Talk:Martin Luther/Archive 13

Pronunciation

I am convinced that the original German pronunciation of his name is [ma:ɐtɪn lut(e)ɐ] as the English pronunciation has a [θ] sound, lacking in German. Can anyone give me advice on it aso I can assuredly add it on the page? RJL 15:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to go, not with the original pronunciation, but how his name is pronounced in English. It will just confuse people to do otherwise. (This is the reason we don't play with the name of Jesus (which was nothing of the kind; likely pronounced Yea -- sus (most Palestinians at the time of Jesus were multilingual and would have spoken Greek in public areas) or Ye-shoo-ah (in private and all Jewish areas) Luther's case is complex, since the German language was in flux at the time. At home, it was probably "Loo-der" But his daily discourse would range from High German (Loo-ter) to every day Saxon (Loo-der) to Latin in churchly circles, influenced by Humanism's high regard for Greek. (for a while, he wrote under the Greek pen name, elutheros, one set free. There it was definitely "th" in sound. Since this is the way he and his contemporaries came to spell it, I'm betting the English/Greek way is the most common way he and his contemporaries pronounced it. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 17:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

When speaking of his father Hans Luther (Luder) this would be a matter of importance. I agree with CTS here. You might note that Philipp Melanchthon is a prime example of a person whose German name has lost some significance: his original name was Philipp Schwarzerd ("black earth"), which he translated into Greek (Melanchthon). --Drboisclair 20:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of the Length of the Luther and Antisemitism Section

Several people here have indicated why they believe the sub-article on Luther and the Jews is/was too long. They change it. Along come some other Wikipedia editors and without any discusssion or participation in this discussion they lengthen it back again. I'm still waiting for anyone of these defenders of the length of the sub-article to offer a coherent and detailed explanation of why they think this too-long subsection should not be reduced and why two other lengthy articles that are clearly referenced in the text are not more than adequate for giving this issue plenty of coverage? It would appear there is a POV motivating this defense of what clearly is an indefensibly too long sub-article. The sub-article needs to be kept short and brief, not allowed to become an article within an article. Reasons for keeping it as long as it was need to be offered here. Others have rightly noted it is too long. My feeling is that we keep it short and continue to change it back to something shorter when others want to make it too long. Justas Jonas 23:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Just to be clear, this thread was started by User:Justas Jonas. The voting thing that follows was started by User:Keesiewonder. Thanks!

May we try getting a feel for who is weighing in here in a list format? I'll be bold and organize the format. I really don't know for sure who is where because I have not been watching this talk page as long as most of you.

Support Long Version of Luther and the Jews/Anti-Semitism/Anti-Judaism in the Martin Luther article

1. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Even if shortening it were a good idea (and I don't think it is), simply cutting out the first/last two paragraphs, and inaccurately re-writing and POVing the rest, is not a reasonable solution. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   You are welcome, of course, to do a condensation of the section yourself. As far as I can tell, no one in the current discussion is wedded to a particular version. My concern is that it meet the guidelines in Wikipedia:Summary style.--CTSWyneken^(talk) 12:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

3. The deleted material was factual, and was contributed by several editors over a long period of time. It should not have been deleted after an anonymous editor called for it to be deleted. Repentance 07:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
4. As I noted earlier, ML is one the most influential figures in history. It is important to reflect his legacy adequately in its entirety. I really don't see something that's out of place there. If that section does look too long, I would suggest to break it into subsections. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   As far as I know, no other article about a historical figure on wikipedia has an article length sub-section on a controversial issue. If you know of one, please provide a link. Why should we ignore Wikipedia:Summary style? To my knowledge, no encyclopedia article on Luther contains more than a sentence or two on the issue and no biography of Luther more than a few pages. I see no objective reason why we should not follow FA standards and move most of the material to Martin Luther and the Jews. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 12:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   I don't see a violation of the Summary guideline and IMHO the topic's importance justifies its length. It is sad that many other bios were not NPOV. We saw results of that glaring omission consistently on this talk page. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

5. I thought this issue was settled a long time ago, but apparently not., when a consensus emerged concerning the length of this section. Now the same old battle is being refought. This kind of continual dredging up of old and resolved issues is disruptive.--Mantanmoreland 16:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
6. I'm afraid any attempts to rewrite this section will result only in more bad blood and edit warring. Beit Or 19:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
7. weak support. For the sake of peace and a balanced presentation of this topic, it may be necessary to have the section remain as it is. Proper editing of an encyclopedia article might suggest some trimming, however.--Drboisclair 00:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Support Short Version of Luther and the Jews/Anti-Semitism/Anti-Judaism in the Martin Luther article

