzany or anyone else known as living on this Earth was born, would you remove the information of his birth from article dedicated to him because according to your logic, if no other source that the one close to him/her mentions it, you are convinced that he/she is not existing, he/she never was born and the birth date should not be given and should be immediately removed? These are very strange far-fetched arguments hard to come to grips with. All this information is very well verifiable hence I'm really not sure what you are after, please explain. If possible, have a look at this if it might not pertain to you why some people are leaving Wikipedia. Also, if there is no article about Parzany on WP, then from where I had that picture of him preaching at ProChrist? en.wiki is not the whole world and if something interesting is at en.wp missing that should be motivation for making up for the leeway and not acting like "self-appointed deletionist Wikipedia topic police" as someone put it.--Stephfo (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Stop ranting and going at it with bad faith and personal insults. Just discuss calmly and use sources. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Please may you go into details what you regard for personal insult and what edit was w.o sources? Please explain. Thanx.--Stephfo (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

As you've been told before, calling other editors potentially malicious is not OK. Immediately speaking of "a great deal of narrow-minded thinking" when Theroadislong doubts the importance of Parzeny's succession to Graham is also not the most civil course of action. Regarding sources, the German quotation you gave above says nothing about any influence Busch had on Parzany. In particular, it does not say, as our paragraph used to do, that Parzany became a voluntary co-worker because he had found his faith or because he was influenced by Busch - to me it says rather the opposite; he found his faith through his youth work. One might interpret it as saying that the youth work itself was a more significant factor than Busch's leadership. I don't think a personal interpretation of a primary source, not backed up by a secondary source, improves the article. Wikipedia policy agrees: Material should not be based entirely on primary sources. Are there secondary sources discussing Busch's influence on Parzeny? If not, we should probably not cover it. Huon (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)