Talk:Martin Luther/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Martin Luther. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Martin Luther and the Jews should be reverted back to its orginal name Martin Luther and Antisemitism

The article and section is all about his antisemitism. Read it, please.Doright 09:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The idea for the section named the way it is is to be broader, encompassing everything that Luther wrote about the Jewish people. Drboisclair 09:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This section should remain under the same title. It is how the issue is framed in the literature. --CTSWyneken 10:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Who moved it and when? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember who (maybe I did). I think it is a NPOV title. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This not a move but a rename. The section has been here since before I started editing. The name change was so long ago, I cannot remember who did it. However, we can revisit the issue, if you two would like. My basic points are:

1. This topic is widely called "Luther and the Jews" in the literature.

By "this topic," I guess you mean the topic of Martin Luther and Antisemitism, since anyone that would like to read the article can clearly see that is in fact the topic.Doright 20:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

2. There are a substantial number of scholars that insist on distinguishing between Luther's anti-Jewish rhetoric and modern, racial anti-semitism. To name it after the views of one or another school would be to favor the one or the other POV. I would also reject, for the same reason, Luther's anti-judaic views... --CTSWyneken 11:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

We are merely using the word as defined in the dictionary [here]. No one is suggesting naming the article Martin Luther and "modern, racial anti-semitism." Please stop repeating strawman arguments.Doright 20:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

What's the difference between a name change and a move?\

And no, there are a few scholars who distinguish between racial and religious anti-Semitism, though not many. How many say that religious anti-Semitism is not anti-Semitism? How many? Please name them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Religious antisemitism and Anti-Judaism are both antisemitism, as the antisemitism and the Anti-Judaism articles state. [Merriam-Webster Dictionary] also says this. The article should be returned to its original name: Martin Luther and Antisemitism. Doright 20:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

To revert would be to revert back to an anachronism. Let's leave something be for once. --Rekleov 20:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

To revert to that title would be non NPOV. Drboisclair 21:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That, too. --Rekleov 21:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Rather unsurpisingly, the name of this section was effectively changed by User:Sam Spade last November, when he moved the sub-article from "Martin Luther and anti-Semitism" to "Martin Luther and the Jews": [1]. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Professor Shmuel Almog of the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem states, "it is currently established procedure to use 'antisemitism' for all types of Jew-hatred." Antisemitism is "applied not just to the modern brand of Jew-hatred but ... to all kinds of enmity toward Jews, past and present." Thus we now say 'antisemitism', even when we talk about remote periods in the past."[[2]] On the basis of the facts presented and discussed above, I plan on restoring the original name. Doright 06:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Intro

The length of the intro paras is quite off-putting. Perhaps for presentational effect a one line intro should be used (name, dates, POB + POD, and reference to reformation), with the rest of the material shunted into an overview section?--shtove 11:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd support this. Do you have a suggested text you could put here? --CTSWyneken 11:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't support that. The intro shouldn't be too short. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I attempted to reword the second paragraph in the into, feel free to undo/improve. I did not notice Ptmccain (talk · contribs) participation in Talk; he seems to think that simple elbowing will work. Such behavior should be discouraged. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. But so should the dismissive automatic revision of what is a legitimate edit. It cuts both ways. If it is fair to undo the work of others without comment, which many of us do, then there's little room to complain when a new editor appears and does the same. So far, only Humus has see fit to talk to him in anything like a calm voice. --CTSWyneken 12:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you feel needs to be changed in the second paragraph of the intro, Humus (of the version that was there before your edits)? I want to make some further tweaks but I'd like to know first which direction you're thinking in so I can accommodate it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Here: [3]. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I saw the edit but can't see what it was about the version that was there that you didn't like, so I'm just checking in case I restore anything that you really don't want. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed it back to the subjunctive in the meantime. The version with "Luther advised to destroy Jewish homes ..." would have to say whom he advised to do this, and he didn't advise any particular group, rather advised that they be destroyed etc. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph in the intro on Luther's view of the Jews is too long for several reasons. First, it is out of character for the rest of the intro, which is intended as an outline of who Luther was and what his significance is. None of these points are longer than a sentence, many are a phrase in length only. The article as a whole is on the long side and it still has other aspects of Luther which are absent and will need to be added. When we go beyond this length, we move from outline to repetative. No encyclopia article on Luther I've checked gives the topic as a whole more than a paragraph and none mention it in the intro. So, to do as we do now is to push the POV that Luther's attitude towards the Jews is the most important aspect of his legacy. Many beg to differ.

I suggest it be reduced to a sentence something like:

The Nazis justified their genocide by citing Martin Luther's venomous words and recommendations for harsh treatment of the Jews.

I'm not committed to the exact wording, but that is a change I can support. --CTSWyneken 12:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It's already only two sentences; there's no need to shorten it further. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Nothing else in the opening paragraph is that long. --CTSWyneken 21:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with CTSWyneken, since there is nothing else in the paragraph that long. my sugggestion of the sentence follows :

The Nazi Regime justified their persecution of the Jews by adhereing to Martin Luther's writings on the treatment and handling of the Jewish people.

Thetruthbelow 01:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I reduced the 'on the jews' statement to one sentence. My goal was to keep it in the intro, make it short and sweet, avoid the terms anti-semitic, anti-judaic (these terms are parsed out and compared at length, in this article and the MLOTJ page), and show the connection to Hitlers final solution. My idea is to keep it in the intro, but not give it any more weight than absolutely necessary.

Mytwocents 18:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Sanitizing Intro

Please note my original edit that provoked the current activity was only one sentence and closely followed the structure of the sentences preceding it. It simply said, "His writings regarding Jews were used to justify their genocide."[[4]]

That edit was reverted 6 minutes later by Drboisclair[[5]] and then again 14 minutes later by StanZegel[[6]]. The edit has been described as vandalism by Drboisclair [here] and [here] and that "It is made with questionable intent," and as "at the very least off-topic" by Rekleov [here]. CTSWyneken then calls the edit "a clumsy attempt," supports its removal from the intro and suggests the topic should not be included in the intro at all. Various versions of it have been reverted by User:Ptmccain at least 10 times so far.

It appears that the essential issue is not its length, rather it is its existence.Doright 19:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The reference to Luther's writings against the Jews in the introduction is an obvious attempt to overshadow his extensive accomplishments. Martin Luther was a man of his times, which were, on the whole, marked by anti-Semitism. The parish church in Wittenberg, St. Mary, had for several hundred years a vulgar anti-Jewish carving near the top of the church. This is not to excuse anything Luther said, which I personally reject and condemn, but it is to indicate that this attempt to make Luther "the" anti-semite of anti-semites is historically inaccurate. The Nazi program against the Jews was *not* anything Martin Luther would have supported and to continually make *this* the leading issue in everything written or said about Luther is simply wrong and betrays an agenda-driven view of history. The article on Luther has pleny on his anti-Jewish writings. The subject does not need to be included in the introduction. -PTMcCain (User:Ptmccain 07:26, 12 May 2006)

PTMcCain, thank you for confirming that the essential issue is not its length, rather it is its existence. Perhaps you can explain how, “His writings regarding Jews were used to justify their genocide,” is historically inaccurate? Methinks thou dost protest too much. By the way, condemning Luther’s antisemitism or asserting that you are not an antisemite yourself does nothing to further your argument, the logic of which I find rather tenuous if not mendacious.Doright 19:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

“Most of Luther's proposals are paralleled in the other anti-Jewish literature of the period, but the specific formulation which follows may be attributed to him. Fortunately, as has been noted above (p. 135), most of the authorities proved unwilling to carry out his recommendations, whether out of horror at their inhumanity or out of self-interest (since Jews played an important role in the economy). It is impossible to publish Luther's treatise today, however, without noting how similar to his proposals were the actions of the National Socialist regime in Germany in the 1930's and 1940's.” [[7]]Doright 19:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

“Apparently Luther anticipates that the political authorities will find his proposals too severe. He envisions and perhaps even sanctions action against the Jews by a Reuterei, probably meaning a band of robber barons.” [[8]]Doright 19:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Doright, why not simply quote from these refs without linking Wikipedia to copyright infringed material (a violation of WP:COPY)? You like quoting people in all situations. Also, I think that it is a violation of WP:CIVIL for you to characterize an editor's work as "mendacious". Drboisclair 20:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

These references should be deleted as per this proof:

All works originally copyrighted after 1964 had their copyrights renewed by act of Congress:

"Public Law 102-307, enacted on June 26, 1992, amended the copyright law to make renewal automatic and renewal registration optional for works originally copyrighted between January 1, 1964 and December 31, 1977."

United States Copyright Office, Circular 15

The work remains under copyright. [Provided by CTSWyneken]. Drboisclair 21:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

User Doright Links to Infringing Works Deleted

Since the works linked to above infringe the copyright of Augsburg Fortress Press (see User Cecropia's Opinion), I have deleted them, per Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works --CTSWyneken 19:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Revert of Recent Luther and the Jews Line

(copied from Jayjg's talk page)

Dear Jay: Paul McCain cited the McKim book for this info. Are you saying that you checked the page in McKim and it isn't there? --CTSWyneken 10:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Paul didn't cite anything for his insertion. The citation was already there, and Paul decided to insert a little original research into the introduction and attribute it to the citation. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... Well, I can pull McKim and check it, if he restores the statement. Or ask him to do it... --CTSWyneken 16:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There's hardly a point, is there? What in Paul's edit history would induce you to imagine that he was capable of entering properly sourced NPOV material into the article, or that he actually had available to him the source that was cited by someone else? Not to mention the fact that it is unlikely that there are any historians who make the claim that Paul made. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I know him in real life. He is a scholar in his own right and has done fine work, when he's inclined to do it. Not that I'm suggesting kid gloves with him, but it is a mistake to simply write him off. He also is inclined to argue and is not known for NPOV.

On the substance of the quote, there are scholars that do maintain that Luther was a child of his time and that anti-semitism (or anti-Judaism, depending on the scholar) was the attitude of almost all Christians of the time. The difference, in their opinion, was not the substance of Luther's rhetoric, but that he wrote only too well. In my view, it makes little different, by the way. Luther ought to have known better, considering his earlier disposition especially. He rightly deserves to be condemned for the attitude and the words expressed in these horrid works.

But my view or yours or McCain's or others do not matter here. What have the scholars said? That's what makes a difference.

By the way, do you know where I can get an article out of Jewish Affairs? I'm having trouble tracking down a library that owns it. I'm trying to verify the citation. --CTSWyneken 17:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The only books by Paul I was able to find were Concordia the Lutheran Confessions: A Readers Edition of the Book of Concord (Hardcover - not yet released) and Communion fellowship: A resource for understanding, implementing, and retaining the practice of closed communion in the Lutheran parish (Unknown Binding - Jan 1, 1992). Are those his scholarly works? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The former is a popular editon of the Book of Concord, the latter one of his scholarly. Most of his scholarly work is in journal article form, essays and chapters in books and as an editor and some work ghost writing. His current position is the Interim President of Concordia Publishing House. For example, Sasse, Hermann,Christ and his church essays. eds. Ronald R. Feuerhahn, Matthew C. Harrison, Paul T. McCain. St. Louis, Mo. : Office of the President, Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, c1997-; Church and ministry : the collected papers of the 150th Anniversary Theological Convocation of The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, eds. Jerald C. Joerz and Paul T. McCain. St. Louis, Mo. : Office of the President, The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, c1998; Mysteria Dei : essays in honor of Kurt Marquart eds Paul T. McCain and John R. Stephenson. Fort Wayne, Ind. : Concordia Theological Seminary Press, c1999. If you'd like, I can locate some of his articles for you. --CTSWyneken 19:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You employ a very broad definition of "scholarly." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you insist on bringing conversations between a user and I into an article talk. It is irrelevant to this article, since I have not quoted Paul McCain in any article on wikipedia, nor do I plan to do so, given a conflict of interest. If an editor's scholarship is important here, perhaps you would care to share your real world identity and qualifications?

Since you have said you dislike endless talk page debates, this is the last I will engage you on this issue. --CTSWyneken 22:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You were the one who raised it by giving your opinion that Ptmcain is a "scholar," as though that matters (and he isn't in my view anyway). All that matters is his behavior here. He's reverting pointlessly and disruptively, in a way that's likely to see him blocked if it continues, and as if to bring that day a step closer, he also vandalized my talk page. [9] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

My point is it is not polite to copy conversations on user talk pages meant to be between two parties and post them to public talk pages. Please do not do this again. Your disputes on other pages are between you and that editor. They really are none of our business. --CTSWyneken 12:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Ptmccain vandalizes my talk page again. [10] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, Ptmccain's behavior is very strange and downright hostile, I would say even blockable. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

MPerel, I do not doubt PTMcCain's behavior is annoying. I think others ought to consider their behavior could be considered so by others, too. In spite of this, he really ought to talk things out and he did come in like a bull in a china shop. But none of this is relevant.

What angers me is having my conversations with editors on their talk pages copied wholesale to a talk page of an article. Slim has a habit of doing this. I know where this page is and if I wanted to work with everyone on something, I'd put it here. By copying this material without so much as asking, she destroys the ability for me to hold semi-private conversations with others and get some work done. I this case, I was simply answering questions from JG. McCain's scholarship is not relevant here, unless I quote one of his writings. I did not.

So I'm not going to discuss it with her. End of story. If she doesn't like the way McCain acts, she can complain to another admin or file an RfC. Keep me out of it, thank you. --CTSWyneken 07:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a "semi-private conversation" on Wikipedia. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It may not be against the rules (which I never said it was). It is just bad form. It discourages people from working things out away from contentious debate before coming back to propose changes. In my book, it is a form of wikistalking. Since Slim is one of only a handful of editors that has ever done this without asking nicely, I would think I'm not alone in feeling this way. I do not want to belabor this. Just know that this behavior irritates me. No more, no less. --CTSWyneken 21:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Discuss article content on article talk pages so that everyone can discuss what you're writing, and is able to see how much of it you write. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Luther and the Jews in the Intro

I'm copying the recent suggestions for a one sentence version of this topic and the accompanying comments here for ease of access. --CTSWyneken 20:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The length of the intro paras is quite off-putting. Perhaps for presentational effect a one line intro should be used (name, dates, POB + POD, and reference to reformation), with the rest of the material shunted into an overview section?--shtove 11:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd support this. Do you have a suggested text you could put here? --CTSWyneken 11:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't support that. The intro shouldn't be too short. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I attempted to reword the second paragraph in the into, feel free to undo/improve. I did not notice Ptmccain (talk · contribs) participation in Talk; he seems to think that simple elbowing will work. Such behavior should be discouraged. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. But so should the dismissive automatic revision of what is a legitimate edit. It cuts both ways. If it is fair to undo the work of others without comment, which many of us do, then there's little room to complain when a new editor appears and does the same. So far, only Humus has see fit to talk to him in anything like a calm voice. --CTSWyneken 12:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you feel needs to be changed in the second paragraph of the intro, Humus (of the version that was there before your edits)? I want to make some further tweaks but I'd like to know first which direction you're thinking in so I can accommodate it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Here: [11]. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I saw the edit but can't see what it was about the version that was there that you didn't like, so I'm just checking in case I restore anything that you really don't want. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed it back to the subjunctive in the meantime. The version with "Luther advised to destroy Jewish homes ..." would have to say whom he advised to do this, and he didn't advise any particular group, rather advised that they be destroyed etc. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph in the intro on Luther's view of the Jews is too long for several reasons. First, it is out of character for the rest of the intro, which is intended as an outline of who Luther was and what his significance is. None of these points are longer than a sentence, many are a phrase in length only. The article as a whole is on the long side and it still has other aspects of Luther which are absent and will need to be added. When we go beyond this length, we move from outline to repetative. No encyclopia article on Luther I've checked gives the topic as a whole more than a paragraph and none mention it in the intro. So, to do as we do now is to push the POV that Luther's attitude towards the Jews is the most important aspect of his legacy. Many beg to differ.

I suggest it be reduced to a sentence something like:

The Nazis justified their genocide by citing Martin Luther's venomous words and recommendations for harsh treatment of the Jews.

