Talk:Anti-clericalism/Archives/2010/December

Peasants' revolt
There is an entry under "Germany" which reads:

"During the Protestant Reformation led by Martin Luther, multiple groups of newly converted Germanic peasants living under the crumbling rule of conflicting Protestant and Catholic German princes. This constant conflict resulted in a widespread violent uprising of the peasants living in serf-like societies all across Germany."

Student7 (talk) 00:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The article is about Anti-clericalism. Lutherans had clerics, as well, of which Luther was one.
 * 2) It gives us the "information" that the Protestant Reformation was led by Martin Luther. This is interesting and even true, but the article is about something else, not the Protestant Reformation nor Luther particularly.
 * 3) "crumbling rule of ....princes." So what? What does a peasant, growing millet care about what some prince is doing. How does this affect the price of millet, or whatever? I don't see the connection nor relevance.
 * 4) "constant conflict". I don't see the need for conflict particularly. Yes, the German princes wanted to break with Rome and encouraged Luther. They were successful. How did this stimulate the peasants, who would be quite upset if their farming cycle was broken. What did they care for politics? It is city/town people who "rise up," historically, not farmer-peasants, who like the status quo because "it works."
 * 5) "serf-like". Serfs didn't care much for being serfs, granted. However, there doesn't seem to be any connection between any event, and stimulation of the serfs. Serfs are not peasants. The latter may own or have some claim to their their land. Serfs might not. Presumably the terms are not interchangeable.
 * 6) "all across Germany." But of course, while German was spoken in the HRE, there was no "Germany" until the 19th century.
 * 7) All unreferenced.
 * 8) Doesn't say what, if anything, this has to do with the WP:TOPIC, which is anti-clericalism.
 * 9) An editor says "don't just delete it, fix it!" I have no idea where to start!
 * Luther being a cleric is irrelevant here. Usually, when we discuss anti-clericalism, we are talking about anti-Catholic or anti-Anglican sentiment.  The point is that Luther was anti-clerical in his attacks on the Catholic clerical establishment.  The fact that there was "no Germany" before the 19th century is a minor issue.  That can be readily fixed with a different locution.


 * As for what all this has to do with anti-clericalism, ... let's back up. This all started when anon editor 174.111.240.228 added text about the Peasants' revolt that was quickly reverted.  My point in attempting to restore it was that we should look at whether the editor had a valid point that was poorly expressed and inadequately referenced.  If the point is valid, then we should take on the task of expressing it in an encyclopedic way and look to find the appropriate sourcing.  If the point is invalid, the highest quality prose won't make it encyclopedic.


 * I readily acknowledge that I know very little about this particular aspect of anti-clericalism so I will explain my position as best as I can but still I am very open to changing my mind given evidence to the contrary.


 * The key question IMO is whether the Peasants' Revolt included a significant element of anti-clericalism. I think I just assumed it did but maybe I'm wrong.  If we look at the Wikipedia article on German Peasants' War, we read "historians disagree on the nature of the revolt and its causes, whether it grew out of the emerging religious controversy centered on Martin Luther; .... Historians have tended to toward categorizing the German peasant war in two ways, either as an expression of economic problems, or as a theological/political statement against the constraints of feudal society."


 * Looking at other descriptions of the Peasants' Revolt, we read that the peasants were "inspired by Luther's anti-clericalism" but that in 1525, Luther repudiated the peasants and sided with the princes against them.


 * So... considering the socio-economic class-warfare aspect of the Peasants' Revolt in Germany, do we want to consider it to have an anti-clerical aspect to it or not?


 * I suspect that we need to step back and look at the larger picture. Anti-clericalism starts before the Reformation and runs well into the 19th and 20th centuries.  However, there is probably never a conflict that is purely "anti-clerical" in nature.  Anti-clericalism is a tool used by one side or another that targets the clergy (usually Catholic) as part of an overall power struggle.  Usually, there is class warfare with the monarchy/nobility/Church on one side and the bourgeois/proletariat/peasantry on the other but not always.  Sometimes, the landed aristrocracy uses anti-clericalism to attack the power of the Church; this happened in at least one Latin American country in the 19th century.


 * My point is that we shouldn't ask whether such and such war or revolt was anti-clerical. Many had an anti-clerical component but few were purely anti-clerical.  What we should ask is what role anti-clericalism played in the war or revolt.  Was there a significant component of anti-clerical sentiment and violence?  Did one side use anti-clericalism as a way of inciting their side to violence?


 * --Richard S (talk) 03:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well CE 1913 seems to think it was mostly economic, but had a anti-clerical (anti-establishment, mainly) bent to it that finally got out of hand as most mob ventures do, and was suppressed with Luther's encouragement, having used the peasants to his own devices earlier. The new entry here seems to have been rewritten to avoid most of my objections. Note that the Peasant War was almost entirely taken from hard copy. And while there is nothing wrong with that, there was once a famous article that appeared for two weeks in Wikipedia that looked pretty much like the Peasants War but was a total fabrication. I did wonder for a moment... :) Student7 (talk) 13:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)