Jump to content

Talk:Martin Luther/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope

Though it wasn't written by Luther, I thought editors here might like to know that a stub for this work has been started Sumergocognito 07:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Do you know if it has been linked to the Book of Concord page yet? --CTSWyneken 01:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism and Anti-Semitic People Catagories

In the light of the advice at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes#Categories, I have reverted the addition fo Anti-Semitic People as redundant. --CTSWyneken 22:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Slim_Virgin, Here we go again, I think that it is unbecoming of an admin like yourself to be starting this all over again. It is immature, unscholarly, prejudiced, bigoted, anachronistic, and insulting. The whole section that brands people as antisemitic should be removed. I think that it is time to appeal for abritration here when we have a nonNPOV administrator! Why do you have to start this up again? Your bias is showing. This is unfair. This is being started up for political reasons. drboisclair 23:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
(copied from SV's talk page) Once again, you show that you are unfairly biased toward User:Doright in his religious quest to vilify Dr. Martin Luther. I advise you to show restraint and impartiality. Are you aware of the fact that we have hammered this out painstakingly for the last 5 months? I have also seen the ridiculous proposal of naming William Shakespeare as an anti-semite. Why are you starting this up again? Our concern here is not to overly bash someone as User:Doright has been censured in doing. This is totally beyond the pale of NPOV. It is POV that overly vilifies a great man. drboisclair 23:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Drboisclair, Religious quest? Huh? Censured by who, you, CTSWyneken and your merry band of collaborators? Can you explain how your ad hominem attack improves Wikipedia.Doright 09:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what makes you think Doright is on a "religious" quest, or a quest of any kind. I'm not overly keen on these categories (this or that kind of person), but given that this one exists, it would be absurd not to add Luther, who is a classic of the genre. I'm not starting anything up again. All I did was revert CSTW's deletion of a category, based on his (as I see it) idiosynratic POV. As for your comments above, please review WP:NPA and WP:CIV. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Ma'am, your statement: "...but given that this one exists, it would be absurd not to add Luther, who is a classic of the genre." This is POV, so please see WP:NPOV. drboisclair 00:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
If you don't see a need of this category, why don't you use your authority and delete it? I admit that it is appropriate for the likes of Hitler or Osama Bin Laden, but not for Shakespeare and Luther. Why must you cause this turmoil again? drboisclair 00:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I think your description of Luther as a "great man" indicates that you have a strong POV, much stronger than mine I can assure you. I have close to no POV on Luther whatsoever. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Having a POV is not wrong in itself, only expressing it in a way that excludes all other POVs is wrong. As you can see from your above posts, you too have a POV, though, admittedly not as strong as mine, but that is permissible as long as there is balance. I try to neutralize my writing in order to conform to WP:NPOV, but I am not perfect. I wish that we would not have to deal with this all over again. drboisclair 00:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


As a person of authority here you should be impartial, a peacemaker, and a negotiator. Instead, you start this whole matter up again. This matter was settled, why do you have to pick a fight here? drboisclair 00:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Slim_Virgin, you should also refer to these pages along with the one WP:NPOV. drboisclair 00:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
We need the help of a NPOV administrator to negotiate a settlement here. drboisclair 00:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Given all the e-mails I've received on this, I thought I'd go ahead and add my two bits.

1) Two categories on the anti-Semite theme are OK so long as they are mutually exclusive. One is clearly for bios; so the other should be used for articles related to non-bio anti-Semitism.
2) The bio-related category should include the article-related category as a category so that someone surfing anti-Semitism will see that a category for anti-Semitic people also exists.
3) With No.s 1 & 2 in mind, it makes no sense to include both categories in this (or any) bio article. It's redundant.
4) Any category used in an article should be supported within the article – preferably by an independent section (or in this case, an entire article). The section should make a clear case for including the category. Unless the section "Martin Luther and the Jews" is grossly mistaken, the anti-Semitic person category clearly applies to Martin Luther.

Rklawton 00:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Rklawton, I fully agree with your observation that the text of the Martin Luther and the Jews section shows that “the anti-Semitic person category clearly applies to Martin Luther.” By the way, you may not know, until it was whitewashed that section and article was titled Martin Luther and anti-Semitism. Are you proposing that the Martin Luther article now have its assignment to the anti-Semitism category removed? I don’t understand what you mean when you say, “The bio-related category should include the article-related category as a category.” For example, what is the "article-related category?" Also, with regard to your suggested requirement that the categories be mutually exclusive, it may be worth noting that none of the dozen or so categories that this article is assigned to are mutally exlusive. Nice to meet you. Doright 08:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