I'm not committed to the exact wording, but that is a change I can support. --CTSWyneken 12:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It's already only two sentences; there's no need to shorten it further. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Nothing else in the opening paragraph is that long. --CTSWyneken 21:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with CTSWyneken, since there is nothing else in the paragraph that long. my sugggestion of the sentence follows :

The Nazi Regime justified their persecution of the Jews by adhereing to Martin Luther's writings on the treatment and handling of the Jewish people.

Thetruthbelow 01:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could reverse the order:

Martin Luther's writings on the treatment and handling of the Jewish people was used by the Nazi Regime to justify their persecution of the Jews.

Mytwocents 18:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I reduced the 'on the jews' statement to one sentence. My goal was to keep it in the intro, make it short and sweet, avoid the terms anti-semitic, anti-judaic (these terms are parsed out and compared at length, in this article and the MLOTJ page), and show the connection to Hitlers final solution. My idea is to keep it in the intro, but not give it any more weight than absolutely necessary.

Mytwocents 18:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I can live with both Thetruthbelow's version and Mytwocents' version. What do you all think? --CTSWyneken 20:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Sanitizing Intro 1

Please note my original edit that provoked the current activity was only one sentence and closely followed the structure of the sentences preceding it. It simply said, "His writings regarding Jews were used to justify their genocide."[[12]]

That edit was reverted 6 minutes later by Drboisclair[[13]] and then again 14 minutes later by StanZegel[[14]]. The edit has been described as vandalism by Drboisclair [here] and [here] and that "It is made with questionable intent," and as "at the very least off-topic" by Rekleov [here]. CTSWyneken then calls the edit "a clumsy attempt," supports its removal from the intro and suggests the topic should not be included in the intro at all. Various versions of it have been reverted by User:Ptmccain at least 10 times so far.

It appears that the essential issue is not its length, rather it is its existence.Doright 19:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

People need to leave the intro alone and not try to shorten it any further. It's already too short for the length of the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

We have at least three editors who disagree with you. Please discuss above. --CTSWyneken 23:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

And others support the intro that is there. Do not shorten it any further, and please do not add or restore grammatical errors. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

They have not weighed in. You have not discussed, simply asserted. Which is it? Change the page without discussion, which you did by introducing this paragraph and which you are doing now by reverting someone new to this article without discussion.

Do you own this article? --CTSWyneken 00:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe Mperel, Jayjg, Humus Sapiens, Doright, and myself have expressed a preference for the current intro, either by posting here and/or by reverting various attempts to delete it. You ignore those numbers when it suits you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to try to insult SlimVirgin or any other person on Wikipedia, but you must all realize that you do not individually own an article, and saying,"And others support the intro that is there. Do not shorten it any further, and please do not add or restore grammatical errors" limits editing on an already controversal topic. Wikipedia is built on constant and improved editing, and if CTSWyneken or any one else comes up with an idea to help make the Martin Luther article better, I think the least we can do is to change the original errors with a better version, as CTSWyneken has suggested.Thetruthbelow 01:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

We want people to read our articles, which means they should be written properly, without grammatical errors and spelling mistakes if possible. We also have guidelines we're meant to follow, and policies we must follow. One of the former is about intro length, and suggests three to four paragraphs for an article this length. Therefore, to reduce it from two to one paragraphs is heading in the wrong direction, and is simply an attempt to whitewash. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop insulting other editors. --CTSWyneken 01:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Who am I insulting? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

All who are arguing for one sentence in the intro, rather than two. --CTSWyneken 01:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That's two of you. I repeat: how am I insulting you? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I think that what CTSWyneken is trying to say is that he feels that you are insulting me or him by commenting on the fact that what we want is not what everyone else wants or is wrong. While i feel no personal insult from you, and consider you to be a very intelligent editor, I can identify what CTSWyneken is saying about being insulted, and i would ask you politey to consider our point of view. Thanks, Thetruthbelow 02:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Sanitizing Intro 2

I agree with Slim on this, the intro is actually too short by WP standards, and it doesn't need to be shortened or all squished into one paragraph. Btw, Slim is one of the most experienced editors we have at WP, she is very articulate and really knows what it takes to bring articles up to an encyclopedic standard (and even featured article status). I see a lot of resistance here targeted at her personally (to the article's detriment), when she has a top notch record of high editorial standards. The main problem with this article is the bad writing. There has been too much worry over making sure Martin Luther is presented as favorably as possible (often at the expense of being honest and historically accurate, unfortunately) that the quality of writing in this article has taken a back seat. I think we'd be much better off focusing on quality writing rather than on overly defending the subject, yes? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes! I agree on all points. Doright 04:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, MPerel, and I agree about the need to look after the writing rather than Luther's defense. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, MP. I do not have a problem with working on the way the article is written. In fact, I would like to do this, if we weren't constantly having folk trying over emphasize this one aspect of Luther's legacy. If you doubt this is being done, please check several printed encyclopedias on the subject of Martin Luther and the Jews and you'll see that it isn't given much space at all.

On the question at hand, I've received two conflicting signals from the wikipedia community. Every time we edit this article, we are warned that it is overlong. Then there's the note that this is not a print encyclopedia. In addition, this article still does not include everything significant in the life of Luther. Were this issue not under constant challenge, we would have completed that.

Also, could you or someone else cite the policy or even guideline that says intros should be long? Many people have expressed the opposite.

WP:LEAD and it doesn't say they should be long. It says that in an article of this length, three-four paragraphs is recommended. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

While we get this together, may I suggest we use the poll below to get a quick idea of how the folk editing here feel about this issue? --CTSWyneken 11:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Polls are a bad idea. Polls can't decide to overrule NPOV or the need for good writing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Vote proposal

Why don't we put it to an informal vote? If I may be so bold to to propose this after just coming to this page. I propose three ways to treat the mention of Martin Luther's writings on the Jews, in the intro. I would ask that only logged in contributers weigh in, on this vote.Mytwocents 07:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No mention:

One sentence mention:

One sentence mention It is admittedly a hard thing to constrain such a bold charge to one terse sentence. But I think anything more than a deliberately constrained, carefully neutral mention, of such a terrible charge, would overwhelm the introduction, and give too much weight to one aspect of Luther's life. It should introduce Luther's views, and connect them to the Nazi's final solution and leave everything else to be said in the MLOTJ section and subpage. Mytwocents 07:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

One sentence mention No matter what we think the length of the intro should be (it is missing things, like much of the negative legacy mentioned in the section near the end of the article), this issue is not a major part of Luther's life. See print encyclopedias, if you doubt this) We do need to consider the issue, because it was so much a part of Nazi justification of their horrors. But we already do this below and at length at Martin Luther and the Jews. So, here, one sentence on Luther and the Jews and mention of the other negative aspects of Luther's legacy at similar length. --CTSWyneken 11:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Full paragraph, of a three paragraph intro:

No more polls. The last time you did one was on the categories, and it didn't go your way, but you ignored it anyway. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The WP guide suggests 3-4 paragraphs for the intro is appropriate for an article this size (see WP:LEAD). Luther is mentioned in almost any modern history analysis of the Holocaust, so his legacy regarding his writings on Jews is significant according to historians. The current two-sentences in the intro better summarizes this fact more than anything else I've seen. Ok folks, FYI, this will likely be my only WP edit for several days as I'm traveling out of town momentarily... --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 12:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, MP! I'll read the guide mentioned. On the significance issue: yes, of course we must include something on it. We already do. In fact, we include more than most encyclopedias do, even before we get to the Martin Luther and the Jews and the On the Jews and Their Lies (Martin Luther) articles. It is not treated as a major part of his work and career. Have a pleasant trip and come back to us safely! --CTSWyneken 12:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

As per MPerel. The intro doesn't need less information on this; rather, it needs more information on other facets of Luther. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of this sentence

I think that the following sentence should be removed from the "Theology of grace" section:

Luther was so opposed to the teaching that anything but grace could save, that he saw the book of James as an "epistle of straw" and held it in lower esteem than Paul's letters. Luther also had his doubts about the veracity of Hebrews and Revelation as well.

This does not express Luther's mature attitude on these biblical books. I agree that it is overstated, and I would add that its implication is less than accurate as to Luther's entire motivation. Drboisclair 20:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd have no objection to its removal, particularly given that it's unsourced. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but let's give the newcomer a day or two to source it and modify it. --CTSWyneken 00:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Luther calling James "a right strawy epistle" and his desire to throw it and others out of the NT canon is famous, no? It's commonly addressed by scholars in connection with his strong Justification by Faith views and rejection of Indulgences. Whether the editor comes back to improve it or not, something should probably be addressed somewhere in the article about it, imo. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This issue would be appropriate in the section that deals with Luther's translation of the Bible. Luther did not simply dismiss the Epistle of James because he disagreed with it. Luther had a concept of canonicity that directed him here. This view of James was placed in the prefaces that he wrote to the books of the New Testament that he translated in 1522--His German translation of the entire New Testament appeared in September, 1522. His opposition to James, Hebrews, and Revelation stems from the Early Church's distinction of books as Homologoumena and Antilegomena. Homologoumena books were attested "with one voice" and Antilegomena books were "opposed" by Christian leaders in the early centuries. Drboisclair 19:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Would you write something up about Luther and James for the German Bible section, Dave? I suspect the discussions in Brecht, Schwiebert and Bainton would help. The problem with the now removed sentence is that it doesn't reflect what Luther's attitude towards the epistle was. So, what I'm saying is, you're both right. --CTSWyneken 19:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Intro

In light of the sentiments expressed above and the guideline that suggests three paragraphs or more, let's go ahead and leave the sentence in tact, but expand the intro. What about merging the Martin Luther#His legacy section into it? --CTSWyneken 00:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That would be a good idea as some of the material in the intro is repeated in the "His legacy" section. Drboisclair 00:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems that Luther's writing(s) on Jews was added into the introduction 4-5 weeks ago?? I am NO expert, even remotely on the subject, but it seems it was added out of some sort of agenda and if its removed it will be said that it was removed for agenda reasons as well. Can somebody with expertise on the subject, not somebody who slept in an Holiday Inn last night, tell us what % of Luther's writings were dedicated to Jewish matters. Was it 5%, 20%, 1%?? This writing was done when Luther was 60 years old and 3 years before his death. Also, it should be looked at in the historical context of the time, not by todays standards, IMO. I am in NO way trying to defend the guy for any anti-semetic writings or the influence his writings had during the Nazi period, or "sanitize" the article ect., but are these specific writing(s) really what Luther should be noted for in an intro?? If so, great, if not, great. Again, the insertion/change of the INTRODUCTION of a persons life work is what we are discussing. I not making ANY edits to this article but wanted to chime in. Cheers.--Tom 15:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I second that.--shtove 16:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Tom and shtove, do you two want to add your comments to the above vote, in support of 'No mention' in the intro? Mytwocents 17:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Not really, I made my peace and will add further on as needed. I am not a huge fan of Polls/Votes in here but I am not sure what else would work better. I'll leave it to you good people to sort out. Again, putting in the comment about Luther's writing(s) on Jews in the INTRO just seems out of place and agenda driven, IMveryHO..--Tom 17:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Threeafterthree has a good point here. This paragraph should be reduced to a sentence directeing the reader to the section below. I would venture to say, but this is IMHO that Luther's writings on the Jews comprised 5-10% at most of his writings. We might also make mention of his polemics against the papacy, which was a larger percentage. The undue length of this paragraph shows a strong anti-Luther POV. Shakespeare put it well, "The evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones" (Julius Caesar, III.ii.76-77). I would welcome the editors who are pushing this with might and main to look at Encarta, Britannica, Colliers, World Book, Grolier and see a more fair, objective treatment of Luther. Drboisclair 18:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

IMveryHO is right too. We were told that polls mean nothing: material will be stronghanded in whether we like it or not. Drboisclair 18:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Now please, have you really been told that "material will be stronghanded in" whether you like it or not?? If any stronghanding has gone on it's been by one editor trying to "stronghand out" by reverting without discussion to the point of getting himself blocked. I would like to encourage the newcomers (and the oldtimers) to please refrain from bad faith comments alleging agendas and anti-POVs as it doesn't make for a very conducive editing environment. Also please realize that in the wider world (outside of Lutheran churches and seminaries), Luther is known for his whole record, positive and negative, and historians have written the gamut covering all these facets. I agree with CTSWyneken that the intro should be expanded, the sentences about Jewish writings left intact. The intro should be expanded to address in summary everything covered in the article. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

MP, I don't think that it is helpful to talk about strong-arming, nor to refer to Lutheran Churches the way you do, either. After all, all communities have their perspectives that are quite different that that of others. We should try to understand each other and make a little room for each other at least.

While I can go with the expansion of the intro (we do need both positive and negative impacts discuss there), and I do not appreciate that Paul McCain will not come here to discuss the issue, I do not think the sentences in their current form are helpful. It is only because we cannot come to a comprimise on this issue that I can agree to it being there. It makes the issue out to be a more important part of Luther's legacy than most biographers of Luther, including many non-Lutherans, think it is. If you doubt me, please check several.

I'm trying to understand why it is unacceptable to several editors to simply say that Luther's words have been used by antisemites since his day to justify their hatred of the Jews and by the Nazis to try to legitimate the Holocaust. To me, that is a fair summary for an intro, especially since we spell it out in detail in the section below and in two separate articles. I've looked at several biographical articles in Wikipedia and so far cannot find one with that level of detail in the intro. I cannot find, either, one that has a (see section below) comment in the intro, beyond the wiki links to subarticles at the heads of sections. This is not to say there are not others. If you can think of a few let me know, so I can study them.

Adding an example: Haim Hillel Ben Sasson, a History of the Jewish People (Translation -- Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976, Original: Tel Aviv: Dvir Publishing House, 1969), 650: "This detailed plan and its style, like that of the book in which it is suggested, actually shocked several people who were close to Luther and his views. This plan almost places Luther in a class with the likes of Hitler. But the vitality of the movement he called into being and the circumstances under which it operated had the effect that for the greater part on the period following him, and in most sections of the Lutheran world until the twentieth century, more attention was paid to the Luther of 1523 than to the Luther of 1543."

I can only come to the conclusion that the introduction will remain NPOV. So I'm ready to move on and expand the intro at the expense of the "His Legacy" section.--CTSWyneken 11:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

CTSWyneken speaks for me here. I agree that we need to have a summarized comprehensive view of Luther in the introduction. I agree that we need to be clear about the use of his writings by antisemites, but ultimately I object to placing him in the antisemitic people category or going into detail in the introduction, e.g. "Luther wrote that they should burn down synagogues," etc. We do not deny that he wrote that, but it is not appropriate for the introduction. The way it is now is slanted. I welcome MP's helpful work here, but MP might examine the talk pages here or on Martin Luther and the Jews and On the Jews and Their Lies (Martin Luther) to see the truth of what I am saying about stronghanding. It is getting to the point to where competent Luther scholars want to wash their hands of something that is a misrepresentation. Drboisclair 12:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note a new comment by Ptmccain appears above at Talk:Martin Luther#Sanitizing Intro --CTSWyneken 16:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Expand the intro by all means, but leave those two sentences as they are. We're not here to write from the point of view of the Lutheran church. There's barely a history of the Holocaust that doesn't mean Luther. Right at the start of Volume I of Hilberg's The Destruction of the European Jews (the most serious and thorough treatment of the Holocaust that exists), Luther is mentioned as having expressed the three most common anti-Jewish policies: conversion, expulsion, and annihilation (p.4). Hilberg then talks about stereotypes of Jews and the function of stereotypes generally, how they are "used as justification for destructive thinking; they are employed as excuses of destructive action" (p.13). "The Nazis needed just such a stereotype. They required just such an image of the Jew. It is therefore of no little significance that when Hitler came to power, the image was already there. The model was already fixed. When Hitler spoke about the Jew, he could speak to the Germans in familiar language" (ibid). "The picture of the Jew encountered in Nazi propaganda and Nazi correspondence had already been drawn several hundred years before. Martin Luther had already sketched the main outlines of that portrait, and the Nazis, in their time, had little to add to it (ibid). Hilberg writes that he's citing Luther because "he was a towering figure in the development of German thought, and the writing of such a man is not to be forgotten in the unearthing of so crucial a conceptualization [of the Jews] as this (p.13). Hilberg then quotes some of Luther's work. "This Lutheran portrait of Jewish world rule, Jewish criminality, and the Jewish plague has often been repudiated. But, in spite of denial and exposure, the charges have survived. In four hundred years, the picture has not changed" (p.15).

