Talk:Münster rebellion

Source
Concerning Matthys' private parts nailed to a gate - I am not lobbying for inclusion or exclusion. The info, though undocumented, is found in Anthony Arthur's "The Tailor King" on page 66. - Rlvaughn 04:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Naming Your Sources?
Did the author of the Anabaptists page at http://www.worldspirituality.org/anabaptists.html crib from the Wikipedia page on the Münster rebellion, or have the word-for-word quotes been taken by the wikipedia-author from that page? In my view, such quotes should be shown to be quotes. If Wikipedia is the source, please get rid of this question. 74.71.249.187 02:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Aftermath
The writer (a writer?) says, in the "Aftermath" section:

The Mennonites, for example, have been identified with the earlier Anabaptists, on the ground that they included among their number many former Münster Anabaptists. But if the continuity of a sect is traced in its principles, and not in its adherents, then the Mennonites had little do with their violent, polygamous predecessors.

With respect, this is nonsense. Why are we interested in the aftermath at all? Because some Anabaptists, exposed to the insanities of Bockelson, changed their minds. The aftermath consists of, precisely, that change of mind, and perhaps the pacific ideas of the Mennonites are a direct response to the violence and madness of Bockelson's (aka King John's) rule. The use of "if" in the second sentence is, in short, a classic weasel word, since there is no reason to accept that conditional assertion. It's just a way for a current-day Mennonite to express his/her fear that somebody, somewhere, might link his/her sect with a bad history. Get over it. Many Christian sects have bad histories. Our obligation here, as historians, is to speak the truth, not to cringe and make obfuscatory statements about the past for fear of what people might think in the present.70.79.138.123 (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It always depends on your definitions. If we define "Anabaptism" as "following the Schleitheim confession" (as most scholars due today) then quite obviously, the Münster Rebellion was not an Anabaptist movement. EternallyNow (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Rebellion?
In the country where it happened, the matter has never been called "rebellion" but the "Münster baptist empire" which can still be found in all history books of the Federal Republic of Germany as "Täuferreich von Münster".

why did the guild craft supported the polygamy in Münster Rebellion?
why did the guild craft supported the polygamy in Münster Rebellion?--84.110.1.114 (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Münster rebellion. 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/20110708093849/http://www.brintrup.com/PAGES/FILME.PAGES.HTML/08.STEP%20SPIELREGEL/SPIELREGEL.E.html to http://www.brintrup.com/PAGES/FILME.PAGES.HTML/08.STEP%20SPIELREGEL/SPIELREGEL.E.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Violent wing history
On the revert where I added about the violent wing of the movement ... The mainline Anabaptist movement has 500 years of fairly easily traceable history, up to the current Amish, Mennonite, Hutterites, etc. But the point in adding "the violent wing" is because after Munster that part of Anabaptism started fading away, and the Batenburgers (a small violent sub-sect of Anabaptism) went into hiding basically until they ceased to exist a few decades later. In the history of the Anabaptist movement, these violent ones are a very small minority, probably in the 1% of the numberical number. It seems that the article should be worded to reflect that Munster was mostly an abnormality of a violent wing of Anabaptism, not the mainline Anabaptist movement that has continued until today in mostly pacifist form. Mikeatnip (talk) 00:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You have to produce sources to support your view. This is how Wikipedia works. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC).
 * I understand your concern. Interestingly, the original statements in the sentences I edited are unsourced. :-) And they are incongruous with even the following paragraph, let alone the entire history of the Anabaptist movement. But at the moment I do not have time to dig through my books to find a specific page number to support my change, so I will let it ride for now. I was hesitant to revert your reversion because you are a long-time editor, so I did revert with respect to your editorial experience. You are not really asking anything outside of Wikipedia standards. Perhaps the phrases in question should have a "source needed" tag, but I am limited in time and only occasionally work on Wikipedia. I was just trying to clarify that the violent wing of Anabaptism is the part with the cloudy history, not the entire movement (which has been mostly non-violent/pacifist). Mikeatnip (talk) 12:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)