The action of putting Luther into this category is a matter of debate. It would be more NPOV to simply put him in the category of Anti-Semitism in order to explore this. Luther's writings against the Jews are offensive, but that does not put him in the category of Bin Laden and Hitler. I don't want to whitewash, though. Majority rules. drboisclair 01:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Dave since you have repeatedly said that Luther was antisemitic, I'm having some difficulty following your logic. Doright 08:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Would everyone please calm down. First of all, Dave, there is no call for using language about others likely to inflame, no matter how true you may think they are. We are far from needing any sort of intervention here. Second, Slim, I would appreciate it if you would not inflame issues. Surely you know that passions run high on this issue. It would be helpful if you would seek an agreement here before you go changing the status quo on such a topic. You may have missed it, as Doright has, that Dave actually has repeatedly said he believes Luther was antisemitic.
I'd like to think we can work together, seeing sometimes we have managed it. Now, can we please stick to this issue?
Now, Dave is right that we have been around this issue before and settled on the one category, Antisemitism. This was the best alternative, we thought, because it recognizes Luther's venom against the Jews and that the scholarly community is divided over whether or not his words were anti-semitic or anti-judaic. Please remember that it is the opinion of scholarship that we are required to represent, not the strong opinions of those who love Luther and those who hate Luther.
CTSWyneken, I think you falsely claim we "settled on the one category, Antisemitism," because we thought "this was the best alternative." Please provide the diffs that support your claim.Doright 08:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
To me, it is redundant to put Luther in two separate categories, both of which say the same thing -- he either is anti-semitic or is involved with anti-semitism. So, for the moment, we're at an impasse. Dave and I do not agree with double categorizing Luther. You and Doright, want to do this. Until others who were party to the original comprimises on this at related pages weigh in, unless you can bring some sort of rational argument to justify it or both, I will simply revert the addition of a second anti-semitic category up to two times a day, if necessary. I suspect I will not be alone. Shall we summon the parties to the original comprimise? --CTSWyneken 01:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
CTS, I've not going to argue about this. The only person who is not calm here is drboi, so don't tell me to calm down. Your POV on this issue is extreme and unusual, as is drboi's. If Luther was not an anti-Semite, then no one is. Doright, Rklawton and I believe he should be in that cat, if anyone is. Please don't keep removing it. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Slim, perhaps we should have a vote on it? You are stating your POV here, too. drboisclair 01:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
CTSWyneken, Since you have again provoked an edit war and have promised to continue it, I have deleted the category anti-Semitism so you can no longer use the excuse of claimed redundancy to delete the article from the anti-semitic person category. If others want to continue to include both categories that is also okay with me. However, you are now going to have to come up with a new excuse.Doright 11:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
A Two-Pronged vote: the first to remove Luther from the above-discussed list; the second to remove said list. It is amazing that such a list is even considered as an encyclopedia heading, for while it may very well be an accurate list of anti-semites, past and present, it does nothing to further knowledge, which is the point of this project in the first place. Indeed, such a category is POV by its very nature, as it sets this group of people apart for no apparent reason, especially when that is not the case for other sets of people. There are, so far as I have been able to tell, no set-limited list herein that contains the name of every baseball player, or of all past United States Senators (a list of current Senators does exist), or of Philo-Semites. Why this particular list, then, when categories that would make at least some sense --- such as categories for all past baseball players and senators --- do not exist? (If I have overlooked such lists, do not discount the argument. Any number of possible sets of people should have such a list if this particular list is allowed to stand.) The only explanation that makes sense is one that is political and/or personal. Any such reason is POV by definition; any such reason disqualifies such a list from the Wikipedia. --Rekleov 05:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The place to discuss the deletion of a +cat is at the +cat discussion page. SirIsaacBrock 20:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. Well...yeah. Pay attention to the rhetorical usage of the argument vs. the presence of the category in the first place: Luther does not belong in this category; and not only that, this category ought not exist in the first place. --Rekleov 22:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Luther put into an anachronistic category

Once again we have to work this matter out. I oppose the inclusion of Martin Luther in the POV category of Category:Anti-Semitic people, because it glosses over the debate as to whether his anti-Judaic writings were anti-semitic or not. This matter has been settled, and there are those who wish to incite an edit war. drboisclair 01:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR

I have left a note on your talk page about 3RR. Please review it before reverting again. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear, Slim, Thank you for your kind advice. I will not revert anymore. I have only reverted twice which is permitted. I regret that this matter has once again been broached. Perhaps we could have a vote to end at a certain time since there is an impasse here. Cordially, drboisclair 01:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
the following is copied from talk pages; please don't post to my talk page again. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I would then ask the same courtesy. drboisclair 02:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

If you revert again at Martin Luther, you will violate 3RR and I will report it. Just because one of the reverts you made was of different material, that does not mean it will not count toward 3RR. Please review WP:3RR carefully. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear, Slim, Thank you for your kind advice. I will not revert anymore. I have only reverted twice which is permitted. I regret that this matter has once again been broached. Perhaps we could have a vote to end at a certain time since there is an impasse here. Cordially, drboisclair 01:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
No, you have reverted three times. Look at the history. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
No, Ma'am, I have not reverted three times. In fact, I have reverted two times in two days! My first reversion was on April 19th, and my second reversion was on April 20th. Please see history, Cordially, drboisclair 01:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
This happens every single time I deal with you, CTSW, and StanZegel. Endless, pointless nattering back and forth. You have reverted three times: 15:09 April 19, 23:37 April 19, 01:11 April 20. Why else do you think I left a warning for you? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Slim, I would appreciate it if you would not escalate this to a war. Why not try discussing things calmly, rather than acting in ways likely to raise tempers. You should also note that you have now reverted the page three times. This is the last I will say on this matter other than observe that I keep a 2RR rule, which I have reached for today. If I must, I will reach that limit every day to keep the page in comprimise. Convince me and other interested editors with reason, and this can change. But I will simply not put up with strong arm tactics and attempts to anger people you know have short fuses. --CTSWyneken 01:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Dear Slim, where is the third revert? There are only two in two days. Is it on another article perhaps? drboisclair 01:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I have given you the times and dates. Please continue any discussion here and not on my talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, but they were on two separate days. Doesn't that mean that they were not 3RRs on the same day? drboisclair 01:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
24 hours. Read the policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
You have done the same thing and all on the same matter. (22:20, 19 April 2006, 01:20, 20 April 2006, 01:27, 20 April 2006drboisclair 01:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I know! But I don't need to warn myself because I understand the policy. You don't. After months of editing and reverting, reverting, reverting, you haven't even read the policy. After I post a note asking you to review it, you still don't read it. After I post the times of your reverts, you insist you're right and don't read it. After I ask you to stop posting about it, you keep on posting but still don't read it! Enough. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I have never been admonished about this. In this case it is a device to find fault with me. You too have reverted 3 times on the same matter. Imagine our frustration when this is brought up again.drboisclair 02:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Slim, can you document that drboisclair has ever reverted the same page four times in one twenty-four hour period? If not, please cease personal attacks against him. --CTSWyneken 02:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
There are no personal attacks, just astonishment at the pair of you. And if you want to stand for adminship, try reading, and learn how to link to, our policy pages. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Slim: The above is a Personal Attack. You have now accused me of not reading the rules, which I have. You have accused a user of having violating the three revert rule, which he has not yet done. You and he both have three reverts, neither have four. The rule is no more than three in a twenty-four hour period. I request you cease from such behavior. By the way, I do not appreciate your bringing the RfA into play here. It is completely out of line, since you know most people frown on campaigning. Enough! --CTSWyneken 02:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I repeat: you do not read carefully. I have not accused anyone of violating 3RR. I warned dboi when he was up to three, because I strongly suspected he hadn't read the policy, and I was right. Do you have nothing better to do than to post endless queries to me, rather than simply reading what I wrote or editing the encyclopedia? This is what you did the last time I tried to edit these articles, and it's what drove me away. Then, having driven me away, you proceeded to claim you had achieved consensus on the page, not realizing that people just get tired of your endless arguments. Or perhaps you do realize. Regardless, you cannot take ownership of the Luther pages. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
This is not true. He has invited others to discuss changes. He has taken their concerns into consideration. I remember that I reproduced some of Luther's German text for your arbitration, and you ruled against the idea that Luther advocated killing. I think that the record speaks for itself about the manner things have been carried out here. We are aware of the fact that we do not have ownership of these pages. I have read the WP:3RR but not far enough and carefully enough. I am surprised by your behavior in all of this. I thought you were impartial. drboisclair 02:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, yes, I see it, and you said that the subject matter does not matter. However, the two reversions were on the 19th and the last one on the 20th, so I arguably would have two more reverts for the 20th! But I will not take that liberty. drboisclair 01:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
What is it that you still don't understand? Do not revert on the same page more than three times in 24 hours, in whole or in part, whether the reverts are of the same material or different material. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