Again, on the first page of the second volume, discussing the development of the Nazi idea of killing Jews with mobile gas chambers to the larger idea of the Final Solution, Hilberg cites Luther as an example of the "shrouded beginnings [of this idea] in the far-distant past," quoting Luther's statement that "Moses could improve Pharaoh neither with plagues nor with miracles, neither with threats nor with prayers; he had to let him drown in the sea" (p.409).

We're not going to bury or minimize this degree of influence, as you would prefer. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

There is also the danger of writing this article from a Jewish perspective, which is the manner of this sentence in the introduction. By getting the info in here the idea is to get in the licks as much as possible. This has been laboriously worried through some 5 months ago when the subsidiary articles were begun. As an editor, Slim Virgin, I appreciate your concern for these items being well written and well sourced: these endeavors are in the best Wikipedian tradition. However, as Jayjg has pointed out in the past we have to tread the narrow line of not whitewashing Luther nor unduly bashing him. I would invite you as a scholar and an experienced editor, who is engaged daily in editing an encyclopedia, to simply take a look at the entries on Martin Luther in other encyclopedias (hard copy ones). I do not think that it is fair to characterize CTSWyneken's edits as Lutheran attempts to make Luther look good. He and I, I believe, have matured much on the presentation of this material. We have spent many hours studying this. The writing of this section of the introduction should be a joint effort, not the work of a few. So, the balance should be no whitewash and no bashing. The way it is now borders on bashing. Drboisclair 18:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

As an addendum to what I have stated above I would like to point out that Luther should not carry the entire blame here. The entire Christian West had even worse sentiments than Luther. England and France had officially expelled Jewish people from their countries, not to mention the atrocities in Spain. A historian would see that Luther was a product of his times. One must make a distinction between the "anti-semitism" of pre-19th Century Europe and the modern anti-semitism that arose in the 19th Century. The true historian is objective in these things. Drboisclair 19:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Slim, I'm at a loss as to why a statement that says the Nazis used Luther's venomous words to justify the Holocaust and no more is unacceptable to you. Could you explain why? The actual words are below in the section that outlines the issue and in Martin Luther and the Jews and in On the Jews and Their Lies (Martin Luther). If we leave it as is, it will be the only one of the statements in the introduction that goes to that level of detail.

On the issue of the influence of Luther's influence over the Nazis, several authors (I'm being conservative here) have asserted that Luther's words had little effect on Germany from the early 17th Century until the 20th Century. The Wallmann article is an effective summary of that history. What all agree is that the Nazis came to use these words to evil effect.

So, all that a number of us are saying is, well, we say that and no more in the intro. The other parts of this article and others can spell it out.

Barring that, I will expand the intro and say as much along side of it, with full citation, of course. --CTSWyneken 19:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I propose this sentence be used to introduce Luthers writing on the Jews;

Martin Luther's writings on the treatment and handling of the Jewish people was used by the Nazi Regime to justify their persecution of the Jews.

This sentence is similar to Thetruthbelow's proposed sentence. It links Luther's writings to the Nazi's. It could be used in a third paragraph, that describes any of Luther's controversial writings or actions, especially in his last years Mytwocents 19:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Something like this would be acceptible perhaps Martin Luther's writings against the Jews were used by the Nazi regime to justify their genocide of the Jews.Drboisclair 19:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is a good example of the considerable "down side" to Wikipedia. People who purport to be knowledgeable about issues push through an agenda, like "Slim" who does not seem to have any comprehension of the fact that Martin Luther was not responsible for the German view of Jews before Hitler. Martin Luther was a man of the 16th century which was itself a time where Jews were universally scorned and looked down upon. The documentary evidence reveals that Luther was himself quite unique in advocating that Jews be treated gently and be urged toward Jesus Christ. In his later years, due to health and personal frustrations, he delivered himself of the detestable "On the Jews and their Lies" -- but to suggest that historically one can "pin" German anti-Semitism on Luther is a position taken from ignorance of the facts. Anti-semitism was rampant through Germany and Europe. Luther's views were not unique, by any means. To continually refer to them at every opportunity is clearly an attempt to try to negate his positive contributions. How would the Jewish contingent here feel if every single reference to Israel carreid with it, immediately, referencs to how Israel has treated Palestinians? See the point? We are all for acknowledging weaknesses and errors, but to continually throw up in an introduction a particular error or weakness is to do a disservice to the purpose of the article. It is apparent that there is a sort of "Jewish cabal" that desires to turn every possible discussion about Martin Luther into an opportunity to harp on their notion that Martin Luther is personally responsible for the Nazi "Final Solution." The proposed word change that I suggested early reflects a NPOV. The other wording is not NPOV. There is an entire section in the Luther article on Luther and the Jews. This particular article and how some here treat it reveals to me the real problems with Wikipedia being regarded as any sort of reliable resource on the Internet. --PTMcCain

PTMcCain, As you appear to have a fairly intimate knowledge of antisemitism, perhaps you could name the members of (what you refer to as) the "Jewish cabal" that you have been able to identify so far. Exactly who is this conspiratorial group of Jewish plotters bent on crucifying Luther?Doright 22:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please do name the "Jewish cabal." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I was asked to drop by again so here I am. I am actually amazed that the Luther "supporters" are even allowing mention in the INTRODUCTION to Luther's writing on the Jews since these writing make up 1%(i am deferring to the experts on this number but please correct me as needed) of his total writings. Again, its not whitewashing or denying he made anti-semetic statements/writings, its putting it in perspective to his ENTIRE body of work and as the last editor said to his moment in history. Based on the ENTIRE article and ALL the different sections, it just looks silly and agenda driven to include ANY sentence in the INTRO. I give alot of credit to the editors who are willing to hash out something. If this article was about the Philadelphia Eagles, FORGET IT :)

Now to those who have a vested interest in the article, they will disagree I guess. Per PTM's example above about Israel, who was the Prime minister who was involved in some massacers as a young soldier?, help me out here people. If we look at his biographie, I doubt its mentioned(in the intro) since it is a SMALL part of his legacy in TOTAL. If I went into his INTRODUCTION and added "and he is know for involvement/contriversy over a massacer it would get slammed and rightfully so.

Wikipedia is an incredible project because it is trying to write the ENTIRE KNOWELEGDE BASE KNOW TO MAN and is OPEN to 3 BILLION editors or different backgrounds and opinions. OF COURSE people have agendas. Space, or lack there of, can NOT be used as an excuse for NOT including information but it also shouldn't be used as a reason to include too much to the point of excess. I am rambling and my spelling sucks so I'll shut up. --Tom 21:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Ariel Sharon and there IS mention of massacre. Never mind about above. Include THREE sentences on Luther's writings on the Jews :)--Tom 21:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC) I am out!! Until later :)

Enough of this! Calm down, everyone! Let's get back to the article. --CTSWyneken 22:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, we are not here to represent the views of the Lutheran church, or Luther himself. We are here to represent the majority view of reputable sources who have written about him: everyone who has written about him, not just Lutheran scholars, and in the literature in total, references to his writings about Jews and the relationship between those writings and the Holocaust are commonplace. It would be obtuse of us not to mention them right up front. At least some of the people commenting here appear not to have understood our content policies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Slim, as I have said earlier, (repeated more for others, than you) I think it important to add a sentence to the intro about Luther and the Jews. I and several others would prefer a shorter intro, you and several others a longer intro. The guidlines suggest a longer one. So on this issue I'm willing to bend. I think we should merge in the "His Legacy" section.

That leaves the issue of the content of the passage on Luther and the Jews to be put in the intro. Having worked with you and others, I think you really want to be fair. I would hope you would assume the same with me.

In light of this, what puzzles me is why you all absolutely insist on a statement which includes all of the recommendations in "On the Jews" be a part of the intro. Why will a statement to the effect that Luther's harsh rhetoric against the Jews was used by the Nazis to justify the Holocaust? These words are summarized in the section below and detailed in two other articles. I'd really like to believe there's a reason greater than emotion.--CTSWyneken 22:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

There's no point in saying that his writings were used without saying what they were, and the intro doesn't list all of the recommendations: it gives a small number of examples of his beliefs. For example, I left out his apparent recommendation to kill the Jews because you and others have objected to the translation. But the examples I included are not disputed, and are clearly relevant to why the Nazis used him. They did not use him erroneously, in other words. It's important to say that up front. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate that. I still don't see why it doesn't make the point to say the Nazis used his writings. We don't list the name of Luther's wife, the hymns he wrote, etc. Yet it is perfectly clear what we mean. Readers who want more detail will read on.

For the record, I never actually objected to the translation of the "slay" quote, others did. On that issue, my point is that a half dozen scholars state flat out Luther did not recommend the killing or the extermination of the Jews. So far, only Dr. Michael has stated that opinion in writings we use. That's enough to put in the article, but not enough to establish it as the opinion of the scholarly community.

Again, If it comes to it, I'll leave the thing the way it is. But I think its makes the matter a larger part of Luther's legacy than it is. --CTSWyneken 23:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Slim, for the umteenth time I will point out as well: We are not writing this from the POV of the Lutheran Church. There is a difference between Lutheran scholars and "Luther scholars". Luther scholars come from many traditions. They may be Jewish or Moslem or even agnostic. Won't you consider my suggestion that you look at other encyclopedias on Martin Luther, then you will see the point that some of us are trying to make here. I am not adverse to having some mention of the anti-Jewish writings in the introduction, but it should be by way of summarization otherwise it reads like an anti-Luther manifesto. Drboisclair 23:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It may make it a larger part of his legacy than some Lutheran scholars acknowledge. But as I said, we're not here to represent the views of Lutheran scholars. Even if every single Lutheran scholar who had ever existed argued that this was not a major part of his legacy, it would still be the case that we'd have to represent the totality of all reliable published sources who write about Luther, which in this context means all historians, and there's no question that Luther's writings on the Jews, and the way those were used, is discussed in practically all major works on the Holocaust, the Third Reich, and the development over the centuries of anti-Semitism. Those writings did become, unfortunately, like it or not, a major part of his legacy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You are right about this, but as to it being a major part, that is debatable. Drboisclair 23:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Right? After all, the Holocaust, the Third Reich, and anti-Semitism are mainly a Jewish issue? Those are such very small fine points, little blemishes, to the "more important" matters involving Luther?Doright 00:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you missed the point DR was trying to make. Not all Luther scholars are Lutheran. Gordon Rupp was an Anglican. Roland Bainton a Quaker. There is a wider community that does not see the anti-semitic writings of Luther as a major part of his legacy. It is a part, however, so it deserves mention. If you'd like, I can inventory Luther biographies and encyclopedias to make that point.

I think you missed Slim's point. See above where she explains it.Doright 00:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

If you really have no interest in this, I'm ready to drop this issue. If not, I'm happy to work with you on it. --CTSWyneken 00:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

But similarly I think you miss the point I keep making. We are not here to represent the views of Luther scholars, but of all reliable, third-party published sources who have written about Luther. All of them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

There should be no objection to that surely. Drboisclair 00:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

And we do. The section at the end of this page and the other pages contain third party scholars from all perspectives. The question here has never been to eliminate viewpoints. The argument here is about how much in the intro. Unless you wish to look at the precident of other scholarly treatments, we're going to have to agree to disagree. As long as you realize this article will be unique in mentioning the issue at all in the intro.--CTSWyneken 01:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I can only repeat: we are here to represent the majority view of all reliable published third-party sources: not Lutherans, not the Lutheran church, not Luther scholars, but all published views. The current intro should give an overview of that majority: of what Luther is best known for among that majority, what he is most often mentioned for. That's what this intro does. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I have not suggested no mention be made of the issue in the intro, even though our article will be unique among encyclpedias in doing so. If you'll just check general, third party encyclopedic sources: Britannica, Americana, Comptons, Funk and Wagnalls... and biographies, some of which have very critical views of Luther, you will see this is true.

That really is the point. Is his views of the Jews a part of his legacy. Unfortunately so. Is a part of that legacy that the Nazis used his words to justify their unspeabable evil? Yes. So, we say just that. If you will scroll up the page, you'll see I've consistently advocated that. What I don't think we need in the intro is much more than that. --CTSWyneken 01:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

What you don't want is that we tell the reader anything about what he actually said, and that's not acceptable. The Nazis used his work for a reason, as our intro should and does make clear. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly right SlimV. As I said in January, in no case should anyone’s opinion about what Luther said or meant be given more weight than Luther’s own words. And, as shown in the above link, and too numerous times to count, these same editors redact Luther's own words unless stopped.Doright 02:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It's also worth mentioning that we're not here to copy the Encyclopedia Britannica, or any other. We may use them as sources, but that's where the comparison ends. We have an NPOV policy and they don't, as even the most casual reading of the EB, for example, illustrates, and it's our NPOV policy, combined with V and NOR, that dictates that we must represent the majority and significant-minority views of all reliable published sources, and must slant the article in favor of the majority view. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's enough of this. I do not think we will agree here. I'll just move on to intro expansion.--CTSWyneken 01:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Rephrase intro

I hope this gives a better sequence. I suppose the Nazi reference ought to stand on the same basis as German language, translation techniques, Counter-Reformation.--shtove 23:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Plus: the blank space to the left of Luther's portrait should be filled with text - how'ja doo dat?--shtove 23:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Witches

Does anyone know whose translation this is? "Mit Hexen muß man kein Mitleid haben; ich wollte sie selber verbrennen." "You must not have pity on witches, I myself would burn them." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

No idea. This section was introduced by another editor. We left it in because it cites the original text of Luther and is more or less accurate. --CTSWyneken 01:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

As I look at the translation, it's pretty bad, isn't it? Very roughly: you must have no part of hexes; I would burn them myself." --CTSWyneken 01:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it says "You (or one) should have no pity for witches. I wanted to burn them myself." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, wait... the word has a wider meaning than that according to Cassell's: Witch, soceress, witchcraft... in verb form, to conjure..." Mitleid = compassion, pity. Not as bad as it looked at first. --CTSWyneken 01:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You can't burn witchcraft, so clearly he meant witches. I'd say it's pretty bad to translate "wanted to burn" for "would burn." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The only reason I didn't change it is that it's possible that, in medieval German, people said they "wanted" to do something instead of using a conditional. I doubt it, but it's possible. That's why I asked whose translation it was i.e. whether it was a professional, scholarly, published translation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

That's what I was trying to say in the last. I should know better than to trust my sight reading of German. Anyway, I'm not sure where the translation came from, which is the bottom line, after all. --CTSWyneken 01:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It's subjunctive, I think. "Ich wollte sie selber verbrennen" is I think best translated "I would want to burn them myself" (English doesn't do justice to subjunctive.) --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 03:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It'd be good to see the context before deciding whether it's a subjunctive or the simple past. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I've found another form of the quote: Mit Hexen und Zauberinnen soll man keine Barmherzigkeit haben. Ich wollte sie lieber verbrennen, wie man im Gesetz liest.[15] Might be a better source, I dunno; any of you scholars have a more direct source for this speech of 25. August 1538? --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 05:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

"Ich wollte sie lieber verbrennen" would make it subjunctive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

If you wish, I'll pull the volume next week and post the full context. --CTSWyneken 12:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that would be helpful, thank you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

question

I asked before but didn't get a clear answer, would it be possible to cut the following sentence from the "Luther and Witchcraft" section?

The persecution of witches and warlocks took place in Protestant as well as in Roman Catholic countries in Middle Europe during and after the Reformation, and not only Luther but John Calvin supported it.

I ask because it seems rather like boilerplate and doesn't really discuss Luther. I would also suggest that the reference to Exodus 22:18 be removed if Luther himself didn't comment on the passage. Sumergocognito 04:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Monk?