1. Keesiewonder 01:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Per WP:WIAFA and Wikipedia:Summary style.--CTSWyneken^(talk) 02:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
3. -- It needs to be condensed. It is presently too long, unbalances the page and the text is redundant with what is said in the sub-article. Mytwocents 07:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
4. -- Definitely needs to be shortened. There are two other long articles on this subject on Wikipedia. This overly-long sub-article on the Martin Luther article is out of place. A careful review of the history of the length and wording of the sub-article demonstrates conclusively that those advocating making it as long as possible have a very strong bias on this issue and are pushing a POV that one can easily see in all of their Wiki article work by checking their user contribution pages. Justas Jonas 18:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, we have not defined 'long' yet. Nothing's conclusive to me, yet, on this issue. And, I am pretty certain at least one of the editors voting for 'a long' version is not even Jewish in practice, but in part by heritage. (That's a hard thing to word; please correct me if I got it wrong.) Please carefully read their user pages if you think I am mis-speaking here. Thank you, everyone, who has voted so far. I am finding it useful and informative. Keesiewonder 18:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"Long" as compared to every other sub-article in the Luther article. That's pretty obvious. The people "for" keeping it longer than any other sub-article in the Luther article, in spite of there being two other lengthy articles on the same subject are not providing any good reason for keeping it as long as it is. It is simply not true that there was "consensus" for keeping it like this. One need only read the long back and forth on this to show that there never was consensus for the subarticle remaining as long as it. Rather, what happened is What has the same four or so people, one of whom was administratively "dinged" in arbitration for using multiple identities on Wikipedia, and in other cases at least two Wiki admins who seem to focus a lot of their time on these and related issues, absolutely refuse to shorten the article and have demanded and intimidated non-adminstrative Wiki users into keeping it this long. I've spent a lot of time reading the whole history of this sub-article and it has been enlightening, to say the least. It is a good insight into how things are done on Wikipedia, and a pretty sad indictment of the problems that plague Wikpedia in general when it comes to the so-called "scholarship" of Wikpedia. All this being said, there is still yet not been provided any clear, coherent reason for keeping this sub-article as long as it is, when there are already two long articls on the same issue already on Wikipedia, both articles are clearly linked in the sub-article itself. This is simply a certain point of view and bias being pushed. That is no good reason for it to be the longest sub-article in the Luther article. If the sub-article is in in fact going to be this long, and if so, well, ok, even though I think it is absurd, but...let's agree to keep it as long as it is. Then clearly the other sub-articles in the Luther article should all be made longer as well. That would be the only reasonable compromise if the "Luther and Antisemitism" sub-article is going to stay as long as it is. I'll be happy to start working on expanding the other sub-articles. That would be interesting. Justas Jonas 00:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Justas Jonas, in all due respect, it appears to me you have been a member since December 30, 2006, and have made 15 WP edits on 3 different pages. Your (optional) user page is red. But it sounds like you've been around for a while. Please explain. Also, since I haven't been around WP forever, but just since October 18, 2006, I don't get anything, really, out of whatever you're trying to say about approximately 3 admins here. If you'd like to enlighten me on my talk page or via email, I'd appreciate it. I have concerns about one admin who frequents the Martin Luther article/talk, and that admin has not voted in the little thing above. Finally, can you explain how you think the 5 above voting for 'long' who have non-red user pages are going to become comfortable with a user with less than 10 days worth of posts nearly demanding that the article go their way? Geeesh. I know they won't do that for me (I wouldn't expect them to), even though I appear to have a lot more and varied experience on WP than you ...