BTW, Slim, if I have reverted three times, so have you on the two days in question. Does an administrator have the right to waive the 3RR rule for him or herself? drboisclair 01:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not revert again after the warning

I need to state here that I did not revert after the Administrator gave me warning. drboisclair 02:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

One Antisemitism Category

Now that we are down to one catagory that links Luther to antisemitism, I'm inclined to let things be. When others arrive here to talk about it, we can discuss whether this is the best one or not. It settles the issue for me.

As I have said before, it makes little difference whether Luther's motives were racial (which many scholars do not believe to be the case) or religious. His words were, indeed, used to promote the hatred and persecution of the Jews. Either catagory will lead people to Luther to explore his role in this dark side of human history.

That said, I think the Antisemitism catagory is better. Casual visitors, for which catagories are intended, are more likely to head for Antisemitism, IMHO. More likely, they will not use catagories at all, but run a search in Google, Yahoo or MSN, or maybe from our main page. That the word antisemitic is in the several pages referring to Luther's hateful remarks will lead them to the discussion of his role.

So, I propose that we leave Antisemitic People as the catagory, await the arrival of the other editors involved in the development of the current text of this section and rationally weigh the one against the other. I'll revert to protect this state until we can see if the community wishes to switch the catagories. --CTSWyneken 10:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

From talk page of CTSWyneken:
I am not sure what I can add to the discussion concerning Luther. I do believe that he was an anti-Semite. This does not mean that he was an anti-Semite in the same way Hitler was (most anti-Semites are not). Nor does it mean that his anti-Semitism occured in a historical (and political and social) vaccum, or that we should just judge him and not try to understand him in the context of his times (this is true even for Hitler). Nor does it mean that he never did any good, or tht he is only an anti-Semite and nothing more. Wagner was an anti-Semite and the article on Wagner pretty much says this, and I can't see how anyone would object to his name being on the list of anti-Semites - but the article on Wagner is mostly about other aspects of his life and work, and you can bet he is on many other (benign or even honorable) lists.
In any event, following our policies, it does not matter what you (or I or Slim Virgin) think. If enough credible sources label him as an anti-Semite we have to put him on the list. Remember Wikipedia is not about truth, it is an account of what verifiable sources say. It goes without saying that the list of anti-Semites is not an authoritative list of "real" anti-Semities, it is like any list a list of people considered by some to be anti-Semities.
If you think that these views will make a productive contribution to the debate, by all means cut and paste them there. I haven't done that myself because I do not believe I am really adding anything of substance to the debate, and this may not be what you were hoping for, Slrubenstein | Talk 18:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
While I was contemplating how to respond to kind requests of my participation, SLR expressed my position as well. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Should Martin Luther be in the "Antisemitism" or the "Antisemitic people" category? is the hard question that we need to wrestle with here. Or maybe it is a clear question. Should we have a vote? The vote on deleting or keeping the "Antisemitic people" category was 13-12 in favor of keeping it, so it stays. There is disagreement on which category Luther should be put into. Drboisclair 23:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
If you ask me, let me start with a disclaimer that I dislike the category "Antisemitic people". IMHO, it should be called "Antisemitism (people)" or "Antisemitism (perpetrators)" (+optional "Antisemitism (victims)"). In any case, if we are to keep such a Cat., it should be a sub-Cat of "Antisemitism" and I would definitely vote for ML to be included. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with this proposal, but could we get this done, or would that take some working on? Drboisclair 00:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Slim:

Thanks for adding these links. They are most helpful. --CTSWyneken 11:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The Need to have a vote of editors on this question

I propose that all editors interested in contributing to this article vote on whether we should have Martin Luther either in the "Antisemitism" or the "Antisemitic people" categories, and the vote should be binding. There is a disagreement on which category he should be in. Does anyone concur on the holding of a vote on this question? Please post a reply for or against having such a vote. I do not think that it is fair to all concerned to simply place him in the category that he has been placed when there is disagreement among editors. Drboisclair 23:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: informal polls like this are never binding. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
The reason for the poll is the present state of the article: that the antisemitism category has been removed, and the antisemitic people category substituted for it. Drboisclair 09:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther should be in: Category:Antisemitism