I still have a query about the use of the term "monk" to describe Luther or von Staupitz. If you check the hyperlink to Augustinians, you'll notice they don't use this term (although it could be applied very, very loosely. The Augustinians use either "hermit" or more usually "friar". In the current universe they specifically don't use "monk" (I was taught by them). I made a change to this Luther page on this matter- but the use of "monk was defended by a (Lutheran?) academic CTSWyneken. I am aware there is one, single "monastery" of the Augustinians - and that is in Brno (Bruin) in the Czech Republic. I know it has an "abbott" (Gregor Mendel was the abbot there once) and I suspect "monks" (I'm not sure of this). It is regarded as an international anomaly by the Augustinians. Can any wikipedian tell me why Luther or von Staupitz can sensibly be called "monks"? Were they in some sort of exceptional Augustinian group that has a contemporary equivalent called "monks"? It seems to me even if they themselves called themselves monks in German, it doesn't make sense to keep the anachronism in a modern article. Friar is the word used internationally now. Njamesdebien 05:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi from Njames to Apostlemep12. I think your observations are very helpful - and pretty accurate. I don't see an easy solution to the problem you identify - but unpacking the way you have is helpful. I was non-plussed by an assertion that if Luther saw himself a certain way, then so should wikipedians. This is not the way I approach journalism in my profession - nor is it, I think, an assumption that should go by unremarked upon - but that is just my position - and my studies (and support) of the epistemologist Bernard Lonergan would, of course, predispose me to take this position! What to do?!! I suspect, in this context, we continue to take part in the wiki experiment and see what intellectual democracy produces (could be interesting!). I hereby start lobbying wikipedians to oppose anachronisms in the description of Martin Luther! To arms!Njamesdebien 09:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you have anything in particular in mind here, Njames? If it's not about Luther and the Jews, it can probably be worked through with little sturm und drang. --CTSWyneken 12:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

From the friar article I found this: Friars differ from monks in that they are called to a life of poverty in service to a community, rather than cloistered asceticism and devotion. Other editors here would surely know better than I, but I think the latter describes Luther's monastic career better than the former, am I correct? Sumergocognito 08:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

If you would like, I'll investigate it further. A few things that might help:

Luther calls himself a monk almost, if not all, of the time.
This order was an especially strict one.

For me, the first is the controlling factor. --CTSWyneken 12:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

- Well...he called himself a Mönch, actually. Regardless, "monk" is correct. He was indeed in an exceptional Augustinian group, the Augustinian Hermits. The Catholic Encyclopedia's article on them might be helpful. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 23:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The exceptional group you mention is not exceptional - it is the major continuing group of around 5000 friars worldwide today - who are still called the Augustinian Hermits or "Hermits of St Augustine". I might add that the Catholic Encyclopaedia is very, very dated in parts, and is only now being revised very slowly. Be careful of quoting it in other matters that might have development post Vatican II - it is not always updated yet. Cor Unum 07:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

What I also want to ask is why --CTSWyneken wants to use the English term "monk" so definitively. I have to say that from my POV it struck me immediately as an error - one that Augustinians would react to immediately, and which therefore creates an initial tension in believing the rest of the article to be well-researched (whether well justified or not, it did this for me - and I have two degrees in theology). I was studying my undergad degrees at the time when the Lutherans and Catholics had just resolved (at last) the dispute over Justification - so I have an interest in Luther. But it goes without saying that English speaking Augsustinians now don't regard themselves as "monks" except in the loosest possible way. There are friars or hermits; from the French "frere" and Greek "eremos" respectively (which no doubt you already know). The issue I have is that if you leave the term "Augustinian monk" in the lead of the article, it is a Shibboleth for many who will read it; and a Shibboleth that may show the author(s) perhaps either don't speak English as a first language or perhaps are not familiar with the modern ecclesiastical nomenclature among Catholics. I know this is pretty specialised, but CTSWyneken - do you know if the German of the time (ie. Luther's time) had a clear vocab distinction between "monk" and "friar"? This would help clarify the matter. I may be straining over a modern English distinction rather than anything else?

On the matter of Luther and the Jews- my POV is that scholars ought be careful not to confuse contemporary values and attitudes with historical ones. I would have no doubt that Luther was an anti-Semite by modern standards - but so, shamefully, was most of Europe at the time (including Popes and "Saints" of the church). It needs to be seen in its perspective rather than using an historical article to fight over contemporary issues. I think the argument over this is perhaps being fuelled by too much emotion. Luther should neither be sanitised nor criticised unduly on this matter - simply described accurately and as objectively as possible. Cor Unum 07:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've misunderstood our content policies. We report what other reliable published sources say, anachronistic or otherwise. See WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin - if we take what you are saying to its logical conclusion (to use philosophy a little loosely) the article would have to be published mainly in middle-German, and be plagiarised). Any author/editor has to interpret to a reasonable extent - that is what this discussion is about - should the term in the English wikipedia be " Monk" as a translation of "Mönch" or should it be "friar" which properly describes an Augustinian in the current universe. A way of solving this of course would be to add a footnote saying "(NB contemporary Augustinians use the term "friar"). I'm still learning to footnote so I haven't done it yet. Cor Unum 07:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No idea how you reach the first conclusion, though in general slippery slope arguments should be avoided. As to monk/friar, we should call him whatever most reliable sources call him and link to a source; any footnote will also need a source. You can add one by sandwiching it between <ref> and </ref>. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I reach the first conclusion the following way (being mischievous I admit - but it is still valid). Unless you just copy (plagiarise) the original source exactly, words and terms change over time. The most reliable sources here are German ones (Luther's words) - but "Mönch" doesn't cut it here in English. And so we are discussing whether the word should be given the most direct translation or not. Any translator of The Bible will tell you how challenging it is to make accurate translations that convey meaning clearly and without distortion from Hebrew and Greek into a target language. Luther's German the same. This is not least because culture and ideas change over time as well - and this means that even the same words can have a different hortative impact in another time.

The little dispute we are having is: does the English word "monk" convey sense and clarity to the modern readers of wikpedia? (since they are, afer all, all modern). My POV is that if you just translate Luther's term "Mönch" to its nearest English vocab item there is an argument to be had - because the most accurate and meaningful English vocab item for Augustinians is probably "friar" (using a translation principle called "dynamic equivalence"). By this I mean the most accurate rendering to give contemporary meaning about what an Augustinian is (or was from our POV). CTSWyneken say "monk" is the most accurate and appropriate translation. Monks live in monasteries and sing the divine office - or they live in isolation sometimes. This is not Luther. Friars teach, preach and move around in the world more than monks do This is Luther. CTSWyneken is right in one way - since the German and English words are equivalent - but in this particular case the result is not accurate, since in modern English, Augustinians aren't monks, they are friars. My vote is for friar, since "monk" now just looks wrong in English to anyone who knows the Augustinians. I don't mind in German or other languages here. This is just my automatic commonsense response - one that in a perfect world I wish I didn't have to even discuss - but this is wiki-land. As to references to footnote, any official website which provides the (English) constitutions of the Hermits of St Augustine will do. I'll dig one up.

Maybe the copy could just say Luther was an "Augustinian" without either monk or friar? He could also be described as an "Augustinian priest", or a "member of the Augustinian order" - and then I won't be jarred by it. Could this work?

Cor Unum 09:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read our policies. Luther is in fact not regarded by us as the most reliable source on Luther. If the majority of contemporary published reliable sources on Luther say he was a monk, that's what we say. Same with everything else. We don't engage in original research. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I have read them (presumption of good will and intention?) , and this isn't original research I am talking about. It is translation. But if that is the track you think needs to be followed, then it is just a matter of citing references, and that can be done. It'll just take time. Menawhile, the entry has a term in its first line which will affect its credibility. But I suppose that is life on wiki.

I just checked the Encyclopedia Britannica and it calls him a monk, or rather it translates what he called himself as "monk." Also, I don't know where you're taking your distinction between monk and friar. Monks might live in isolation but might not. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The source is the wikipedia stub on this. It is "friar" on wiki - which is accurate as far as I can tell from all the sources I know. Wiki also (correctly) says that "This term is particularly appropriate for members of these four orders: Augustinians, Carmelites, Dominicans, and Franciscans". You'll also find that most scholars in this area would not rely on Encyclopedia Britannica for finer points in the realm of theology and religion. I'll look for other appropriate references and citations to add to the stube and go from there. I think wiki's principle of "neutrality" might be used to argue that the term "monk" might just be dropped since it is not essential to the description of Luther. If the article says Luther was "an Augustinian" or "member of the Augustinian order" this would solve the problem by making the descriptors more neutral. I've suggested this to CTSWyneken. Cor Unum 10:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Slim, are you trying to say that primary sources are not evidence for wikipedia? If we say, "Luther said," it is not legit to quote Luther saying it? --CTSWyneken 12:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)12:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)\\

No, primary sources may be used. See NOR and V. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Cor, I appreciate your POV. I really do. But to my knowledge, no one has called Luther a friar in scholarly literature. Could you produce such?

Why this matters is it is a part of Luther's own self-identity. He talks about having embarked on a program of severe austerities to be the best Monk he could be. He wore his habit for years after his excommunication. He would unleash a series of withering criticisms of the monastic vow throughout the rest of his life. In short, it is an important theme in his life.

I'm not sure why this is important to you, other than the term sounds funny -- kind of the way I feel when someone calls me a priest or father. ----CTSWyneken 12:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)12:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

General Observation

Hello, all. Briefly, then, and addressed primarily towards CTSW, drbois, and slim. Your passion, energy, time, and effort which you bring to this article and Wiki in general is very impressive and commendable. I could never hope to, nor do I aspire to, be so dedicated.

Watching this page in particular over the last few months has been quite instructive. As a graduate student with background in history, theology, and political science, taking this page and your conversations as a case study for the functioning and even the concept of Wiki has been fascinating. At the end of this semester, then, it seems worthwhile to contribute a few points arising out of reflection on this lengthy period of observation.

Wiki is a particularly weak, if not impossible, format for social sciences and related fields where the scholarly task is primarily one of interpretation and argument based on the same continuous set of accepted and common data. When the whole thrust of a field is to say something new, to disagree with other voices, setting up a system which necessitates compromise and agreement seems idealistically foolish.

No genuine scholarly discussion, particularly in these academic areas, can take place in a system where other scholars can erase one another's work, effectively silencing them (like shutting off a microphone or burning a book).

Wiki, particularly this article, is a classic example of interest group politics taking place in a semi-academic context. Interest group theory states that in most cases it is not majority opinions and needs which will win the day in terms of influencing government policy, or writing an online democratic encyclopaedia, but rather each particular issue (or article) will attract and be dominated by a small minority group full of highly-driven and motivated people for whom the issue/article takes primary importance. These interest groups therefore exercise a disproportionate and often a defining influence over the government policy/article content over and against majority viewpoints and needs. This is the exact opposite of the NPOV principle held central at Wiki. And yet it is the driving force and clear reality for disputed articles like this one. Please note that I do not think that any of the main editors here are intentionally duplicitous or misleading; rather, that underneath your and my efforts to remain neutral and objective, and not form interest/advocacy groups, it is simply part of our human nature to do so. Our good intentions and best efforts can't help us escape the situation predicted by interest group political theory (sound familiar to those trained in Lutheran theology?).

The only time that compromise and dialogue ever takes place in shaping government policy/article contents is when two passionate interest groups both approach the same issue/article with different perspectives but equal motivation and strength. Thus, in this case, students/professors/bureaucrats from one of the more conservative branches of American Lutheranism and a group of folks passionately concerned about genocide/Holocaust/anti-semitism/Jewish things in general. It's cute, and a little frustrating, to see you all try to work together towards a solution. And I wish you well in your efforts. I just do not have much hope, especially given the underlying political theory which, when applied to this context, predicts failure in the majority of cases.

One final point: some editors on this page are very concerned about other editors' "qualifications" and background, and are very clear about their own background in an effort to privilege certain voices and discredit those of others. This seems to seriously undermine the democratic, cooperative, and equal values of Wiki. Rather, it serves to reinforce traditional scholarly hierarchies and dominant power structures which have long served to privilege certain voices (especially those which fall into any categories such as rich, old, white, Western, highly-educated, heterosexual, and male) above others. Wiki should be above and beyond that, as far as is humanly possible. Besides, we are all supposed to be relying on outside sources and scholars anyway, right? So what matters is who we quote, not who we are. It only matters who you are if you are trying to introduce original research... another no-no, right?

Keep up the good work. I'm sure you will, whether I tell you to or not. Probably will delete this from the talk page 'cause it's too long or something, or off-topic. Oh well... I've only been observing for a few months and don't understand a lot on here. But at least accept this as a worthwhile critique of this page and Wiki in general, from the relatively fresh perspective of a very "young" Wiki-citizen who is in awe and amazed by what goes on here. Peace.--Apostlemep12 07:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

An interesting post. I dont have the time, nor the inclination (as I agree with much of what you have written), to write at length here, but I do have to question your assertion that the academic background of contributors is irrelvant. This would be true if Wiki were to promote the equal presentation of minority views. However, Wiki does not do this: it is enough that minority views are mentioned at a length proportional to their importance, without bias or having the article itself (as opposed to an external citation) form a judgment. The more 'scholarly' (be it from formal academia or otherwise) the background of a contributor, the better they will have an appreciation of the whole field, and therefore it is to be hoped that, if they eschew their personal opinions, they will show much ability in both accurately paraphrasing sources and correctly weighting opinions according to mainstream scholarship. Tobermory 16:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Henry Denifle

I came across this article and was a bit suspicious of it's POV, from what I've read Denifle's criticisms of Luther are not taken very seriously today. I remember reading this article on Catholic historiography of Luther [[16]] a long while ago and thought it was quite interesting, I thought others here might be interested too. Does Wikipedia have an article on the historiography of Luther? If not, it might be a worthwhile idea. Sumergocognito 18:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Not as far as I know. Are there any other historiographies in the wiki that you know of? --CTSWyneken 19:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't look till just now, but yes there are a couple: Chinese_historiography as well as Historiography_of_science. Sumergocognito 21:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Then it might be fun! --CTSWyneken 23:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Intro yet again

CTSW, you added a bunch of material to the intro in an attempt to hide that one paragraph. If you're going to expand the intro, it has to be material that is about Luther. Intros should act as a mini version of the article, giving an overview of what historians (all historians, not just Luther scholars) and other reliable sources say are the most important points about his work or his legacy, and please be sure to add sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Could I ask you again, please, to watch the writing? You had a sentence saying his influence went beyond the church, then you followed it with several church-related examples.

You need sources for: "Thanks to the printing press, his pamphlets were well-read throughout Germany, influencing many subsequent Protestant Reformers and thinkers, and giving rise to diversifying Protestant traditions in Europe and elsewhere. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} Protestant countries, no longer subject to the papacy, exercised their expanded freedom of thought, facilitating Protestant Europe's rapid intellectual advancement in the 17th and 18th centuries, and giving rise to the Age of Reason. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]}"

Slim, I simply moved the material from the section below and closed it. Please look above and you'll see that's exactly what I said I would do. I have not had the time to go back and edit it, much less provide citations for it.

I'm curious as to why you did not mark these as needing citations earlier, when they were in the "His Legacy" section. As I have had time at work, I've been supplying these.

You are welcome to work on the wording, if you wish, look up the citations or wait for me to do one or both. Since these are not my words at all, I have no investment in them. Citation should not be difficult, since most are common judgments.

I also wish you would please stop jumping to conclusions as to my motives here. The point is to discuss all of Luther's legacy. The material I moved into the last paragraph of the intro is the discussion of the negative impact and influence of Luther's life, words and career.

I'm thinking of a general outline like:

1 -- Identifying info. 2 -- Enduring positive influences. 3 -- Enduring negative influences.

Does that work for you? --CTSWyneken 02:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it's fine the way it is. Please don't cut and paste from elsewhere in the text like that. There has to be a narrative that flows and that people can read. I'm not guessing at motives at all. You or one of the others earlier explicitly said if you couldn't delete the paragraph about anti-Semitism, you would bury it with other material. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but that is not what I said. By saying this, you are using inflammatory language that is not helpful when I'm trying to work with you. Since you said earlier that it was fine with you if we added material, what did you really expect? And since I said I was going to do this, why didn't you object then?