You can read the history of any given page's edits and that's what I've done. Makes for some instructive and informative reading. You can also check the user contributions of editors by clicking on that link and you can see where they post and what they do. That too has made for informative and instructive reading. You can do the same thing if you care to. Wikipedia claims to be a great place for objective research that is improved by the "group process" ... well, this situation is sure proving that one to be totally wrong. You can also go to Google and search on "problems with Wikipedia" and read a lot of informative articles on the issues. If you want to learn more about this history of this discussion and this article issue, then you can read it like I have. It's all there to see. Hope that helps. 75.37.215.34 03:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, User:75.37.215.34, I've quickly become rather proficient reading histories of page edits and contributions from editors who I would like to know more about. I've even emailed editors when that option has been available, and, so far, there has been a 100% appropriate return reply. I've probably skimmed material from all of the admins you're hoping I learn about. Thankfully, they all have long histories for me to peruse. One of my biases is I have trouble accepting guidance from editors (like yourself?) with a virtually empty list of contributions and empty talk pages and empty user pages. Especially when discussing a controversial topic or aspect of something. Maybe someday my experiences will equal what you are telling me now. I am going to do everything I can to have the same username in the future. It may help others have some confidence in me and perspective for where I'm coming from. Keesiewonder 12:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Justas Jonas, you coincidentally have the same disruptive style, are on the same soapbox and make the same false allegations about other editors as that of a previously banned editor who used to frequent this page and cause all sorts of havoc. Any connection? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 03:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

MPerel, huh? Justas Jonas 12:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• As it appears to me, 10 people have been willing to vote on 'this' right now, all without a clear definition of what 'long' or 'short' means. (Sounds like good faith to me, especially since I'm kind of new yet the "old" timers are participating without biting.) I'd like to allow some more time for some more people to vote (say 5 days total or maybe even 8 days total). But, my primary goal in donating my efforts to the Martin Luther article and its talk page is to try to help raise it to FA status. I am assuming good faith in everyone here in that marching toward FA status is supported by everyone who is voting in the long vs. short thing. So, if it ends up being '6 longs to 4 shorts,' then I'm going to try to work with the 'longs' to understand how long is long (in terms of bytes) and then take a look at the section to see if I have any constructive feedback on it that does not undermine what the, say, 7 (the 6 plus me) agreed to. We've got to figure out a way to move on. Moving on may just mean going with the longs if they're in the majority. I see the two sub articles and don't really understand why we need a 'long' when we have them; but, in a collaborative way, we've got to try to find a way to move beyond edit/revert wars on the same section. I trust that when and if we nominate the article for a peer review or some other objective review process, if there are concerns from the reviewers beyond us about the length of the section in question, they too will see the sub-articles and 'tell' us to move more material there, or something. I look forward to your input on the other sections (maybe you could start drafting your ideas on sub-user pages of your own now, while you're waiting for this vote thing to end). And, I'm glad to hear that if the decision is 'long,' that you'll still be on board. That'd make 8 ... if you're following me. :-) Keesiewonder 01:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, keep it long. I'll start working on expanding the rest of the sub-articles, since "long" is now ok on the Luther page. Keesie, I would appreciate it if you would respond to the substance of my post rather than criticizing me, ok? Thanks. Unless I'm wrong, I don't see any Wikipedia policy that requires me not to make edits on the page unless and until they are approved by others. Justas Jonas 12:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Justas Jonas, All I can recommend is patience. I have responded to some of your posts and will respond to the unanswered parts later. (If you read my posts on this page, you'll see that I have helped continue threads you have started, 'voted' along side of you for the 'short' version, expressed confusion about why we 'need' a 'long,' etc. Can you tell me another user who is working with you to the level I am? Have you answered all the questions I've raised?) To answer/discuss everything immediately is probably not going to allow a group of editors to reach consensus on anything. We're in the company of some editors who have been here for a very long time; like it or not, we're going to need to find a way to work with them if we intend to stay here ourselves. Editing the Martin Luther article in any way you see fit is fine; go ahead. Your edits raise a red flag, if only because your signature is in red and your contribution history is so short and so focused. I believe my concern is called constructive criticism, not personal attack. You, of course, may interpret it as you wish. Kind Regards, Keesiewonder 13:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Procedural Comment/Question - I wish I'd said 'support A long' and 'support A short' version above since at least I had no particular version in mind, nor how long even a 'short' version would be. We can define what 'long' and 'short mean later.

-There is no mention of the references of anti-semitism in the bible and how thoughts of anti-semetism were common at the time.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.235.187 (talk • contribs) 23:03, February 5, 2007
(Keesiewonder ^talk 00:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC) added time/date for unsigned comment)

Thanks for your comment. It would help if you would establish an account and sign your posts. This article is supposed to be in Summary style, so such details belong in the article it refers to, Martin Luther and the Jews. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That is the way I understand this poll. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 12:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion - votes in the above unofficial poll from IP addresses, editors who per username have never made an edit on the ML article or talk, and editors with creation dates on or after January 6, 2007 may (will) not carry much influence.