  1. Drboisclair 23:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC). I am voting for this category as the compromise originally agreed on. I oppose the other category.
Rekleov, I think you are saying that you would rather the Luther article not be in any antisemitism related category, just as I would prefer that Luther was not one of the most significant antisemites in world history. However, I'm wondering why you prefer this category to the other? Should your vote be understood as a vote for Stan's newly created option of "neither category?" Can you explain? Doright 20:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
1. I am moving my vote to "neither category", which was not in place when I left my initial entry. It must be said, however, that if ML is included in either of the first two categories, it ought to be this one. --Rekleov 23:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  1. As I've said above, this is the best fit. --CTSWyneken 02:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. There's no reason not to put him in both. Pages are usually placed in multiple cats so I'm unclear about the point of this poll. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

or: Category:Antisemitic people

  1. As I said above, ML should be included into "Antisemitic people" or "Antisemitism (people)" or "Antisemitism (perpetrators)", which should be a sub-Cat of Cat."Antisemitism".←Humus sapiens ну? 00:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Should be in both. See above. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. It is an absurdity to have the Category and not include Luther. I have yet to see a well reasoned argument for excluding him. Additionally, I believe there are advantages to including him in both categories. By the way, who changed the name of the article "Martin Luther and Anti-Semitism" to "Martin Luther and the Jews?"Doright 08:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

or: neither category

  1. This name calling is neither useful nor accurate. Luther was a Christian reformer more concerned with Christians than worrying about the Jews. The oft-quoted passages by those wishing to establish him as the Father of Antisemitism were his overreactions to being provoked by an anti-Christian pamphlet of Jewish origin. This was a very minor part of his vast work, being exaggerated and magnified by some so that, while promoting a certain POV, it also distorts its importance in the overall work of this genius. --StanZegel (talk) 03:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I strongly reject accusation of "name calling". Systematizing and categorizing information is what encyclopedias do. Antisemitism is a well defined phenomenon and after many Lutheran Church bodies admitted ML's antisemitism, so your denial only shows your POV. It is exactly because this genius had such influence, it is important to acknowledge all facets of it, not only those you prefer. The alleged "anti-Christian pamphlet of Jewish origin" is a pretext (just as alleged "Jewish origin" of deicide) and surely does not excuse ML's calls to persecute entire communities. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Agreed. My vote falls here. --Rekleov 23:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

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.
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)
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)

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)

Saw that Paul Johnson was referenced here in discussions elsewhere, and wondered if that was someone I knew personally. (apparently not!) But when I followed the link I was presented with the disambiguation page of 12 (!) people. If it's okay with y'all, I'm going to change to direct link of Paul Johnson (journalist), that is Paul Johnson, to save a step and a bit of confusion.

Also, is there some stylistic reason that names in the notes section are not linked? If one follows the ref link down to the notes section, you then might have to return where you came from in the text to then follow the link to the person. Possibly not even then (see the first PJ note and ref - ref link in text gets you to notes that say PJ but there's no link there or back up in the citing text). Any problem with repeating links to people's articles from inside the notes section? Shenme 08:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links). I don't have a problem having an occasional supplementary link in Notes or in image caption. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with setting such a link. If I forget, someone else is welcome to do it. --CTSWyneken 11:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Rekleov, please do not Swizzel and Delete content from Talk pages

Rekleov, please be advised that Content Swizzeling and Context Swizzeling are NOT considered to be a “minor” edit. In addition to declining to answer the question, you are now engaging in Swizzeling by [2] deleting the text in talk to which my prior comments refer. I think this is considered improper and, of course, leaves the preceding comments looking absurd. Please restore the discussion page text, also please note that replies to comments typically are placed following (usually with indentation) not on top of the chronologically preceding comment. I suppose I should learn my lesson that no good deed goes unpunished in some quarters. Doright 20:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

A most interesting charge. The link you provide ([3] ) demonstrates that I moved and deleted nothing other than a pound sign --- I even made TWO notes to explain what I was doing! If such small changes confuse you, that is scarcely my problem. What was changed was your poor formatting; specifically, the placement of your response to my entry on the same line, done in the interest of clarity and good form, all while attempting to delete NOTHING THAT WAS THERE, so as to preserve the integrity of the page. If that is "swizzeling", the Wikipedia needs a sight more of it. If you can *show me* just what I did, and how it is against the policies of this site, please place it on my own talk page and I'll see if what you accuse me of is accurate; if it is, I will "fix" it, as best I can. If not, please change your login name to something that conforms with reality. --Rekleov 21:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Not only did you insert an unsigned and undated edit out of sequence so that it appears to be associated with an earlier date, (i.e.,Swizelling), you also wrecked the vote count numbering. Please do not waste anymore of my time on this and fix your own mess yourself. Furthermore, you dated your edit, "I am moving my vote to "neither category", 01:59, 21 April 2006, which is a date 18 hours earlier than even my original post to you that (1) pointed out the existence of the new category (2) sought clarrification and (3) asked you a question that you still have not addressed. Please restore the integrity of the talk page and stop wasting my time.Doright 22:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Wasting your time, eh? Your self-importance knows no bounds, it seems. Thank you for pointing out that the move note was undated. That was clearly in error; I simply left the original timestamp and did not notice that a new one might have been in order. However, the timestamp that is there PREDATES your initial message precisely because the message itself predated both your message and the additional category you "alerted" me to. As to your point 3, I owe you no answers whatsoever. Move on and please stop whining. It is unbecoming of someone I assume is an adult. --Rekleov 23:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Rekleov, Please restore newly deleted text from Talk page

Rekleov, with your new changes, you have now deleted more text. You have entirely deleted this edit, #If ML is to be kept in either, leave him in this category. --Rekleov 01:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC), to which I had posted a lengthly reply here: :::Rekleov, I think you are saying that you would rather the Luther article not be in any antisemitism related category, just as I would prefer that Luther was not one of the most significant antisemites in world history. However, I'm wondering why you prefer this category to the other? Should your vote be understood as a vote for Stan's newly created option of "neither category?" Can you explain? Doright 20:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC). Rekleov, Please restore newly deleted text from Talk page and Please stop deleting text from talk pages.Doright 17:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
This harassment has gone on long enough. Lay out for me on my page how you want it to look --- I've tried to fix it, and my attempts at repair clearly don't meet your High standards. Set it out as it "should" be, and if it looks right, I'll set it right. I'm not going to try to read your mind as to how it should appear. Good Day. --Rekleov 17:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, if as requested, you restore the deleted text that I've already documented for you, that would be a good start. Frankly, I'm not signing-up to be your personal editor, I'm not going to write your edits for you and I'm not going to 2nd guess what you want to say, so you have to do your own edits yourself. Simply do not delete text from Article Talk pages and do not date edits you do make improperly, especially when they have already generated replies. Please restore newly deleted text from the Talk page. Hopefully, you can figure out how to do this. It's a bit odd that you find a request to maintain the integrity of the discussion "harassment." I trust this will require no further discussionDoright 18:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Yo, Dudley: 1) I documented all changes. 2) I made a good-faith effort to fix the perceived problem. 3) You have not in any way made clear how it might look if things were fixed so that you would quit your whining. It's not my fault you can't understand the history pages. --Rekleov 19:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
It is my understanding that one can edit one's own comments. If someone wants to investigate the diffs, they can look at the history page. I don't think that it is proper form for one editor to badger another as you are doing here, Mr. Doright. Drboisclair 18:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The page was absurdly long; I've archived the old stuff. If there's something critical in an archive, you can link to it in the archive or in the diffs. Now move on to discussing article content. Jayjg (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitic people