CTSWyneken, what did I “really expect?” Exactly what you, in fact, did. Bury it with other material. Why did I “really expect” that? Because you have done this Ad nauseam when you cannot delete material offending the sanctity of Luther's "blessed memory." The rule is, if you can’t revert it, then obscure it. Doright 13:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I will look at what you have done to the intro. If it is fair, I will not challenge it. If it is, I will adapt it. --CTSWyneken 02:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I do think it's fine to add material to the intro, so long as it's written properly and sourced. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll work at it as time permits. I found your delete and tweak quite sensible. --CTSWyneken 02:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

CTSWyneken, no, that does not work. We are not here to judge Luther or promote a balance sheet of “positive/negative” judgments. That focus explains much of the effort wasted on compulsive whitewashing. The article and therefore the intro should not be a report card.Doright 13:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

We need to avoid compulsive whitewashing and compulsive tarring. I support the notion we are to simply describe Luther's writings as accurately and as objectively as possible. We need to seek a neutral balance, and place his words in the context of the times. Mytwocents 19:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

So many ways to introduce MLOTJ

So far, we've made a lot of proposals. Here is the current version, which refuses to die, followed by several past and proposed versions ( #9's my favorite, simply because it's the most terse);

Luther is also known for his writings about the Jews, in which he proposed that Jews' homes be destroyed, their synagogues and schools burned, their money confiscated, and their rights and liberties curtailed. ^[1] These writings were given "full publicity" by the National Socialists in Germany in 1933-45. (See Luther and the Jews below.)
The Nazi's use of Martin Luther's harsh comments about the Jews to justify the "Final Solution" are frequently the subject of much debate and discussion. Some believe that Luther's anti-Jewish comments are not sufficiently acknowledged, while others believe that they are emphasized at the expense of recognizing his significant contributions to the history of the Christian Church and Western Civilization. (See Luther and the Jews below.)
Luther's later writings on the Jews displayed a special contempt, they were later used, in the twentieth century, by the Nazis to justify the Final Solution.^[2]
Martin Luther's writings on the treatment and handling of the Jewish people was used by the Nazi Regime to justify their persecution of the Jews.
Martin Luther's writings against the Jews were used by the Nazi regime to justify their genocide of the Jews.
The Nazis justified their genocide by citing Martin Luther's venomous words and recommendations for harsh treatment of the Jews.
The Nazi Regime justified their persecution of the Jews by adhereing to Martin Luther's writings on the treatment and handling of the Jewish people.
TheNazis justified their genocide by citing Martin Luther's venomous words and recommendations for harsh treatment of the Jews.
His writings regarding Jews were used to justify their genocide.

I think 3 through 9 would serve the intro better than the current version, if for no other reason than they do the job with less words. - Mytwocents 04:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Antisemitism Catagories

It is redundant to put Luther is two antisemitism catagoies. Since there is no disagreement that his remarks are a part of the history of antisemitism, but some disagreement in the scholarly literature as to whether to describe his views as anti-judaic rather than anti-semitic, the antisemitism is the better of the two.

Please do not add the second catagory without a new consensus here. --CTSWyneken 15:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Under the generally accepted (as opposed to the scholarly) understanding of "anti-semitism", there is no distinction between hating Jews because of some cockeyed racial theories and hating Jews because of cockeyed religious theories. Luther is both an important figure in the history of anti-semitism, and a Jew-hater, and Jew-haters are categorized under "Anti-semitic people". --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 15:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jpgordon. Martin Luther is a prime candidate for that category. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

How is it not redundant? --CTSWyneken 15:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

And in the poll you conducted recently, Humus and Doright also felt that cat was appropriate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This has already been discussed, and the category was on the page, so it's you who ought not to be removing it without discussion, CTSW. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

And then off again. And Drboisclair, Rekalov and I believe StanZegel have spoken against. Such is hardly consensus. Let's wait for others to comment before changing something that had been status quo for months. --CTSWyneken 15:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

StanZegel hasn't edited regularly since February and was only turning up to revert so I'm certainly not going to include his opinion toward any consensus. Ditto with ptmccain. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

What policy or guideline lets you do that? You start that game and then I'll object to Doright and Pesher and others. All editors should be welcome. Attacking people based upon their qualifications is counter the spirit of wikipedia. --CTSWyneken 15:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

StanZegel isn't an editor anymore. He was turning up to revert only because you or one of the others were asking him to, but otherwise made no contributions to the encyclopedia. Everyone else commenting here is a regular editor. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

As jpgordon explained above, Luther was not only influential in the history of anti-semitism, but he was clearly anti-semitic in his own right (although some Luther scholars prefer to describe his brand of anti-semitism as "religious anti-semitism", or even "anti-Judaism"). Thus he belongs in both the Anti-Semitism category, as an important topic of anti-Semitism, and the anti-Semitic people category, as an anti-Semitic individual. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with jpgordon, SlimVirgin, Jayjg, Jbull, and others, plus nearly 100% of all scholars. CTSWyneken, Please demonstrate intellectual honesty by ceasing your erroneous claim to be supported by an existing consensus. You do this habitually (e.g., here too). Plus, Drboisclair’s deletion and sock puppetry does not a consensus make. Doright 16:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, that was my nephew who acted against better knowledge, thank you. Drboisclair 01:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not include that Luther was an anti-semite in the introduction? It seems that we are getting down to the nitty gritty here. Wiki has 165 people "labeled" as anti-semetic persons. Does Luther belong in there? I sure don't know. Again, IMHO, it seems that I/we/you need to look at people's work in the context of the time in which they lived. And again, I am not condoning any anti-semetic writings or actions by ANYONE. It seems that the list of anti-semetic people would need to include about 10X as many people and MAYBE it should. I personally don't like labeling persons because WHO is doing the labeling and for WHAT purposes? How is the definition drafted and WHO has final say over inclusion in that list. Again, I admit I have little knowledge of this guy Luther. I asked the question, what % of his writings/actions were anti-semtic?? It seemed that they were VERY minimal in relation to his body of work, again I don't know if this DOSEN'T make him an anti-semetic person, I am just wondering out loud. Thanks!--Tom 19:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

From the RfC, coming to this with little knowledge of Luther's writing, it would be dangeorous to go round labelling everyone who anti-semites have taken inspiration from as anti-semitic themselves. --Robdurbar 22:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Placing someone into this category without specific scholarly warrant is an action that violates WP:NOR. It robs the reader of making that determination for him or herself. It is appropriate for those who have been labelled as such universally, like Hitler. As it stands it trashes everything else famous people have done. We are constantly accused of writing this article to give the Lutheran Church's version of it. The counter danger also must be avoided: giving the Jewish faith's version of it. I think that it is helpful that Jewish editors join with Christian or other editors in writing this article. For Wikipedia it is expected. Humus has suggested that there be a structure to these "Antisemitic" categories. Luther is no more an anti-semite than any other ancient or medieval Christian writer. It is more clear that Luther's writings On the Jews, Against the Sabbatarians, and Von Schem Hamphoras could be considered anti-semitic, but that he should be classed with Hitler is unreasonable. Why can't there be some benefit of the doubt left here rather than vilifying famous people? Drboisclair 01:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what CTSWyneken said earlier. While Luther was obviously an anti-semite, so where most of the people of his time, and it is Very redundant to put Luther into two anti-semitic categories. As to including that Luther was an anti-semite in the introduction, I would disagree. While he was an anti-semite, it was not the main purpose or the most noticable thing that Luther did, especially in comparison to the 95 Thesis. Thetruthbelow ^(talk) 01:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

His anti-semitism was exceptional, though -- we've been told that the response to "Jews and their lies" was revulsion; he wasn't your run of the mill Jew-hater, but one who had sufficient visibility to be an influential Jew-hater. Indeed, it's not the main point of his historical record, but he certainly fits in both categories. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 02:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Peter Manns

I've tidied ptmccain's addition to the intro about Peter Manns and have placed the quote in the section that talks about Luther's influence on the church. However, I feel it's problematic to start categorizing scholars' views according to whether they're Christian or not, or Protestant or Catholic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You just can't help yourself, can you Slim? The *point* of the quote was to document the fact tha Luther's contributions to the Christian Church span the divide of Protestants and Catholics. Your removal of this assertion is unwarranted and I believe were done merely to make sure that you favorite paragraph has the "last word" in the introduction. This is getting old. Perhaps you could spend your time cleaning up the sloppy scholarship on your "animal rights" page? Or is your concer for proper citation and reference only applied to those articles that don't advance your agenda? --Ptmccain 21:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Paul, the attack on Slim really isn't helpful. Let's just focus on the issue. Let's ask why she deleted the material and why she moved it?

Slim, I'm glad to see Paul McCain trying to make a positive addition to this article and I appreciate your willingness to set aside the strife a bit to work with him.

On identifying a scholar's religious position, if done carefully, I think it can work. Here the reason why it helps to indentify the scholar as Catholic is we wouldn't expect a positive opinion from someone in that tradition. I can go either way on this, but what do others think?--CTSWyneken 21:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

A case in point is to show the compelling factualness of the point. John Gillingham in his The Wars of the Roses (1981) wants to make the point that writers of the 16th Century, no matter if they were Protestant or Roman Catholic, believed that the Wars of the Roses demonstrated that 15th Century England was a complete chaos. He shows the universality of that view when he writes, "men who disagreed on everything else, agreed on this ...." You show the compelling nature of the view when it is shared by persons who on all other points are diametrically opposed. The point he was making was that the Tudor myth was operative universally in the 16th Century. In this article when the background of the writer is disclosed it helps the reader understand where the writer is coming from, and if what that writer says agrees with another writer diametrically opposed to him on other matters, then you can see the compelling nature of that view. Drboisclair 01:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the point for me is that when someone becomes a scholar, I expect them to put aside their upbringing, religion, ethnicity, social status, and so on, and concentrate on the facts. It isn't possible to do that entirely, but I expect them to come very close. So I instinctively dislike labeling them as anything but Professor so-and-so, because I'm assuming good faith of them not to be speaking as a Catholic priest, but as an academic. However, that's just my personal POV and I won't impose it on the page. I didn't remove that point by the way. I placed it with the rest of the church-related material. It looked a bit odd to say "his influence extended beyond the Christian church" then to give examples of church-related influence. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that you make a good point here. The person is writing as a scholar and not as a Roman Catholic priest. Only if there is a strong point to be made should the background of the scholar be brought into it. I think that this is a good POV. Drboisclair 01:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sources

We also need sources for: (1) "Thanks to the printing press, his pamphlets were well read throughout Germany, influencing many subsequent Protestant Reformers and thinkers, and giving rise to diversifying Protestant traditions in Europe and elsewhere." And (2) "Protestant countries, no longer subject to the papacy, exercised their expanded freedom of thought, facilitating Protestant Europe's rapid intellectual advancement in the 17th and 18th centuries, and giving rise to the Enlightenment."

The first isn't really a problem, but the second is arguably false, so it needs a good source if it's to stay. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Since the material is not from me, I'll have to do some digging. I do remember someone making both of these arguments, however. Perhaps you could help by reviewing a few biographies of Luther. --CTSWyneken 21:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ptmccain has supplied a reference for the unproblematic point, and has removed the contentious claim, which I doubt anyone would have found a good reference for, so it's probably best left out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Good enough, then. --CTSWyneken 01:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Citation Form

Slim, I've been working from the Chicago Manual of Style, with which I'm most familiar. It that format, notes do not invert the author's name, but bibliographies do. So, a footnote for a book would begin: Roland H. Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther A bibliography entry for the same work: Bainton, Roland H. Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther Since I was under the impression that Wikipedia doesn't choose one sytle over another, why is it necessary to change notes that do not invert author names? --CTSWyneken 01:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It isn't necessary, and you're right that WP doesn't mandate one style over another. The reason I put surnames first is because the references section i.e. the list of sources (is that what you're here calling bibliography?) should be in alphabetical order with surnames first. It's then easy when adding inline citations in the form of footnotes to cut and paste these into the text, so when I'm writing, I tend to leave them both in the same format. But that's just my preference; you're welcome to do as you see fit, and if you prefer the other style, I'll leave them in future. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! In CMA, the sources list would be inverted, for exactly the reason you mentioned, but the notes should be natural order. It has punctuation that a parenthetical would have. I'll adjust it to that form, since that's the format with which Boisclair, Mc Cain, I and I supect a few others, are most comfortable. --CTSWyneken 01:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Question?

Why do many of the editors on this talk page consider Martin Luther's main contribution to be the spread of anit-semitic ideas? I have learned that he was a reformer, a man who was sick of people who could "Buy their way into heaven", yet from what SlimVirgin and others say, his greatest contribution was On the Jews and Their Lies, and not his 95 thesis's and other works. While he was an anti-semitic, that was not the main part of his life, rather it was to disband from a corrupt church and to form his own based upon his and his followers ideals. CTSWyneken, myself and others have tried to figure out why so many describe him first as an anti-semite, then as a reformer. Being Jewish myself, I understand the horrors of anti-semitism, but honestly, this man was more of a liberator of religion than a condemmer of a group of people. Thetruthbelow ^(talk) 01:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that was his main contribution. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The article itself does not say that, but the comments on this talk page do. Thetruthbelow ^(talk) 01:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The difference between the article and the talk page, though, is that on the talk pages we air our points of view and work toward a consensus as to what is in the article. The article is to be NPOV. The talk page shows the mulling over and debate that goes into the construction of the article. The article is what we say, hopefully, together. --Drboisclair 02:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I am glad to hear Slim make that point. --CTSWyneken 02:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Citation Housekeeping

I've begun to conform our citations to Chicago Manual of Style, per Talk:Martin Luther#Citation Form. I've noticed to things it will take a bit for me to fix. If someone gets there first, go for it. If not, I'll get to it as time permits.

We're missing the date for the Manns book. I've marked it No Date (N.D.)
We're missing the pagination of the quote from On the Jews
We're also missing the cite for the last line of the last paragraph in the intro. I think this was McKimm, if I'm not mistaken. I've put the fact tag on so we don't miss fixing it. --CTSWyneken 13:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Luther and Women

Is there interest in a section on Luther's views on women? If so, here's one of his more infamous comments (to work with, to ignore, etc, etc): "The word and working of God is quite clear; that women were made to be either wives or prostitutes" Martin Luther, Works 12:94. --(Mingus ah um 18:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC))

That's a new one one me. Could you tell us which edition this is supposed to be from? There are multiple editions of Luther's works, so volume and page number are not enough to look up.

As far as a section on the subject, I'd have no objections to one. There appear at quick glance to be a respectible number of resources on the subject. At best, though, it is a marginal issue in Luther's career, if the fact that I've not seen mention made of the issue in any of the encyclopedia articles on Luther. --CTSWyneken 18:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If you thought editing Luther and the Jews was traumatic, CTS, hold onto your hat for Luther and women.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Umm.... point, game, set, match!

--CTSWyneken 20:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

On the serious side, the first of a few quotes from Luther on this topic (bibliographic info on Plass in main article):

"Woman herself is created from the man by a creation no less marvelous that that by which Adam was made into a living soul from a piece of the earth." 3:1456, no. 4702. From WA 42:92.

"Granted that woman is a weak vessel, yet she has the very great glory of motherhood; for all human beings are conceived, born and nursed by her. Thence comes our most delightful posterity. This glory of motherhood should rightly cover and take up all the weakness of woman."3:1457, No. 4704, From WA TR 4, No. 4138 = Plass 4704.

"The female sex is merciful by nature because it is born to show mercy and to cherish...just as man is born to protect. This is why no living creature has more mercy than a woman."3:1458, WA 25:308f. no. 4707.

Not exactly modern, and, of course, these are from the "light side" of Luther. I'll keep looking. --CTSWyneken 20:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

And of course, after she is through with Luther and Women, no doubt Slim will favor us with a section on Luther and Animal Rights. :) --Ptmccain 19:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL!!