Question - Can someone please just put the article and its talk page on semi-protected status indefinitely? Keesiewonder 10:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Summary style and the Luther article

As I've said above, my major concern with the article is its length. Currently, with the large Luther and the Jews section, the article is at 78 kb. The section itself is 12.8 kb currently. By comparison, the lead section is 4.5 kb, Early Life, 1.98 kb, Monastic Life, 1.8 KB, 95 Theses, 1.33 KB, Papal response, 3.16 kb, Widening Breach, 3.81 KB, Worms 5.38 KB, Luther exile, 4.42 KB, return from exile, 4.42 KB, Luther Bible 955 bytes, Peasants War 1.69 KB, Liturgy 5.11 KB (This one also needs summary style attention), Eucharist 4.09 KB (also needs summary style attention) Augsburg Confession 1013 bytes, Family life, 2.56 Bytes, Luther and Witches, 1.98 kb and final years, 6.33 KB.

The Abstract of the Summary style guideline says:

"When articles grow too long, longer sections should be spun off into their own articles and a several paragraph summary should be left in its place. Such sections are linked to the detailed article with a

Main article: [[:<name of detailed article>]]

or comparable template under the section title. To help preserve links to the edit history of the text being moved, it is essential that the edit summary for the creation of the new article that you write links back to the original article."

Wikipedia:Article size#Readability issues says:

Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose. Thus the 32 KB recommendation is considered to have stylistic value in many cases; if an article is significantly longer than that, then it probably should be summarized with detail moved to other articles (see Wikipedia:Summary style). For most long pages, division into sections is natural anyway; even if there is no "natural" way to split a long list or table, many editors believe that it should be done anyway, to allow section editing. Articles longer than 12 to 15 printed pages (more than 30 to 35 KB of readable text) take longer to read than the upper limit of the average adult's attention span — 20 minutes.

I'll continue this analysis later. Others, of course, are welcome to add. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is more from the guidelines... "It is generally considered to be a bad idea to divide an article too hastily. Often the best way to divide an article is to let it grow and then look for sections that could logically be summarized and spun off so the article once again efficiently covers its topic. Interwiki links, along with external links, further reading, references, see also and similar sections should not be counted toward an article's total size since the point is to limit readable prose in the main body of an article.". If we do not count the "external links", "further reading", and "references" then isn't the article size about right? Repentance 14:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this helpful addition. The article was first written in 2001 and had steadily expanded until last year, when we began a concerted effort to follow the Summary style guidelines. The long version of this text is months old. The subarticle itself was spun off a year or so ago to do just what the guidelines suggest. I think it is time to follow their counsel. The above section sizes exclude all the side information, images and the external links. Together they exceed 62 kb. So, no, it is long by both the stricter and the looser standard, even allowing that a few kb of footnotes are still included. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 16:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the thread - I may not be able to weigh in until the weekend due to hell at work. Keesiewonder 09:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles on Luther in Other Encyclopedias

MSN Encarta

MSN Encarta. s.v. "Martin Luther" by George Forell. Article length: 12 kb. Space devoted to Luther and the Jews issue: 461 Bytes.--CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica Online

Encyclopedia Britannica Online. s.v. "Luther, Martin." by E. Gordon Rupp. Article lengh: 61 kb. Space devoted to the Luther and the Jews issue: 3 words. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Expanded in the 2007 edition. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Too many words to describe it all

I think a fundamental problem with this whole dispute is that the dispute between versions of the anti-semitism section, which is somewhat based on length, is more a dispute over the content in the versions. But I don't think much attention seems to of been given of writing the section in a way that uses as few words as possible without losing any of the content. For instance, in the first paragraph, you have a long line of direct quotes when a summary of what Luther said would do, especially because its, you know, supposed to be in summary style, and you'd think most of the content of the treatise would be in the actual article concerning the treatise. For example, instead of the long list of quotes that are there now, it could read:

"In his 60,000-word treatise, On the Jews and Their Lies, published in 1543 as Von den Juden und ihren Lügen, Luther advocated that many harsh measures be taken against the Jewish people. He advised that all Jewish schools and synagogues be burned down and/or buried, in addition to advising the destruction of all Jewish houses. He further advocated that Jewish prayer books and writings concerning the Talmud be taken from the Jewish people, and that Jewish rabbis should not be allowed to teach, or else be executed. In addition, he wrote that Jews should not be allowed to travel into the country or travel over roads while being protected, on the accusation that they have no business being in the country at all. Luther also advocated severe economic restrictions on the Jews, including taking away all currency or wealth owned by any Jewish person, and outlawing any Jewish person from practicing usury. He wrote that, for Jews to gain food, hard manual labor of various kinds should be imposed upon "young, strong Jews and Jewesses", and if they would not work, that they should be expelled from society forever.[58] Luther was also a believer in the blood libel and well poisoning allegations against Jews. [59]Four centuries later, a first edition of the treatise was given to Julius Streicher, editor of the Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer, by the city of Nuremberg in honor of his birthday in 1937. The newspaper later described the treatise as the most radically anti-Semitic tract ever published,[60] an opinion agreed upon by contemporary scholars.[61] German philosopher Karl Jaspers said of it: "There you already have the whole Nazi program."[62]

No content has really been removed in the creation of this paragraph based on the first one, yet it has 54 fewer words, and it looks like several of the other paragraphs in the section look like they could be worded in a much shorter way without removing any content at all. I think that if everything in this section was condensed by simple wording changes and simplifications first rather than removing or adding content, then at the end of the day, much less content would have to be removed, if any at all. While I admit the above version of the first paragraph loses the distinct flavor of Luther's particular wording, by describing what he wrote more succinctly, a reader gets the picture much faster, and if the whole section was condensed by wording and meaning alone rather than content, then it would be much closer to summary style in the end. Homestarmy 19:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your version of the paragraph is better. Thanks! You are correct that applying a similar approach to other paragraphs will save us much space, providing all sides of the issue are represented. I believe the result will still be too long, however. At the very least, this section should be the same length as the others, about 4 kb in length. I think most of the detail should be moved to the sub-article, as suggested by WP:Summary style. Even that is more than what most encyclopedias give to the subject. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Homestarmy has done a very good job of shortening the section while still maintaining much of the needed specifics that have been so often generalized, minimized, or ignored. I still believe that direct quotations are the best method, and are the least likely to contain a POV (which both sides want to avoid). Perhaps we can eventually find a way to meet everyone's idea of truth and fairness about Martin Luther. Repentance 21:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Homestarmy's version works for me. It serves as a good summary. Any and all points that can be expanded upon, can be made in the sub-article. Mytwocents 22:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing 54 words isn't a significant shortening of the sub-article. There are two other articles on this subject that provide plenty of detail. They are clearly referenced. Why do people want to keep pushing their POV on this sub-article? It's too long. It needs to be shorter. There are two entire other articles on the same subject. What part of this can't you people understand? Justas Jonas 02:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC) 02:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Come on --- let's try to be cordial to one another as we bring one of the most controversial articles (apparently) on WP to FA status for the first time. i.e.

• Homestarmy, thanks for joining the conversation and your efforts to tightening the section we are struggling with.

• And, even more so, thank you for the insight that what we are struggling with may not be the number of bytes, but the content of the section itself. (Concise, well-written, content rich and appropriately cited text is generally what I like to see myself, but, that may be my POV.)

• I am not going to really be able to weigh in until the weekend due to hellishness at my workplace ... but ... off the top of my head ... if we can get some of the editors who are interested in a 'long' version to comment in this thread ... or ... if Homestarmy wants to exercise his/her bold rights, he/she or anyone could substitute his/her suggested version into the article to see what happens. We all know how to revert the article, even those of us who are rightfully just listening and not talking here right now. And, if there are qualms about needing to talk about such edits in 'talk' before touching the article, we've got a thread already in place. As far as I'm concerned right now, 54 words less is a step in the direction we want to go. Thanks again, Homestarmy. I hope you stick around for a while ... Keesiewonder 10:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

As I've said above, Homestamy's edit is a step in the right direction, but the whole section needs to be very much smaller. It is in no way summary style. As it stands, the section is nearly twice as long as any other section in the article. Given that most other biographies devote very little space to the issue at all, the subject should not have that much weight at all. Most of the detail needs to go to the subarticle if we are ever to make FA. I will continue to document this point above. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I hear you, CTSW! I find your message clear. I think/hope/pray we're going to get there ... with everyone who's active with the article and its talk page. I guess maybe you could say I believe in miracles? Could we see what happens if we go with the "54 words shorter" version? Like, if it gets reverted immediately, we may have a "problem." Keesiewonder 12:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I plan to propose some shorter versions of the next sections soon too, but to Justas, 54 less words just by altering only one of the paragraphs isn't half bad, i've messed with enough essays with a set in stone maximum word length to know that every word counts sometimes. Homestarmy 13:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's some more of it:

"British historian Paul Johnson wrote that before On the Jews and their Lies, Luther got the Jews banished from Saxony in 1537, and in the next decade, other German towns, though he was not able to banish them from the town of Brandenburg in 1543. His followers, however, continued to persecute the Jews, raiding the Berlin synagogue in 1572, and in 1573, Jews were banned from all of Germany.

Few Historians doubt that Luther's rhetoric contributed greatly to or foreshadowed the actions of the Nazis when Adolf Hitler claimed power in Germany in 1933, although they often debate the extent of Luther's influence on the events leading to the Holocaust. The debate most often concerns whether it is anachronistic to view Luther's sentiments as an example, or early precursor of, racial anti-Semitism — hatred of the Jewish people — rather than anti-Judaism — contempt for the religion of Judaism.

In The World Must Know, the official publication of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, the museum's project director Michael Berenbaum writes that Luther's belief that the Bible was the sole authority on Christianity fed his hatred against Jews, due to his impressions concerning their rejection of Jesus as the messiah. To Luther, salvation depended on believing that Jesus is the son of God, a belief not shared by Jews. Earlier in his life, Luther argued that Jews were prevented from converting to Christianity when Christians preached what he saw as an impure gospel, and he believed Jews would respond favorably to the gospel if it were presented to them gently. He expressed concerns for the Jew's poor and compulsory living conditions, and insisted that denial of Jesus being born a Jew was heresy. Graham Noble, a writer, says that Luther wanted to save Jews on his own terms, not exterminate them, but that beneath Luther's apparent reasonableness, there was a "biting intolerance," which produced "ever more furious demands for their conversion to his own brand of Christianity." Berenbaum quotes Luther later on apparently supporting the idea that Christians should have killed the Jews: “We are at fault in not slaying them. Rather we allow them to live freely in our midst despite their murder, cursing, blaspheming, lying and defaming.”

That saves about 47 words, but this one was harder, particularily because Luther's beliefs aren't explicitly inline cited here and i'm not about to summarize something too heavily that may have no business being summarized at all. Homestarmy 00:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Diet of Worms

Why has the Diet of Worms and Excommunication section been cut? I know there's another article about it, but we did have a good little section on it here, in my opinion.qp10qp 21:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I didn't notice that had been done since last we worked on it. As long as the results are short, I don't mind having you put it back. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 21:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Um - Worms & Excommunication needs mentioning! The Lutheran part of my conscience is troubled by it not being present. Can you point me to the section somehow or send it to me in email or place it on my talk or just put it in the article, bracing for a revert, but not one without discussion here if need be? I expect this was 'cut' by mistake and not by deliberate intent ... but ... don't really know. Keesiewonder 10:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That's what I get for not watching over vacation -- or for not checking when it was mentioned. The section is back. It really needs to go to summary style also. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This one has no controversy to it at all, as far as I remember. The question is only how much detail? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 12:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! THANK YOU! :-) So, let's try our 'summary style' expertise on this section ... Or is this another highly controversial section? ... got to get ready for work! Keesiewonder 12:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong last name

Luther was born as Luder, just as his father and mother. He changed it to Luther, because the meaning of the word "Luder" in the german language is quite negative, it's still used today to refer to somebody who is hormic and raw in his nature. See the german article or profound scholastic literature about him. <info re: unsigned comment retrieved by Keesiewonder 10:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)>

See above. A listing of his name in an encyclopedia should be the name that he is best known for. The German language was not standardized in 1483: Luther was instrumental in standardizing the name. Even the German Wiki has it Martin Luther[1]. Luther Latinized and Hellenized his name to Lutherus and eleutherios respectively. He also signed his name "Luther." This debate is a matter of orthography (how a word is written and spelled). In historical works Hans Luther is sometimes denoted "Hans Luder", but not Martin Luther. This change should not be made. It is not the wrong last name, but the right last name.--Drboisclair 00:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A single sentence or a footnote regarding this point is the most I'd be interested in seeing on this. If you have a favorite resource for this material, maybe we can simply add a footnote number to the main body in the 'best' spot, and have a short footnote and book or journal reference for more info. Just a thought. Thanks for the topic. Believe me, I completely empathize with the tribulations of having a German surname that rarely anyone seems to understand or get right ... (Who am I addressing by the way? Is that an unsigned comment I see above?) Keesiewonder 10:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think a footnote on this matter would be most helpful. I do not think that Luther should be listed as "Luder," though.--Drboisclair 21:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, for me too, it is Luther; not Luder. Keesiewonder 01:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really comfortable with this edit ... but I'm listening ...