What agreement are you talking about? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

CTS spoke of it as per archived pages, I am looking through them.Drboisclair 01:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Intent to Revert to Agreed Text

Dear Jayg, Slim:

Please see Talk:Martin Luther/archive2#Proposed Text. This is the one that most concerns me. We worked very hard to achieve this version and I would appreciate respect be given to this. We can, of course, revisit the issue here.

The catagory issue is another kettle of fish. We discussed it above on this page. I will accept either catagory, but not both. We seem to have no consensus on that, at the moment. We visited this issue during the earlier work on this section, but, on review, all I can find is that we let the Antisemitism catagory stand. I don't see any specific question as to whether we were all OK with that.

In case you haven't noticed, I will not engage Doright. In all his interaction with me, all he has done is slander me and others, including Humus. He has a track record of miscitation and non-citation that has occupied me with a lot of verification and correction work. I've talked folks out of filing an RfC on him and igore him instead. Until now, that has seemed to keep the uproar down. So, I intend to ignore him still, unless his behavior changes. If you find a point in what he says useful, please feel free to repeat it. We have a record of being able to achieve things together and I will engage you. --CTSWyneken 11:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

CTSW, the last time I tried to edit these articles, you talked a lot about supposed consensus versions to try to discourage new editing. You have to understand that this is a wiki, and no consensus lasts, unless those who agreed to it turn up to defend it. They haven't done so, and therefore there is none. The page needs to be improved and people (so far as I can tell) have been improving it (though I haven't checked every edit yet). As for the cats, with respect, it's not for you to say that you will not accept both. It's irrational not to put him in both, because he is an example of an anti-Semitic person, and his work is an example of anti-Semitism. Frankly, if he is not in these cats, the cats shouldn't exist. Please don't start another revert war. If there is material you want to add about the unfairness of it all, please create a new section and write it from the POV of the Lutheran Church (so long as it really is their POV), or whoever else you choose, but please don't interfere with the material others have added. Wikipedia cannot publish an apologia, and that's what sections of all the articles you've worked on smacked of. I'm sorry to write in these terms. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I would like to respond to the allegation that you make here that CTS or I are engaged in constructing an apologia of antisemitism. The manner in which you edit shows that you wish there to be a counter-apologia here. We are just as committed to NPOV as you represent you are, and since we are so committed, we are always ready to dialogue. Just because a scholar is Lutheran does not disqualify him from writing objectively about Luther. Most Luther scholars who are published are from other religious traditions. I would ask that material from Luther scholars would not be dismissed out of hand because they are Lutheran. Drboisclair 14:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Slim, the point here is to discourage undiscussed edits on, in this case, a controversial section. I, Jayg, Humus, SLRubenstein, drboisclair, others and you, I recall, worked hard to achieve this text.
For one thing, it lends to stability in articles. For another, it shows respect for others and keeps blood pressure lower among all of us. By unilaterally changing text in a way that you know (as Doright does) will cause others to react as the introduction of bias into the article almost garentees a vigorous reaction. By discussing first, it is more likely to result in a new agreement.
If you will look above, you will note that I'm not opposed to reopening discussion nor making changes. What I wish is a fair and open discussion. You might even consider waiting a bit for everyone to catch up with the discussion.
Why not try discussion? Until we do this, I will simply revert two times a day. If we can all agree on a change, then, fine. I will do the same thing to protect that change, even if I disagree with it.
On the cats, notice we have begun that discussion above. It shows a decided lack of consensus. Why not start a discussion? --CTSWyneken 12:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
You were doing fine until the threat to revert twice a day regardless. We can't be blackmailed by one editor. Discussion and consensus are good, but you take them too far, to the point of driving people away from the page with apparently endless discussion, and the result is rotten writing, with articles ending up as just lists of disjointed quotes and weasel wording (as in Martin Luther and the Jews, and until recently On the Jew and Their Lies). It can't continue. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Slim, if we can talk things out here, there will be no need to revert. Let's return to the agreed on text and talk about it. --CTSWyneken 13:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
That is a fair and reasonable request. Drboisclair 14:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Until we do this, I will simply revert two times a day -- If you do that, I will be forced to block you for 3RR. 3RR is not an entitlement; it is an electric fence. The purpose of 3RR is to avoid revert wars. You've committed yourself here to a continuing revert war -- one slow enough that 3RR doesn't click in. It doesn't have to. I suggest you consider your words and your intentions very carefully here; you are treading a very thin line between valued contributor and edit warrior. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Since JP has requested I not do this, I will not. Instead, I have put up an POV flag, because this section now favors one of at least two characterizations of Luther's words. --CTSWyneken 15:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The more productive action would have been to permit the reversion to the negotiated text of 5 months ago. The POV flag is the only recourse at this juncture. Drboisclair 15:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV New Material in Section

The section is now favors only one scholarly view of the words of Luther. I recommend returning to the previously agreed text. Until this is done, the section is advocating one position over the other.

In addition, as I said the last few times this was in debate, we have a whole article on this subject and a whole article on just the book, "On the Jews..." This section needs to be a summary of the other articles and not over long. This whole article still needs much work in terms of size, especially since some topics have yet to be covered.