Well, Paul, Luther did love his dog Turpel! --CTSWyneken 20:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

And there is that time he bemoaned the hunting of rabbits and hid one in his cloak sleeve. I think Slim has an early animal rights activist on her hands here! --Ptmccain 20:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If he was a defender of rabbits, I may have to revise my views! :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: CTSWyneken's initial reply ("Could you tell us which edition this is supposed to be from? There are multiple editions of Luther's works, so volume and page number are not enough to look up") The next time I find myself in the University Library I'll pick up the original source, and post a complete citation here (as for today, well, it came from my (Word) Document o' Quotes). It may take a little while, but I generally make my way over there one or twice a month... I posted it hear to see if it would spark interest, and I'm glad to see it has. --(Mingus ah um 20:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC))

Well, a belated welcome! It is always good to have someone new drop by. --CTSWyneken 20:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's a news flash on this topic. Luther, as was the case with his remarks about Jews, was clearly a man of the Sixteenth Century. I wonder why some find it so "shocking" that he said things that we today recognize, rightly I believe, to be appallingly offensive? I wonder what drives this fascination with the negative comments Luther made about women, Jews, or otherwise? Just today somebody asked me why it is that it seems on Wikipedia there are certain editors who, as they put it, perhaps unfairly, feel a compulsion or even obsession, to villify every historical personage they can think of particularly around certain topics? Interesting question. --Ptmccain 21:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because some of us are real uncomfortable with the bland memorializing and sanitizing of someone who actively promoted the destruction of our houses of worship, the banning of our religious teachings, the razing of our homes, and the confiscation of our property? How could anyone not find it shocking that the founder of one of the world's great religious movements wanted exactly the same thing for us that Hitler managed to accomplish? --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 21:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I can understand that loosing so many kindred and even relatives to the likes of Hitler causes much anger at Luther and others who spewed such venom against your people. It especially understandable that all these events are not more than seventy years in the past. Many peoples in recent times have also suffered similar fates -- at the hands of Stalin, Pol Pot and this very year the forces of Sudan.

What do Stalin, Pol Pot and the forces of Sudan have to do with Luther or this article? What is the point of saying, "Many peoples in recent times have also suffered similar fates?" Why mischaracterize Jpgordon's discomfort with sanitizing Luther's antisemitism as anger at Luther? Doright 12:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC).

It would help if you would also understand that my father and uncles fought to overthrow that government and its allies, that, while not nearly enough of them. righteous gentiles came to the defense of your people. Many of these were Lutherans.

Is this suppose to fall into the catagory of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend?" Like Lutheran Pastor Martin Niemöller, many were hard-core antisemites that opposed Hitler for their own reasons.Doright 12:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It would also help if you would recognize that, as much as you loathe Luther, there was much more to the man and that we have affection for him as a spiritual father. Many historic figures have clay feet.

CTSWyneken, while you profess your deep affection for Luther, Jpgordon has expressed no emotional or psychological attachment to Luther at all. Perhaps, this is the source of your troubles.Doright 12:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

So, can we find a way to work together here? --CTSWyneken 21:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

So, until you can find a way to control your "affection," your record for working together seems stuck on not very well.Doright 12:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ptmccain's argument works both ways: certain editors obsessively whitewash. We should stick to the subject and WP:NPA, please. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope we can. To take the women and animals examples a step further, if feminists (or anti-feminist activists) now quoted Luther every single time they wrote about feminism, or if animal-rights activists held him up as a pivotal figure, then that would definitely be worth mentioning in the intro, because it would be a central part of his legacy, by which I mean the effects he actually had on the world, regardless of whether he intended to have those effects or not. This is what we have to concentrate on: not just what Luther said, or whether what he said was typical of his time, but what he is now remembered for — rightly or wrongly, fairly or unfairly — and we judge that by reading what reputable sources in various fields cite him for. His views on animals and women are of no interest (except perhaps to Luther scholars and in the body of our article) because they had no effect on the world. But his views on Jews unfortunately did, or at least many scholars cite him as having had an effect, and so those views are of interest to people outside the field, and that is why they are worthy of prominent mention. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

And, Slim, I've consistently argued that we do need to mention his words. While others have disagreed, I've even maintained that something should be said in the intro. What I've argued against is making it into the most important part of his legacy, which, if you'd judge by what his biographers, including those who do not like him very much, it is not. Even mentioning the older Luther's words about the Jews in the intro is a major departure for an encyclopedia. I think we do justice to the matter by a brief mention in the intro, a longer discussion of how scholars have pondered these horrid works and their legacy and then our full article. A single catagory on antisemitism attached to the article leads people looking at antisemitism to Luther. The second appears to a lot of people, not only Lutherans, as piling on. In any case, I'm ready to move on. This article will never be finished if we keep lobbing grenades. --CTSWyneken 01:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Articles on Wikipedia are never finished. Period. That's just how it works; even if all of us currently engaged in discussion come to a wonderful agreement and come up with what we think is a perfect article, some scholar or some bozo or someone in between or skew-wise will show up with their own ideas about how to improve it, and, whattaya know, they may well be absolutely correct. Or absolutely insane. One way or another, the article will change again. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 03:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

And like a bad penny, I'll be back again! 8-) --CTSWyneken 11:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Citation Housekeeping 2

Thanks Slim, David, Paul for helping with the citation cleanup and additions!

I'm opening this section since at least four of us are working on it. See also Talk:Martin Luther#Sources, Talk:Martin Luther#Citation Form, Talk:Martin Luther#Citation Housekeeping Please feel free to list observations below:

For the Weimar Ausgabe and Luther's Works, Chicago Manual of Style requires the first reference to a work to be full. In our case, we will want the full title of the work of Luther, the full title of the set, place, publisher, date, pagination. At the end, we would say: "Hereafter cited in notes as WA" or LW. From then on, the volume, page convention can follow in stead of the full reference. --CTSWyneken 15:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Time to Take Down the "Neutrality Disputed" Flag?

It would be my impression that the issues causing this article to be flagged for lack of neutrality have been pretty much talked out and talked through and the most frequent contributors to the article seem satisfied with the form of the article at present. While we may not agree with how things are said, it would seem we can all live with it, with some give and take here and there. I would respectfully propose that the neutrality flag be taken down. The issues that seem to have given us the greatest heartburn are sufficiently addressed in the article. Luther's writings against the Jews are duly noted, and re-noted. Opinions about the importance of those comments for Nazi Germany have also been sufficiently expressed, and reflected, in the notes here that refer readers to various treatments of the subject. That's my .02 worth. --Ptmccain 21:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Will do. It was my flag. --CTSWyneken 21:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice editing, Slim!

Dear Slim: Nice job on the intro phrase re: "A Mighty Fortress." Short, sweet and to the point!

BTW, I noticed that a number of hymns and poems with their own articles have the full text in the article. I vaguely remember some policy or guideline that discourages full text. Is there some exception to the rule for short texts? It would make sense. I'm working on the 'A Mighty Fortress" article a bit, having stumbled on it answering a reference question this afternoon and want to have it finish in good shape. --CTSWyneken 02:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, CTS. I've restored the intro because the new one was six paragraphs, which is too long. I'd say the current intro is just about right. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

A took a quick look and it seems most of the new info was a little off topic, even for a section discussing his legacy. I'll see if time permits me to reexamine the issue later today. --CTSWyneken 10:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It appears that Paul McCain would like to talk about this before his material is reverted. He does have a point. I gather your point is that you think it's too long. Is there anything mentioned in there you think is off topic? As I look at it again, it seems like it all does fit the legacy theme. So, perhaps moving to other sections would work. --CTSWyneken 13:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I just now had, unfortunately, to revert "Doright"'s tampering with the article. Slim, please talk about this. And Doright too, for that matter. I changed Slim's reversion but narrowed it down a bit. I do not think the Intro. is too long. Because the main article is as long as it is, I think it would be good to put just a few more things in the Intro. Nobody is trying to "sanitize" the Luther and Jews thing. That is still there. No worries there. --Ptmccain 16:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Slim, I really wish that you would not out of hand revert Ptmccain's additions, even if you think it makes the article too long. What would it hurt to discuss it a few days? At the very least, I'd like to see the text moved here for discussion, rather than out-and-out deleted. Between the last few reverts, changes that I and Boisclair have made have been lost at well. If you take a look above, you'll see McCain is actually trying to work with us.

While I personally prefer a shorter article (without even the Luther and the Jews sentences) I and others have accepted the exapansion this far. How will it hurt to allow it to grow to six paragraphs? --CTSWyneken 21:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Problems with the Luther and the persecution of witches section

The source of the quotation of Luther saying, "You must have no pity for witches ...," Weimar Ausgabe 22, 782 ff. is nonexistent: volume 22 goes only to page 499. I am replacing the reference with a citation requested flag. I will investigate the other references. If these are found to be lacking, I propose that this entire section be removed as unsourced. --Drboisclair 15:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I have been doing this as there was a request above on this talk page for the context of the quotation in order to achieve a translation. --Drboisclair 16:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, David! The folks at St. Louis Concordia can run a search for you, since you have the German phrase. They can tell you quickly if it is in WA and where it is. --CTSWyneken 16:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Doright reverted it out of hand, which is uncalled for. I have had to revert back the problem. I am going to the seminary to do research on this matter. I suspect that it should be removed as unsourced. We do not have access to the study referred to. I ask that the request for citation not be reverted. --Drboisclair 19:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

There are sixty copies of the study in US libraries. I've sent for it via ILL. --CTSWyneken 19:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I have completed the revision of this section. --Drboisclair 20:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. Nice work. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Good work, Dr. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW Doright cavalierly reverted all of the work done

BTW, Doright has summarily reverted all of the work done by CTS, PtM, and me. This should cease as it is a violation of WP:CIVIL. --Drboisclair 19:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

David, he just isn't worth the time to engage or bring charges against. I'd recommend to do as I do and ignore him. --CTSWyneken 19:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

There is not much else one can do. --Drboisclair 19:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Drboisclair, CTSWyneken - Your continued incivility and personal attacks do nothing to make WP better. Please stop it. BTW, my revert was identical to those of the other senior editors on this page. Need I repeat it all ad nauseam? I think not. The only thing "cavalier" is your personal attack.Doright 04:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Intro yet again 2

Could I ask people again not to leave comments about the article on my talk page, because it only means I have to post about the same thing several times over. The intro has been discussed many times. There has to be a narrative flow and it shouldn't be too long or short. The current one at four paras is good. Ptmccain started off deleting the paragraph about Jews, then moving it, and now wants to bury it, and is breaking up the narrative flow in so doing. Comments from various talk pages copied below. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Slim: Could you do me a favor? I have just managed to convince PTMcCain to play ball and first Doright (who is good at throwing fire on gasoline, if you've noticed) and now you have reverted him out of hand. Would you please put the text back a talk to him? I prefer not to have him return to his old ways, and, if you can work with him, I think he'll respond. If you can't see to this, at least consider copying the material to the talk page. As it is, it looks on the surface that you have a double-standard here. No one may cut out your additions when they think the article too long, but you may do so when you think it too long.

Finally, we have now lost text changes Dave Boisclair and I have made on the article at least once. Some of this took some leg work. I have stopped improving the article because I don't want to have to go back and redo the work.

So, now having reached some sort of calm, can we stay there? --CTSWyneken 21:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Could we please discuss the article on the article talk page? The intro is far too long at six paras. That's already been discussed on talk. The suggestion is 3-4 paras for an article that length; no more than 4. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Why wasn't it ok the way I modified it last? What is the problem here Slim? Why are you so adamant on it being in the form *you* want it in? Is there some Wiki policy that gives you the right to do this? --Ptmccain 21:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

We certainly can. That is actually my point. I'm here only because I wanted to make a personal appeal, rather than feed a free for all. See you there. --CTSWyneken 21:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Slim, why do you keep reverting perfectly legitimate edits? Just because *you* want it a certain way doesn't mean it has to be that way, does it? What Wiki policy gives you the right to keep reverting work on a page like this? You don't like it when I don't follow the rules and play nice, but then you turn around and to the same precise thing. Can you explain this to me? We are all doing a lot of work on this article and it is entirely acceptable and cited, and so forth, and yet you haul off and revert. I invite you talk about it and you ignore that request. Then you simply say, "We've already talked about this." Is that how Wiki works? Pages are never able to be modified once a certain person has determined it has been "talked about enough." Is this considered acceptable Wikipedia behavior? --Ptmccain 21:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Your intros are too long, or destroy flow. We talk about his influence on the Christian churches, so the quote from the priest belows there. Also, you can't have a paragraph about Luther advocating the oppression and worse of Jews, then follow it with a quote from a priest saying whoever follows Luther will live well. Surely you can see the absurdity of that without me needing to spell everything out.

I'm sorry but I can't keep repeating myself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Slim: Once again I would ask that you not copy my posts from a user talk page to an article talk page without asking. I go to user talk pages because I want to talk to the user more or less alone. If I wanted to do it here, I would have asked you here. You may not like to build consensus and then bring others on board, but this is the way I work. It is just plain rude to copy my words from a user talk page to a subject talk page without talking.

As far as the above, this is the first time you have said anything but it was too long. In my book, this is not repeating yourself.

Second, please do not assume motives for others. Perhaps McCain just thinks the things he's added are important parts of Luther's legacy. Why not talk to him first, shoot later? Or copy it here and talk? In the process of simply reverting, you undo the work of others.

I would like to work with you and I think it is possible, but you are making it very difficult. --CTSWyneken 23:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure who Peter Manns is, or why he's important enough to be in the introduction, but placing that statement after Luther's views on Jews makes it look like Manns supports burning Jews' synagogues etc. That's slanderous at best. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

CTS, I've already asked you not to post to my talk page about article content, and there's a note on my page saying all such posts are likely to be moved, so if you don't want your posts moved here, don't post them there. Also, talk-pages posts are not private or semi-private: they're subject to the GFDL just like anything else, and may be moved/copied wherever. As so often, the issue with the intro boils down to accceptable versus bad writing. It's bad writing to juxtapose the passage about Jews with the passage from the priest as though implying a connection. The intro as it is is fine, and I'll be reverting any change to it that is not an obvious improvement, and I'll do it without discussion because this has already been discussed to an absurd degree. At some point, we have to crack on and continue writing the encyclopedia. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

And if I do the same, we're in an edit war. Neither of us own this article. All I'm asking of you is the same consideration you demand. I guess that's not good enough for you. --CTSWyneken 23:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Slim has clearly revealed here what is driving this: not her concern for policy, or style, or length, but because she believes that only here preferred form of the intro is the right one and everyone else must cow-tow to her wishes. How about you "crack on" and go elsewhere on Wikipedia and do your thing Slim. Nobody is "burying" anything. Your obsession and agenda driven editing is clearly a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptmccain (talk • contribs)

