Talk:Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Wisconsin, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Wisconsin.

[edit] Use of the WELS logo

The WELS logo is copyrighted or trademarked, or whatever you call it. Wikipedia does not have permission to post this logo. I ask that it be removed. The WELS could sue, you know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.160.64.49 (talk • contribs) 21:43, April 1, 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. Doesn't this fit under fair use? And frankly, WELS isn't going to sue unless someone did something wonky with it. As it is right now, they're likely thrilled that they have such a great entry on Wikipedia. I don't see a problem here. --Lendorien 00:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The WELS is not described all that kindly on Wikipedia. The WELS believes in Biblical Innerancy, which, lets face it, is not well presented on Wikipedia. The WELS do not want to be construed as agreeing with a heterodox organization. They do not want their members to contribute to any organization that teaches false doctrine. That includes some that you might not expect, like Habitat for Humanity. They don't want to give the false impression of agreement. Giving the permission to use the logo is seen as a kind of approval for how WELS is presented, which, because of the links to other Wikipedia articles, if nothing else, is not all that well.

Also, there is some screwing around on the articles dealing with the Lord's Supper, such as consubstantiation and Sacramental Union, which basically present the ELCA view that Luther doesn't agree with what the WELS currently teaches about the physical consumption of Jesus's physical Body and Blood under bread and wine. If you don't believe me, go to these articles and contrast what they say versus what the WELS says in it's scholarly articles.available here

If there are no responses, I will remove the logo.--192.160.64.49 19:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you feel the WELS entry needs correction or clarification in those regards, make those changes. Wikipedia strives for accuracy, and your help in improving it is welcome. As for the errors or lack of positional descriptions in the other articles, again, feel free to add them to correct the problems if you see there are some.

On another point, Wikipedia is not a religious organization. It's an encyclopedia. As a WELS member, I can assure you that I'm not going to be excommunicated for writing here. While false doctrine may be present on wikipedia from the WELS POV, it behooves us to present the WELS POV in addition to the others so that we are accurately represent by ourselves, rather than inaccurately by others. At the same time, as Wikipedia editors, we must strive to maintain an encyclopaedic tone.

As far as the use of the WELS logo goes, it is covered under fair use law. See Wikipedia:Fair Use for more details on the policy of fair use on Wikipedia. There is not a legal problem with its use here, and there is no reason to remove it. --Lendorien 19:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand that Wikipedia is not a religious organization. However, the Historical Criticism page accuses "conservative Bible Scholars" as taking part in Historical Criticism simply by virtue of the use of "confessional documents." The idea is to accuse people in WELS of hypocracy if they ever denounce someone else's theology as adhereing to historical criticism. I think it is best to let the WELS resolve this dispute. I have sent the WELS an email to a special email address that is only for questions dealing with the WELS logo. I will post WELS response on this page so that the appropriate action can be taken. I don't think you would be excommunicated, but be aware that the WELS does not want to give false impressions of agreement. Do note that the LCMS page had it's logo removed after those that claimed it was "fair use" were shown to be wrong. Someone might look at this page, compare it to the LCMS page, and conclude that the WELS, unlike the LCMS, gave permission to use it's logo. This is a potential false impression.--192.160.64.49 21:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree with your course of action regarding the logo then, It's probably the best thing to do under the circumstances. I was not aware of the LCMS issue.

As an aside, just because the Historical Criticism page accuses conservative Bible scholars of what you specify does not mean it refers specifically to WELS theologeons. And frankly, if you feel such a statement is a POV one, bring it up on that article's talk page for discussion. Most editors are willing to discuss such things, and make corrections to fix such issues.

Furthermore, just because there is an article about the WELS here doesn't mean it's giving an impression of agreement to error. Besides, you can help fix that problem. If you see errors or exclusions on the WELS page about the WELS position, do go ahead and correct them. --Lendorien 04:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe something on the WELS confirmation should be mentioned? Seeing that the WELS has used this for several years now.

[edit] Fair use

Use of the logo by Wikipedia is clearly protected under Fair Use. It is not necessary to seek permission to use a logo under fair use. Please read Wikipedia:Logos. --BaronLarf 17:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)