So, since the agreed text has much of SlimVirgin's words in it, I'd like to ask what she thinks is wrong with it. --CTSWyneken 15:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what the so-called "agreed text" is, or the difference between it and the current one. Please show me a diff. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Here it is.[4]--CTSWyneken 15:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I can't take it out because of 3RR. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The New Doright Addition

The new Doright addition to the introduction of this article borders on vandalism. It is made with questionable intent to ratchet up the controversy that he has begun six months ago. Drboisclair 19:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It is a clumsy attempt at adding a line about this issue. A separate paragraph that covers the whole of th negative impact of Luther's life and works might be OK. We do want the whole thing keep pithy, since it is an intro, after all. Could you work one up David? I'd place it second in the article. We could consider it and insert the whole thing there. --CTSWyneken 19:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
"Martin Luther's prominence in his own time and consequent history was the cause of the compilation of much of what he said and wrote. The monumental Weimar Ausgabe (Weimar Edition) of his works consists of over 100 folio volumes, giving scholars more of an insight into what Luther said, wrote, and taught than for any of his contemporaries. Luther's oftentimes harsh polemic has been criticized, and his writings against the pope, the Peasants' War rebels, some of his fellow reformers, and the Jewish people have sparked bitter debate into the present day ..."
It could start something like that if it is necessary, but I will set my hand to it right away. Drboisclair 19:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The New SlimVirgin Addition

How can this possibly take up this much space, as opposed to the items listed in the preceding paragraph? To mention it may be appropriate; as for the text currently in place, it smacks of nothing more than simplistic agenda-pushing. An included reference does nothing to hide this. Far too much time and space is already dedicated to this topic, both in this article and others --- truly, far too much of the wikipedia is in disarray for people to be spending their time on making this article more lopsided than it already is. --Rekleov 20:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

These are my sentiments exactly. I guess that we have to remember that Wikipedia is a living entity like a living language that is always in flux. We had a good article a month ago. It baffles me that it has to be tangled over time and again. Drboisclair 20:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
This new addition is not NPOV as it is labelled. It is the product of an administrator, who wants to foment an edit war. I believe that it should be reverted, since it is a matter of debate. Drboisclair 20:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what part of NPOV you think it violates; it seems to quote that POV accurately. Please recall, NPOV means that multiple sides of an issue are presented, and the position presented is certainly a majority view. "NPOV" does not mean "we only include what ever single person agrees to". On the contrary, it involves including multiple points of view. Also, your statement that "It is the product of an administrator, who wants to foment an edit war" is completely inappropriate and a violation of WP:CIVIL. Please stick to discussing article content, not other editors. Jayjg (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
We have been told about majority view above being represented, this is a small portion of Luther's life and contribution. I think that the editor in question should also refer to WP:CIVIL because that editor's actions here are inappropriate as well. I don't recall seeing any censure of Doright on your part. Drboisclair 20:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL concerns comments made to or about other editors; it is not a catchall policy designed to cover anything you don't like about another editor's actions. Please realize that even if you dislike another editor's actions, it is no excuse for violating WP:CIVIL. As for Doright, to be frank, I, like others, don't read his comments. Jayjg (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Thankyou for clarifying that. My above comments were written in frustration. I don't see any end to this incessant wrangling. It is pathetic. Drboisclair 20:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Jayjg, I beg your pardon.Doright 22:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Dave, Jayg is right. We don't need to attribute motives to editors. What I'd argue is, as bad as Doright's insertion was written, it did summarize one negative aspect of Luther's legacy. It was something I missed entirely when I wrote the first version of it while a wet-behind-the-ears editor.
I'd argue that Slim's paragraph is too long on this one topic for an intro. Something more the size of Doright's phrase, in a paragraph that includes other negative consequences of Luther's life and thought -- hastening the division of Christianity, the strife spilling over into the thirty years war, the formation of the State Church, the words used by 20th Century anti-semites such as the Nazis to justify their evil. --CTSWyneken 20:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes motives are transparent. I regret that one must capitulate. One should put up a red POV flag over the entire website. Good scholars are driven away by the incivility. Drboisclair 20:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The Queen

We may note that H.M. the Queen is making her way through this article to give it her imprimatur. Drboisclair 21:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Dave, I think you should just hold your thoughts. It doesn't help any. --CTSWyneken 21:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Nothing helps any sadly. Drboisclair 21:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Please stop this Dave, it's worse than unhelpful. Discussion helps, personal attacks poison the Talk page. Jayjg (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
And by the way, part of that "making her way through this article" included cleaning up sentences like this:
Martin Luther's literary output is astounding. Only a fraction of his writings have been translated into English, in the American Edition of Luther's Works, consisting of 54 volumes!
and this:
No public figure today could write in the manner of the correspondences Luther received or in the way Luther responded to them. Opinions today can be immediately shared electronically with a wide audience. At least one such statement would not be heard from most modern pastors: He regularly told the Devil off.
This kind of un-encyclopedic, unsourced, hyperbolic and almost worshipful text has been in the article for years, and with all the editing no-one has yet seen fit to remove/fix it. Does anyone really think encyclopedia articles should describe people's output as "astounding", or end their sentences with exclamation marks, or make bold claims about what public figures today could write the way he did, or that bizarre claim about modern pastors not telling the Devil off? You should be grateful for this kind of copyediting, which will only improve the article. Jayjg (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Nope. Go ahead and fix it. Aside from items that have attracted attention, I've only gotten down as far as the Diet of Worms. I'm glad you all have more of an interest in the article than just one segment. If you have need of any documentation from time to time, just ask. --CTSWyneken 18:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I see some references are requested. As time permits, I will provide them. One observation, though. Much for which citations have been requested are so well established and undisputed, that it is like footnoting that Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence! --CTSWyneken 18:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I would like to point out that the source of the hyperbolic, hagiographical wording that Jay refers to above is the old Schaaf-Herzog article, which had served as a useful outline and model for this article. CTS and myself were not the authors of it. I agree with its removal. Drboisclair 19:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The hagiography stuff, complete with exclamation mark, was added by User:Ptmccain very recently. [5]. None of the usual reverters bothered to remove it, of course. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
We've been kind of tied up, if you haven't noticed. In any event, it is good to have it removed. --CTSWyneken 20:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Luther’s View of The Holy Ghost (God) as a Rhetorician in Bondage of the Will

No discussion has occured on this one at all and it has been some time since I reviewed it. I reread the item and it appears awefully narrow even to be merged. Does anyone mind if I remove the merge flags and follow the new PROD policy? --CTSWyneken 11:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I would be in favor of removing it. It serves no purpose. I revised the On the Bondage of the Will article when this matter first came up. Drboisclair 18:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Michael and Luther Advocating Murder

I have a question about our text, which says: "He also sanctioned their murder." It cites Robert Michael's essay. p. 343, where Dr. Michael says: "Perhaps more damaging to Luther's reputation, however, was his apparent sanctioning of murder."