I don't have an obsession or agenda, except that I want the intro not to be badly written, and I don't want the material about his anti-Semitism to be deleted, moved, or diluted. The final thing I want is not to have to post about it anymore on this talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Then, please, just back off. We are not "burying" anything. We are not "whitewashing" anything. Please turn your attention to your intersts and let us attend to ours. I've learned some things here, and I'll follow through, but having perfectly acceptable edits wiped away by your compulsive reversions is getting more than old. It strikes me as complete abuse of privilege and power you have as an admin. Is that really how you want to conduct yourself on Wikipedia? Can you please just leave well enough alone? It sure would be nice if you would. --Ptmccain 02:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick comment here, but I think that both sides of this argument, except for CTSWyneken, are hypocrites. Both PTmccain and SlimVirgin edit the page when others tell them not to, then when others edit their own unasked for edits, they get mad. All I am saying is that we have to break the cycle somewhere so that we can get back to productive editing. Thetruthbelow ^(talk) 00:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Truth, I grant you that I stormed in like a bull in a china shop at first, not understanding Wiki, but I've learned and my edits on the page in the past couple of days have been entirely appropriate. My edits recently have been just fine and reasonable, but Slim has vandalized the page several times lately, for no good reason. --Ptmccain 02:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to apoligize to both SlimVirgin and Ptmccain for calling you hypocrites. That was not the correct word choice I should have used. And I would like to say that I agree with SlimVirgin about not deleting the Anti-semitic part of Martin Luther's life. Thetruthbelow ^(talk) 00:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Show me one place where that has happened by me, or CTS, or Bosclair in the past few days. Get your facts straight before you start verbally hacking away. There is more than enough on Luther's anti-Jewish remarks. Good grief. This is absurd. Unless the introduction ends with it, the "cabal" is going to jump all over everyone. That is what we call a violation of Wiki NPOV. But apparently that only works in one direction.--Ptmccain 02:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The only reason the intro ends with it is that some editors fought to keep it out completely, so it was the last thing to be added. Now, the intro has a certain flow to it, and there's no reason to change it. Your edits were not an improvement to the writing at all, and in fact were detrimental. If you could shed your pro-Luther POV for five minutes and just stand back and look at the writing, you'd see what I mean. The thing has to be written in a way that isn't an embarrassment, and the way you wrote it made it read as though we were accusing the Catholic priest of agreeing with Luther's anti-Semitism. SlimVirgin ^(talk)3:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I've demonstrated that I'm *not* fighting to keep it out. I've kept it in through a good number of days and revisions. Sure, I still think it is not necessary since there is a section on the issue in the article and two separate articles as well, but ok, fine, whatever. You now are "fighting" to keep it as the last paragraph. Don't you think this betrays your lack of a NPOV on this article? Now you suggest that a paragraph following it means a Catholic priest agrees with Luther's anti-Jewish comments. I can easily make that apparently not so. Again, I put it to you Slim. What right do you have to dictate the precise form of the introduction just to satisfy your opinions? And must your opinions be the final word here? Why can't you move on? --Ptmccain 04:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Then leave it alone. You can't say "as Peter Manns says" because then you're saying WP agrees with him, and we don't introduce articles by saying "this article gives an overview ..." You're clearly trying to hide that pargraph with no care for the writing quality. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is it when you remove something you are not "trying to hide it" but when I add a par. I'm trying to "hide" something? This is really getting silly, isn't it? The par. is *not* hidden. It is right there, in a four par. introduction. It refers the reader, with a link to the section in the article that deals with the subject, no other par. in the intro does. Further, that section refers the reader to two separate Wiki articles, virtually identical to one another. How in the world you construe this as "hiding" boggles my mind. You continue to reveal your obsession over this and your lack of a NPOV. Peter Manns was a great Reformation scholar, who was also a Roman Catholic. If you were more familiar with the field of Luther and Reformation studies you would be aware of who he is and how significant his contribution was, and is. That a Roman Catholic says something, as he does, so positive about Luther's contribution to the Church is highly significant, given the history between Lutherans and Rome since the Reformation. I challenge you to set aside your agenda, and POV, and stop trying to interject your bias into this article. Stop trying to stop editorial changes. It is a violation of Wiki policy, is it not, for you to continue this incessant demand that something be as *you* want it? --Ptmccain 05:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Slim, what say you now? Your beloved paragraph is the second par in the intro, no doubt drawing plenty of attention to itself, facilitating your agenda and your POV, clearly not neutral, but in an effort to show good faith with you, I've put it as the second par. Then the rest of the introduction flows. It is now shorter, only three paragraphs long. So, the par is not "hidden" in any way, shape or form. The intro is shorter. Enough is enough. Lay down your axe Slim. Move on.--Ptmccain 05:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Peter Manns

Who is he exactly, and are his views representative of those of the Roman Catholic church? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming his views are "representative of the Roman Catholic church" ... stop your game playing here Slim. You are simply being obnoxious.--Ptmccain 05:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the following sentence should be in the intro at all: Peter Manns, a Roman Catholic priest and professor at the University of Mainz, writes: "Anyone who follows Luther will live well and die even better, for at the end of the dark tunnel stands someone who loves us and to whom we can look forward. That is Luther's ecumenical legacy for which we should give him thanks." [7] Jpgordon noted awhile back that the intro should list facts, not opinions. Various scholars opinions are more appropriate in the body of the article. Meanwhile, calling Slim obnoxious etc is out of line. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It is perfectly acceptable to quote scholars, give me a break. State your qualifications for making any such value judgements on this page.--Ptmccain 06:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Opinions don't belong in intro. Stick to facts. And take your patronizing attitude somewhere else thank you. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 07:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Quoting a world-class Luther scholar is not "opinion" -- it quoting standard recognized scholarship. How about you state here what qualifications you bring to this discussion?--Ptmccain 07:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

We don't need to post resumes here to edit, nor does one need to be Lutheran to edit the Luther page. Civility, however, *is* required. And it is better editing style to address scholars' opinions in the article body, not the intro. The intro should contain brief facts. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 07:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, upon reading the two intro versions, the original flows better with the order being 1) main notable item about Luther inspiring Reformation, 2) contribution to church, 3) contribution to Western civilization, 4) negative aspect of legacy. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The change is just fine. You are being obtuse, or playing games.--Ptmccain 06:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No it wasn't just fine. You obviously didn't reread it for flow or you would have noticed the duplicate sentence and the missing image as well as the choppy flow. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 07:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You could easily have removed the duplicate sentence without dumping the other material. The image issue was not my doing. I don't know how to fix that kind of thing. You are being duplicitous.--Ptmccain 07:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)--Ptmccain 07:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you even actually read what I did? I *did* fix your duplicate sentence, fixed your missing image, and rearranged the flow as well as retained your other material, and all I got was nastiness from you for my effort trying to help you. I won't bother next time. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 07:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

And...the seal image is missing in Ptmccain version. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Get your facts straight. A vandal decided to play games previous to my edits. Again, you are game playing.--Ptmccain 06:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You introduced the messed up image here. There was no vandal. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 16:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You just reverted back your version with the missing image. Stop it. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 07:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

A fourth problem with the Ptmccain version was the duplication of this sentence: "Luther's call to the church to return to the teachings of the Bible led to the formation of new traditions within Christianity and to the Counter-Reformation, the Catholic reaction to these movements. " I fixed all these issues. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

An error easily taken care of without a revert, and you know that.--Ptmccain 06:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

And there was no revert, I carefully edited to fix your mistakes and include some of your changes, but I won't waste my time next time. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 07:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

There was no "careful editing" on your part. You just did a hatchet job on the introduction, again, pushing your obvious agenda and far from NPOV. You did not include my changes, you wiped them out. Check the history. --Ptmccain 07:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

MPerel, Well done! Doright 06:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Doright, state your qualifications to offer any opinions here.--Ptmccain 06:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Ptmccain

Stop adding duplicate sentences, this time you added "Today nearly seventy million Christians belong to Lutheran churches worldwide, with some four hundred million Protestant Christians, who trace their history back to Luther's reforming work." which was already there. And stop insulting editors who clean up your mistakes. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 07:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for fixing mistakes, you however reverted and vandalized the introduction, for no good reason, other than trying to push your POV. You know what you did. The history is easily seen.--Ptmccain 07:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Btw, your edit above messed up my edit which I am now fixing. Please preview your changes as this seems to happen frequently with your edits. And yes, the history is easily seen and your mischaracterization clearly evident. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 08:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Ptmccain, you accuse MPerel and I of having agendas and pushing a POV, but we have around 35,000 edits between us and have edited thousands of articles over a very wide range of subjects. You have edited around 18 articles, all related to Martin Luther. You are the single-issue editor here with the strong POV, not either of us. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Paul, MP, Slim, please calm down! It does no good to spar. Characterinzing each other's motives and actions cannot help us to work together. Paul, you're still new here so you need to know that the editors qualifications (good or bad) do not matter. In fact, I made that very point in relation to you earlier when folks went after you.

MP, Slim, I really would appreciate it if you would stop going at Ptmccain's edits before discussing them here. He had decided to play by the rules, came here, did extensive work on the article and is talking. What would it hurt to talk first and shoot later? How would you all like it if I deleted the Luther and the Jews line because I don't think it belongs there. --CTSWyneken 11:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

CTSW, please don't lump other editors in with ptmccain. His behavior on this and other pages has been extraordinary. He is not, as you put it, playing by the rules, and his edits are not high quality, which is why they're being reverted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

In this particular exchange, you both engaged him. In the last few days, he has come to talk, stopped moving your line, and responded to your suggestions. So, how have you responded? Deleting his material out-of-hand and not explaining why without being pushed to. Why cannot you just let the text stand, voice your concerns and let him reply? I've been at him to be less confrontational, but you all have allowed Doright to blow that all out of the water.

So, perhaps I should do as you do. If I do not like something on the page, I'll just go ahead, be bold and change it. Is that really where you want to go? --CTSWyneken 14:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If he wants to make edits that won't be reverted, he'll have to start paying attention to narrative flow and not adding the same sentence twice. Please stop excusing what has been highly disruptive behavior and poor editing. You're suggesting we should treat him like a child by humoring him in the hope he'll calm down. Well that's not how it works. He has to edit within our policies no matter how frustrated he gets, and bear in mind that he arrived at these articles by first vandalizing one of them. Anyway, I've had enough of discussing him, and behavior in general. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No CTSWyneken, I did not delete his material out of hand. I made four talk page comments edits before I made my edit: 1) explaining the comment shouldn't be in the intro [17], 2) pointing out problems with the flow [18], 3) pointing out the missing image [19], 4) pointing out the duplicate sentence, "Luther's call to the church" [20], actually the latter comment I made right after my edit, it's what made me decide to go fix everything. I could have simply reverted with all these mistakes, but I edited instead to take care of these problems, also adding back in the sentence on marriage he deleted with no explanation, and I kept his "Today nearly seventy million Christians", simply rearranging it for flow as I futher explained here. Instead he reverted back to his version with the missing image, and the disorganized flow and became very nasty and insulting, questioned motives, made patronizing comments about whether I was qualified to even discuss, and left a hostile message on my talk page about me and my "Jewish pals". His next revert duplicated another sentence he accused me of removing but it was there and he obviously didn't even look at the actual content of my edit. I've actually been surprised that one of the most hostile hateful people I've come across at WP claims to be a "reverend" and I'm surprised you defend his behavior. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 16:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I am also done. Be aware that such a view is seen by others as a double-standard. --CTSWyneken 15:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what double-standard you are referring to; Ptmccain's poor behavior, both in speech and action, has grossly contravened any imaginable standard of conduct, and certainly violates Wikipedia's civility policies. Perhaps he is emulating his idol Luther. In any event, if I were you I'd be distancing myself from him, rather than defending him. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not an endorsement of his behavior, if you will note my first comment above. This is about fairness, even when you do not like a person's behavior. He was told not to delete content without talking first. Then, when he added content it was deleted without discussion. That is a double standard. If we're going to insist on a new person behaving in a certain manner, then we need to behave in the same manner. That is what I'm saying. --CTSWyneken 18:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If he wants his edits to stay, they have to be of a certain quality, and they weren't. Enough about him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

As an outside observer who is neither Lutheran nor Jewish, I would like to say that I was appalled when I read this article, and even more so when I read this discussion. I joined to see if I can help by giving an unbiased third opinion. Both sides of the issue may think I'm hurting their cause, but that's okay because they are hurting my cause as a user who wants information as well. When I come here, I don't want Jewish or Lutheran indoctrination shoved down my throat. I don't want a compromise or balance of indoctrination either. I want to know about Martin Luther, the man, the subject of this article. If you editors feel so passionately about one side or the other that you can't create an objective piece, you have no business writing this biography. -Atomiferous

You'll forgive me for not taking advice from someone who has made no edits, or perhaps more accurately, someone who is pretending to have made none. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I won't forgive you for dismissing the opinion of an outside observer - regardless of edits. The article should be about Martin Luther, and the discussion page should not be stuffed with argument about the Holocaust.--shtove 22:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree on the latter point; the amount of discussion about this has been absurd. As for the former, I'd be surprised if that was an outside observer. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Mann quote in intro

"Anyone who follows Luther will live well and die even better, for at the end of the dark tunnel stands someone who loves us and to whom we can look forward. That is Luther's ecumenical legacy for which we should give him thanks."

Ptmccain, please explain what you think the Mann sentence offers to the intro. The intro should be a brief overview of facts about Luther that are about to be addressed more fully in the article body. What fact does this vague opinion by Mann provide the reader about Luther? Luther will somehow make one "live well and die even better?" Is it really a fact that Luther lurks at the end of dark tunnels? This flowery vague statement about Luther says nothing factual about what his legacy is.

Furthermore, it seems strange that while Luther is mainly known for his protest and challenge of Catholic teachings, the only mention of Luther's relationship with the Catholic church in the intro is that one Catholic scholar thinks Luther lurks at the end of dark tunnels, full of "love". Nothing about Sole Fide or ninety-five theses... --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

MP, the whole article in its current state is incomplete because the heat of the Luther's and the Jews debate has distracted us until recently from working on any issue beyond it. As you recall, I advocated a much small intro. Since this was rejected, the intro must serve to summarize the whole legacy of Luther. The comment from Mann shows the contemporary attitude of many in the Roman Catholic circles toward Luther.

Now, you could argue that it belongs below, for the same reason I've argued that the Luther and the Jews article belongs below. I've checked several encyclopedia articles on Luther and neither are present in the intros of these articles. Let's see what Paul has to say about his reasons, but that's my take.

Sola fide should come in somewhere, I agree. --CTSWyneken 10:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Mperel's point is that this particular quote doesn't actually say anything. Quotes in the lead should say something explicit and to the point about the subject's legacy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the quote to the end. Can you folks please leave it in? It is a documented quote, from a reputable source, from a world-class scholar. Please just let it be now, ok?--Ptmccain 11:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You've just removed that he's a Roman Catholic priest, which was the whole point of including it in the first place, so now it has no meaning or point whatsoever. The intro is for material that is directly relevant to Luther's legacy i.e. to how he is remembered today and what he is notable for. This quote adds nothing to that. I'm going to remove it, per Mperel. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I see you've already removed it from the intro. My apologies. Thank you for doing that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for removing it from the intro. I'm not keen on it in the body either, as I don't see that it offers any useful information about Luther; however, I won't press for its removal from the article body. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Source query

Does anyone know who maintains adherents.com? [21] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Offhand, no. It is listed as a top site by the Wabash Center Guide to Internet For Teaching and Learning in Theology and Religion. This guide is supported by the Eli Lilly Foundation and is listed by the American Theological Library Association as a link off their Union Catalog's home page. --CTSWyneken 15:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

We probably shouldn't use it as a source if we don't know who maintains it. It could be a personal website. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll do some inquiry. It wouldn't likely be in the Wabash Center Guide, however, if it is a personal site. --CTSWyneken 15:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is a quote from "Adherents.com" it is no more, and no less, "authoritative" than Wikipedia. "Adherents.com is an Internet initiative and is not affiliated with any religious, political, or educational organization. Adherents.com is the 2nd most frequently visited general religion site on the Internet, with an average of 13,500 unique vistors per day. Adherents.com began hosting a small number of clearly marked ads on 24 January 2006. Prior to that time, Adherents.com had no affiliation with any commercial organizations. Advertisers have no control over this site's content." They retrive data from a host of other statistical sources on religion, etc. and gather it one place. May I ask why you, "Slim," seem so ... well, frankly...so obsessed with the Luther page? As I looked through a lot of pages you claim to have contributed to on your discusssion, including also those you claim you have a major hand in, they are replete with missing citations, facts asserted without documentation, etc. and I can not find any indication you are so concerned about the minutiae of where commas go in references on these pages. Is there some reason for this behavior on your part when it comes to the Luther page? Somebody recently observed to me that you appear to have quite a double-standard going when it comes to the Luther page, as opposed to the pages you edit. Oh, by the way, did you get my message to you on the website that mentions your activities on Wikipedia? I found when it when I googled on "SlimVirgin" and wikipedia. I thought you would want to know. I would appreciate your response to these questions "Slim." Thanks. --Ptmccain 16:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

First, whether adherents.com is more or less authoritative than WP is irrelevant. It has to be a reliable source or we can't use it, and if it's a personal website it doesn't count as reliable. It's worrying that there's no indication on the site of who writes and maintains it; or if there is, it's not obvious. Secondly, anyone who knows me as an editor knows that I care about citations. I'm not making any exceptions for this page at all. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You really pay this much close attention to the pages you claim as your own on your discussion page? That's interesting. I haven't noticed, but it's nice to hear.--Ptmccain 16:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your statement, "Somebody recently observed to me that you appear to ...", I would hope as a reverend you are not the sort who listens to such malicious, uninformed gossip. There's nothing wrong with SlimVirgin asking whether a particular resource meets WP:RS standards, as it assists in bringing up the quality of this article. And yes, SlimVirgin is very meticulous in any article she is involved in, insisting articles meet higher quality standards, as we all should be if we care about this project. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I would hope it is, but I have had my concerns. Time will tell if my concerns are unfounded. --Ptmccain 23:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You know what Ptmccain I have honestly had it with you. I have tried to sit back in the past when you made your claims about the "jewish cabal", and the various attacks you have made on SlimVirgin and MPerel and countless others, but now I just can't hold my tongue. I have to tell you that from your dialogue with SlimVirgin that you have been very dismissive, arrogant, and mean. Wikipedia is about editing, improving, and collaberating on articles, but yet again you have managed to turn it in to a soap opera. I am not trying to offend you or upset you, but I have to say that it is time that you took a good look at your past and current dialogue with everyone on this talk page, and reflect on how you have acted. You a good editor, Ptmccain, but you let your emotions carry you from the point of civility. Thetruthbelow ^(talk) 00:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