I am curious about this since:

Martin Brecht, Martin Luther tr. James Schaaf. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993, 3:341-346, Brecht spends five pages summarizing and analyzing On the Jews He does not mention the passage from On the Jews now quoted in the article. He does, however, say: "What Luther really intended was the expulsion of the Jews, not their deaths." (p. 344)

Gordon Rupp expresses similar sentiments in Martin Luther: Hitler's Cause -- or Cure? London: Lutterworth Press, 1945.

"But, as the reader will remember, the fighting of a civil war does not equal beheading of Anabaptists, nor does that equal the exile of Jews, which Luther demanded. Where is the evidence that Luther demanded a pogrom or wholesale executions?" (p. 76)

"Luther was not recommending personal violence." (pp. 78-79).

"It all falls very far short of the Nazi anti-semitism with its doctrine of Race, with its mass extermination." (p. 79)

Graham Noble adds in his article: "Martin Luther and German Anti-Semitism." History Review (2002) no. 42:1-2.

No matter that [Luther] sought, in his own terms, to save the Jews not to exterminate them, that he had no notion of the pseudo-scientific eugenics which underpinned Nazi anti-Semitism, or that he depreciated physical violence against them -- Martin Luther offered in his writings a historical and intellectual justification for the Holocaust, which the Nazis took pains to exploit." p. 2.

Does anyone know of another scholar that claims Luther actually advocated the murder of Jews? --CTSWyneken 18:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Robert Michael, as you know very well. Luther himself, as you know very well. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Please note I've accounted for him above. Do you know of any others? --CTSWyneken 19:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
If you know the edit is sourced to an academic source, why are you questioning it? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Because at least three scholarly sources say the opposite. My question, and that's all it is, is are there others that support Dr. Michael's view? --CTSWyneken 20:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Who are the three scholarly sources, and can you cite their exact current academic positions, or if they've passed away, the last academic position they held? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll work on it. Of course, I'd still like an answer to my question. --CTSWyneken 20:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Why are you asking it here, given that this article doesn't mention it? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

(Copying to Talk: Martin Luther and the Jews) Also note that it was Mperel who changed my edit from "may have sanctioned," to "sanctioned." I prefer the former and will probably change it. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It's here too at Martin Luther#Luther and the Jews, first paragraph. --CTSWyneken 21:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Here is the passage from On the Jews from the Weimar Ausgabe and the St. Louis Edition: "Nicht anders ists, denn wie droben gesagt aus Mose, das sie Gott mit wahnsinn, blindheit und rasendem hertzen geschlagen hat. So ists auch unser schuld, das wir das grosse unschüldige Blut, so sie an unserm Herrn und den Christen bey dreyhundert jaren nach zerstoerung Jerusalem, und bis daher, an Kindern vergossen (welchs noch aus jren augen und haut scheinet) nicht rechen, sie nicht todschlahen, Sondern fur alle jren mord, fluchen, lestern, liegen, schenden frey bey uns sitzen lassen, jre Schule, heuser, leib und gut schützen und schirmen, damit wir sie faul und sicher machen und helffen, das sie getrost unser geld und gut uns aussaugen, dazu unser spotten, uns anspeien, ob sie zuletzt kündten unser mechtig werden, Und fur solche grosse Sünde uns alle todschlahen, alles gut nemen, wie sie teglich bitten und hoffen. Sage du nu, ob sie nicht grosse ursach haben, uns verfluchte Goijm feind zu sein, uns zu fluchen und unser endlich, gruendlich, ewig verderben zu suchen." WA 53,522,lines 7-19 (emphasis added for the sentence in question).
The modern German from the St. Louis edition is as follows: "Nicht anders ist's, denn wir droben gesagt aus Mose, daß sie GOtt mit Wahnsinn, Blindheit und rasendem Herzen geschlagen hat: so ist auch unser Schuld, daß wir das große unschuldige Blut, so sie an unserm HErrn und den Christen bei dreihundert Jahren nach Zerstörung Jerusalem, und bis daher an Kindern vergossen (welches noch aus ihren Augen und Haut scheint), nicht rächen, sie nicht todtschlagen, sondern für alle ihren Mord, Fluchen, Lästern, Lügen, Schänden frei bei uns sitzen lassen, ihre Schule, Häuser, Leib und Gut schützen und schirmen, damit wir sie faul und sicher machen und helfen, daß sie getrost unser Geld und Gut uns aussaugen, dazu unser spotten, uns anspeien, ob sie zuletzt könnten unser mächtig werden, und für solche große Sünde uns alle todtschlagen, alles Gut nehmen, wie sie täglich bitten und hoffen. Sage nun du, ob sie nicht große Ursach haben, uns verfluchten Gojim feind zu sein, uns zu fluchen, und unser endlich, gründlich ewig Verderben zu suchen?" St. Louis ed. 20,1989,296 (emphasis added). Drboisclair 19:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
On the archived page Cf. Contents: 2 Where does Luther's statement that all Jews should be murdered go in the article? you have the research that CTS did on gleaning scholar's view on this question. Slim, you also commented on the interpretation of this data then as well. The English translation from Luther's Works 47:267 is not very good. Drboisclair 19:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Original research is not relevant; we just quote the sources we have. Jayjg (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I suppose we could put the German in quotation marks, source it and put it on the page. 8-) It's Luther's words. Of course, intepreting it, that's original research. ;-)
Seriously, it really is not getting to the question that I like the answer to. Is there any other scholar who takes the same view as Dr. Michael? --CTSWyneken 23:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Could you first of all produce the exact academic positions together with universities of the sources you quote above? And please, in future don't just give names of your sources, either here or in articles. It's a bad habit I've noticed in all these pages. Say who people are. Write for the reader, not for yourselves. Explain terms. Don't write sentences like "influenced by humanism's call ..." The article reads like some cheap coffee table book remaindered after Christmas. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Slim, I do not appreciate the lecture and the double standard. You do not do this. You question every scholar you disagree with. I make a simple request and you begin an assault. I'm tired of you not reading my text. I have already said I would look these up. This is spite of the fact that Brecht is the standard biography of Luther and Rupp a major Luther scholar. If you challenge this, why not do your own research?
You will notice I have not made any proposal whatsoever as to what we should do with the text of the article itself. I am trying to gather data about the scholarship on this one point. Once we know what's out there, we can decide if a change is warranted.
So, again, my simple request is this: does anyone know of someone beyond Robert Michael that asserts or suspects that Luther seriously recommended the murder of Jews or their genocide? --CTSWyneken 11:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
There is no double standard. When I add a name to an article, I say who that person is. I would therefore like a proper description of the sources you mentioned earlier. You must know who you're citing, so just tell us. Do that first, and then we can discuss whether we need additional sources, because if your sources are poor, we don't need any others. This is a tactic of yours. Every single edit attracts several questions from you. Every single question from us is met with more questions from you and few, if any, answers. So all that happens is talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, and then understandably reasonable people start climbing the walls and don't want to edit these pages anymore, and you're left to your own devices again. I actually don't mind when editors act protectively toward a page. I respect it so long as they're doing good things themselves, but then the writing has to be decent and the content comprehensive, and not conveniently leaving out awkward facts. When that's happening, you have to step aside and let others make their edits too. I told you before, I don't want to have to keep posting endlessly on talk. Therefore, please say who your sources are exactly. I'm going to ignore this thread until you've answered. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I will not continue to discuss things with you if you will not show the most basic level of respect. --CTSWyneken 11:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The quotation above, while extremely unpleasant, does not show that Luther had a plan for murder. The policies he actually advocated are listed before in the same section. What Luther is saying is that Christians, himself included, are guilty for not seeking revenge, and for engaging in toleration instead. Even if "totschlagen" is not just rhetoric in this context, it does not follow that Luther is actually advocating striking dead the objects of his hatred; rather, he is engaging in recrimination - the readers are guilty because of being (allegedly) tolerant, and would expunge this guilt by carrying into practice the plan he details elsewhere. Hasdrubal 17:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally - while I have no strong opinion as to whether or not the inclusion of the views of Mr. Paul Johnson is appropriate, it is hard to see what they add to the article. They seem to be simply a value judgement by a scholar. If Johnson makes a case stating that Luther's writings were actually a great step towards the twentieth-century exterminatory policies of the Nazis, it might, of course, be appropiate to detail such a case here, or, rather, in one of the specialized articles cited. Hasdrubal 17:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The cited, reliable sources say that he planned their murder etc. Your personal opinions on the matter are not relevant. Please read WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources." Jayjg (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I seem to have stepped into an edit war; I shall refrain from further involvement in it. I do not doubt that the paragraph quoted above, in German, is genuine. It is simply that I thought it clear that a more careful wording of our interpretation was in order. Since you believe that this opinion, being mine, is irrelevant, I suppose it is useless to contribute any further comments on this matter. Hasdrubal 18:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Citation request

I requested a source for "Influenced by humanism's call ad fontes ("to the sources") ..." and CTSW has just stuck a ref after it. If it's a quote, it must be in quotation marks. If it isn't, it must be rewritten. It can't remain as it is, because it's practically meaningless. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Slim, the citation provided is to one of many descriptions of Martin Luther's relationship to Humanism. He was initially a part of that movement, parting company with them in the middle 1520s. This is common knowledge. I have summarized what, as far as I know, every scholar in this area says about Luther's motivation to study the Bible. Since this text is not a direct quotation, it is not in quotation marks. The quote marks are there to translate the Latin. Every source translates it slightly differently.
I wish that you would be a little bit more reasonable. Should I go to Judaism pages and put a cite tag on the translation of Torah as Law? Or that Jews believe they are descended from Abraham? Asking whether Luther taught salvation by grace is the equivalent. --CTSWyneken 11:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Could you rewrite it then, please, so that it makes some sense? The flowery language, if that's the right term for it, isn't appropriate. We're writing about this from the outside, as though we're Martians, not from the inside, as though we're Lutherans. And we have to assume our readership are a little Martian(ish) too. Therefore, the best writing (and this is always true) is plain and simple. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Author Bios Page Begun

I have added a subpage at Talk:Martin Luther/Cited Authors Bios for gathering info about authors we are discussing. The intent is just to sketch these folk, so everyone knows a little about them. My hope is that we will keep discussion of the authors themselves here and basic facts on the new page.

I would appreciate help with this page. For instance, would someone do Robert Michaels and Paul Johnson? --CTSWyneken 19:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

New Material by IP Editor

A new editor has added quite a bit of material to the Other Writings section of the article. It is, as far as I can tell, fairly accurate. I've left him/her a message on the IP talk page, but don't know if the user will see it or respond to it.

First of all, I have no objection to leaving it in, especially if it encourages a new editor. I have two questions:

  1. We have a subarticle on the subject: On the Bondage of the Will We should give some space to the work here (I had been meaning to give it its own section, since it is a major work), but the article runs long as it is and other topics need attention here. So, how much of this should we do here?
  1. He doesn't cite any sources for this. Again, it is fairly agreed upon information (DRBoisclair is more familiar with the work than I am, however), so much so, I wouldn't expect a footnote in a journal article for it. So, do we lay off? --CTSWyneken 12:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Martin_Luther/Archive_4&oldid=1224910883"