- ::::::::::::"Your let your emotions carry you from the point of civility." Quite.--Ptmccain 00:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Would you like me to show you examples? I'm sure I can find an ample amount. Thetruthbelow ^(talk) 00:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If you are trying to pick a fight, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to get into that. I'm sure you have better things to do with your time. I know I certainly do. I'm sorry if I have offended you.--Ptmccain 00:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I am certainly not trying to pick a fight with you, rather I am trying to prevent one in the future. I appreciate your apology, but I think that others are deserving of it (such as SlimVirgin) more than me. Thetruthbelow ^(talk) 00:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Adherents.com appears to be the website of one individual, Preston Hunter, a computer programmer in Texas"[22][23], however, it is apparently widely endorsed by universities, journalists, libraries, and religious organizations, including Harvard University, The Courier-Journal's "The most useful Web sites for reporters", Humbul Humanities Hub, The Internet Public Library, University of Wisconsin, American Academy of Religion religionsource.org, The Claremont Colleges, The Morgan County News, to name a few. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Good research. "Adherents" is basically a clearing house of published statistical research. It is not original research, but pulls together in one place surveys and other statistical information generated by various groups. I've always found it to be extremely helpful, and useful, apparently, as you discovered, a few others have as well. <g> The big question in my mind though is, "Will this pass the Slim 'it ain't good, until I say it is good' test"? <g> --Ptmccain 23:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Well the bigger question is, does it meet the WP:RS standard, and I'm not 100% sure it does, due to this clause which states, personal websites "should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website." The reason given is that "they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work." However, I would argue that since so many academic, journalistic, and library sources apparently rely on and endorse this site for research, this seems to establish its credibility as a reliable clearing house of published statistical research, as you say, and it does not appear to be the website owner's original research. On that basis I think it indeed meets the WP:RS standard. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Ptmccain, this is an article Talk: page, not a smear by innuendo page. The next time you make a Talk: page comment of the type you made earlier, you will be looking at a 48 hour ban. I hope I am quite clear on this. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Jayjg . That is what I was upset about. Thetruthbelow ^(talk) 01:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Punctuation changes in citation

Slim, the Lutheran World Federation citation was in Chicago Manual of Style format. Your changes make it out of compliance with that standard. Since I've been trying to move all the citations here in compliance with that standard, I'd appreciate it if you put it back in that form. --CTSWyneken 15:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Accessed isn't spelled with one c; we don't write May 18. 2006; and there's no need to place everything in brackets. Does the Chicago MoS do any of these things? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Typo fix is fine. I'll check the full date form in CMS. In footnotes and endnotes, parentheses go around the imprint and the access statement in CMS. Monday I hope to go back at correcting our notes form. On the date form, do you have a refence to the Wikipedia style guides that states a preference on how we report dates? --CTSWyneken 15:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't, sorry. It'll be somewhere in the MoS. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I just checked the Chicago MoS, and I'd say it's excessively fussy for Wikipedia. Surname first in bib, but not in footnotes; no parentheses except in notes. The WP article on it says it's "all but vestigial." WP tends to use APA or MLA, but I don't really mind. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It can be very picky, I agree. But I do this kind of thing a lot, since it is a standard used by a lot of humanities folk here. I'm happy to bring the format here into compliance with it, but I wouldn't insist on it for others. Basic facts of publication, when available, is sufficient. --CTSWyneken 17:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Luther is an Anti-Semite

I see that Luther has been labeled and categorized as an anti-semitic person IN HERE. Seriously, is there ANY consensus OUTSIDE of Wikipedia on this matter?? As I have said repeatidly, I am NO expert, not even remotely on this guy but it seems that editors have RECENTLY made this a done deal not open to discussion. Well maybe its open to discussion, but forget trying to remove him from that category now. This is why I have a problem with this category...Did he get "voted" into it? Who voted him in based on what?? Again, I DON'T know that Luther ISN'T an anti-semite but we/I/you should be 110% sure of it and not influenced by our emotions or backgrounds or agendas if thats possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Threeafterthree (talk • contribs)

I didn't sign this?? Sorry --Tom 17:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

"Vote"? Wikipedia is not a democracy. There seems to be something of a consensus, though not a strong one, that one could not write "On the Jews and Their Lies" without actually believing what it says. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 18:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree completly with you Jpgordon, for the amount of hatred that is in that book, he must have believed at least half of what he said, which would still make him a very big anti-semite. Thetruthbelow ^(talk) 21:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Everyone has their POV on this question. I personally hate the anti-Judaic writings of Luther. I agree with Roland Bainton that he should have died before he wrote them. Maybe all of us can learn by his mistakes. On his last journey from Wittenberg to Eisleben, when the wind changed direction to blow in his face, he blamed it on the Jews. He was old and sick then, but, I know, that was no excuse. The other part of the story is that there was much more to Luther, some of it very good, but everyone has their POVs. Drboisclair 23:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for making that point Drboisclair. When I said I agreed with Jp, it was about Luther's anti-semitism. But I also have said in past conversations, even on this talk page under the heading Question that Luther was a great man with a few flaws. Thetruthbelow ^(talk) 23:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Chicago Manual of Style Adjustments

I've begun again adjusting to CMS 15. I couldn't find a reference to date format in WP:MOS, so I've left the date form in CMS style. Does anyone know where else in policy I should look? --CTSWyneken 16:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not adjust to that format if it's inconsistent with ours. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the date was formatted to CMS already. I adjusted the rest of the entry to CMS. I thought this way OK, since you said above that you don't mind.

Re: Wikipedia date format, I've checked WP:MOS, but cannot find a reference to date format. Can you help me find it? --CTSWyneken 18:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Found it. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) I'll keep the notes consistent with it. --CTSWyneken 20:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Newbie Question about Vandalism

Question: I've noticed that people, most often with only an IP address listed, have vandalized this page with some frequency, inserting silly words, or obscene remarks. Are these generated by a bot, or are people actually coming here and inserting this kind of thing intentionally? --Ptmccain 19:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

People actually come by and do this. To put it mildly, there are few things that irritate wikifolk more than the scribble kiddies. Some articles get it more than others. We have quite a few editors and admins that watch over this page to clean it up. Happily, they do this enough that I'm often not fast enough to bag the revert myself. 8-) --CTSWyneken 19:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed on some other pages unregistered users are locked out of editing them. That might be a good move to make here, since it seems the vast majority of the vandalism comes from unregistered users. For intance, SlimVirgin locked out unregistered users on the "Palestine" article. How can that be done here?--Ptmccain 02:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This can and has been done, but admins do not like to leave semi-blocks up indefinitely. --CTSWyneken 10:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sister article On the Jews and Their Lies (excerpts) nominated for deletion

(copied from Talk:On the Jews and Their Lies (Martin Luther)

The "sister article" named in the caption above has been nominated for deletion. Please lend your input [24].

Removal of Revolutionary category

I have removed the category of "revolutionary" for Luther. It is unhistorical. In fact, Luther strongly opposed political revolution, e.g. his writings against the peasants in the Peasants' Revolt (1524-1526). If anyone else would care to weigh in on this, I would be glad to hear more on this. Having said that, one could say that what Luther taught and what grew out of Luther's work was "revolutionary" in a derived sense. --Drboisclair 19:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Making Notes Smaller

Why is it that people suddently have decided to start reducing the size of notes? This is not a book, it is an on-line resource. I don't see any good reason for reducing the size of notes, and every good reason for keeping them at full size. It sure makes for easier reading. I would really appreciate it if folks would stop tinkering with the note size. Thanks. --Ptmccain 12:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I second that. My old eyes are getting feebler. 8-) I know how to change my browser settings, but we can't expect other to know. --CTSWyneken 12:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

When does repeated changes to make the notes smaller fall under the category of "vandalism"?--Ptmccain 22:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The repeated changes to make the notes smaller will fall under the category of "vanalism" only after falling this, this and this to the category of "vanalism". I have absolutely no idea why you havent nicely asked not to change the fontsize to small in my talk page. Instead you decided to vandalise my page? Interesting! While there isnt any specific rules about the typography of Notes/Reference section in WP:MOS, MediaWiki_talk:Common.css has a css div class references-small. The name suggests that this is intended to use in such sections and I honestly do not believe using this class to reduce the font-size of such sections would ever be considered vandalism? Its also widely being used regardless of any written policy. Since we dont have any written policy and some agree that we should leave it up to the individual authors of the articles, I have no interest in making it smaller again, on this article. The repeated action on this article wasnt deliberate. Thank you --Oblivious 22:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The request not to make the notes smaller has been made here, politely, yet you have now twice done it. Please stop. There is absolutely no point, or sense, in reducing the size of the notes on this page. Thanks for your commitment to stop doing this.--Ptmccain 23:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Paul, please use User talk pages, and not user pages themselves, for your comments. Since you are new, you may not realize that folks do not take kindly to changes made by others on their user pages proper. --CTSWyneken 23:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, good point. I thought I was making an edit on his talk page.Sorry about that.--Ptmccain 02:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This did not look like an attempted talk page comment, adding a derogatory image, changing his user page to say "* His major contributions are to be expected in Maldives-related , and making notes smaller in the page on Martin Luther." and blanking out other parts of his user page. Vandalizing a user page is unacceptable behavior and this isn't the first time you've done it. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 07:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Oblivious, forgive us if we're a bit touchy here. This page has been through -- vigorous debate-- here recently and we're a bit jumpy. Yes, text size is not mentioned in any of the rules. But simply because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. I've been half tempted to increase sizes to 14pt to make it easier to read, but suspect that'd annoy folk. Here there are at least two of us that really do not like small text at all. So, please tell us, why do you want to do this? I suspect it isn't so that you can strain my eyes. 8-) --CTSWyneken 23:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

CTSWyneken my man! you put it like I want to reduce them. *Sigh* May be you dint see the part, in my previous response, about css class created in MediaWiki:Common.css that is to be used with Note/Reference sections. Such classes are created in the aforementioned style sheet only after geting approval in Wikipedia:Village pump. So its not me and my desire to change it, its being done all over wikipedia by many wikipedians on many articles for sometime! --Oblivious 23:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I picked up on that. But just because a capibility is provided does not mean it must be used. There are many examples of pages out there with large text notes and some with small. It appears that at the moment, then, it is to be left up to individual editors. In this case, two of us do not want the small text. So, since you do not want it, two of us here do not want it, why not leave it alone? --CTSWyneken 23:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe I already have, in my first response :) --Oblivious 23:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll say this for Oblivious. He has an apt user name.--Ptmccain 02:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Ptmccain that was completly uncalled for. I have to say that you are the first "father" that I have heard of that smears people's reputation, such as SlimVirgin's, or makes fun of people, such as Oblivious, for no reason at all. You should be ashamed. Whether you agree with him or not is no reason to make fun of him. Thetruthbelow^(talk) 03:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a "father" -- don't you have some homework to do or something?--Ptmccain 04:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

First off, are you not a reverend? If not, then your user page is faulty. And for your information, school is out, so no, my homework is finished. Talking about homework, have you ever researched anything you've posted on wikipedia, becuase your quality of writing has been disgusting. Was this the type of response you wanted in response to your needlessly mean comment. Thetruthbelow^(talk) 05:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I have had enough of this. Ptmccain, you have driven me to the point of wanting to take a wikibreak. Maybe after some time things can calm own and we can co-exist without any problems. Goodbye to all, Thetruthbelow^(talk) 05:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Ptmccain, you should be familiar with the Wikipedia:No personal attacks by now, as you have been warned many times. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 07:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Paul, I second the motion. Please do not go after other editors. I know that others have attacked you since you arrived, but responding in kind does not help us develop good articles. Also, aside from disagreeing with us, and constantly making a change we don't like here, Oblivious has done nothing at all. TheTruthBelow has also done nothing more than ask you to lay off. He's also new and also shows potential to be a good editor. So, can we give these folk a break? --CTSWyneken 10:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, sounds like a good idea to me. Thanks for the justified correction, CTS. I'll work on this and do better. I can see that I've come roaring in to Wikipedia like a bull in the china shop. That was inappropriate, and I apologize for that.--Ptmccain 11:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted. absolvo te. --CTSWyneken 13:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

That's nice of you to offer him an indulgence, but...don't you think the apology to and forgiveness from should be to/from the offended parties (i.e. Oblivious and Thetruthbelow in this incident)? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

That would also be appropriate, yes. It's a long story, but I'm responding to Paul as one Lutheran pastor to another. Public rebuke, public confession, public absolution. How he responds to others is for him to pursue from this point on. I don't expect understanding of non-Lutherans on this one. --CTSWyneken 02:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Did I miss something? So what we have here is a case of a person being attacked since they have arrived and now merely responding in kind? No wonder we have such a hard time agreeing on what scholars have written about Luther or even reporting what he actually said. Suggesting that this is merely responding in kind does strike me as odd.Doright 00:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Ptmccain, I offer a truce. I am willing to put this whole situation behind me, and I hope you are to. No hard feelings? Thetruthbelow^(talk) 03:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, my feelings exactly. Take care.--Ptmccain 14:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Everyone, I wasn't offended by Ptmccain's actions and his responses because I figured that he is relatively new and (I assumed that he is) unfamiliar with policies like WP:CIVILITY and WP:NPA. An appology is certainly not required because I dont have any hard feelings in this matter. This is wikipedia and you edit in good faith and thats its :) and thanks for everyone who tried to resolve a simple inflammatory-looking simple dispute. --Oblivious 12:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Drunken German

The quote seems to be pulled from Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume VII. Modern Christianity. The German Reformation. [25]. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 14:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! That's helpful. I've heard other initial comments by the Pope and others, so I think we should be careful. I'll source it myself when a moment permits. My favorite is the one said of Frederick the Wise: "You'll see that the Pope will not like this." --CTSWyneken 14:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I have provided the support from Polack. It may be helpful to get the primary source on this.--Drboisclair 23:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Located it. vol. 7, p. 99, and have put it with the Polack reference.--Drboisclair 00:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Date for the Edict of Worms

Just today Garrison Keillor on today's The Writer's Almanac noted that the Edict of Worms was on May 26, Wikipedia lists it on May 25 is the date of the Edict disputed/ambigous in anyway? If so, that should be mentioned in the relevant section, no?

http://writersalmanac.publicradio.org/programs/2006/05/22/#friday

Good eye! Bainton has the edict dated May 6 and issued with the consent of the Diet on May 26. I know of no controversy, but will check a few other sources as time permits. --CTSWyneken 13:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Luther on Reason

I see wikiquote:Martin Luther has a number of quotes of Luther's on reason, often (if not always) disparaging it. However, this article makes no mention of such a stand. Why is this? It would be interesting to see the ~~reasoning~~ thoughts behind Luther's beliefs concerning reason. Johnleemk | Talk 17:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, for two reasons. ;-) One, it simply is not a major theme in Luther's writings. Two, quotes from Luther often do not take into account more than the sound bite. The executive summary of Luther on reason is that reason must remain a servant to God's Word and never its master. In Lutheran dogmatics, we call this the distinction between the ministerial use of reason (the first of the two)-- good -- and the majesterial use of reason (the second) -- bad. When Luther speaks negatively of reason, it is in its majesterial use and when he speaks of it highly, it is in its ministerial use. --CTSWyneken 18:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

^ Luther, Martin. "On the Jews and Their Lies," Trans. Martin H. Bertram, in Luther's Works (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971).
^ Egil Grislis, "Martin Luther and the Jews," Consensus 27 (2001) No. 1:64.

[LutherJews-1] Luther, Martin. "On the Jews and Their Lies," Trans. Martin H. Bertram, in Luther's Works (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971).

[2] Egil Grislis, "Martin Luther and the Jews," Consensus 27 (2001) No. 1:64.

[1]

[2]