Whoa ... it's going a little too fast for me right now, Justas Jonas. But, I'll just watch and try to talk since I'm too tired to be really constructive right now. I've been watching your edit summaries. One that I see is this ("further trimming to avoid giving impression that "minority viewpoint" is equal to majority viewpoint"). Please articulate just what you find the "majority" viewpoint to be so I can better follow your thoughts. Thanks! Keesiewonder 01:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. These are indeed bold edits to say the least. I would like to point out that like all Wikipedia policies, WP:BOLD is hemmed in by other policies, such as the one, I forget its precise wording, that articles of long standing should be trimmed dramatically only after discussion on talk pages. This article is a compromise version worked out after expenditure of much angst. That partly accounts for the length, and the reason it has resisted cutting in the past. --Mantanmoreland 19:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the size, which is the point I've been arguing for above. I think the most positive way of handling this is asking... is there anything missing? If so, what? Are there details that could yet be moved to the sub-article? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 19:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't needed after all then, nobodies challenged it. Homestarmy 22:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The present version makes it look as if the significance of the Theses was that he complained about indulgences. But this was nothing new: many reformers had complained about indulgences before, including Luther himself. What was new was that he challenged the authority of the pope to make decisions about salvation. To show the importance of the Theses in the development of Luther's position, we need to connect them to the theory that acts of piety and penance (in which Luther would go on to include pilgrimage, monasticism, celibacy etc.) are irrelevant to faith because God alone decides on your faith and salvation. From that seed everything else grew, in my opinion.

If a cut-down version of this section is required, I'd suggest the following, which keeps essential details (Tetzel's name is almost as intrinsic a part of the tradition as the door posting) and theological points:

The 95 Theses (suggested alternative trim)

Main article: The 95 Theses

Pulpit of St. Mary's Church from which Luther preached

On 31 October 1517, Luther wrote to Albert, Archbishop of Mainz and Magdeburg, protesting the sale of indulgences in his episcopal territories and inviting him to a disputation on the matter. He enclosed the 95 Theses, a copy of which, according to tradition, he posted the same day on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg.

Luther objected to a saying attributed to Johann Tetzel, a papal commissioner for indulgences: "As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs"; and he insisted that since pardons were God's alone to grant, those who claimed indulgences absolved buyers from all punishments and granted them salvation were in error. Christians, he said, must not slacken in following Christ on account of such false assurances. In challenging the pope's authority in this way, Luther took, perhaps unintentionally, a step towards the break with Rome.

The 95 Theses were quickly translated into German, printed, and widely copied, making the controversy one of the first in history to be fanned by the printing press. Within two weeks, the theses had spread throughout Germany; within two months throughout Europe. In contrast, the response of the papacy was painstakingly slow.

In my opinion, it's difficult to be any pithier without abandoning the essential theological points. (The notes are there to show how close this keeps to what Luther actually said.) qp10qp 23:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Too much

I now see more sections chopped at in a similar way. The result is less coherence, in my opinion. For example, since we start "Return to Wittenberg" with "Around Christmas 1521 Anabaptists from Zwickau added to the anarchy", the reader now might ask "what anarchy?" Luther's stay at the Wartburg is important for the development of his thought in the context of the radical reforms that convulsed Wittenberg while he was away. Transitional information is needed.

Similarly, a section has been cut from "Response of the Papacy" which traced the incremental enlargement of Luther's doctrinal revolt in reaction to a series of attempts to rein him in. It showed how the more he was pushed, the greater became his defiance, and the more extreme his theological opposition to the papacy. By cutting this material out en bloc, we end up with a jumpy story that no longer addresses how one thing led to another.

This article does need to be reduced, but it should be done through the subtle process of editing rather than the blunt one of taking a meat cleaver to it, in my opinion.

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." Albert Einstein.

qp10qp 02:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This article has been like the weather. Everyone just talks about it, but nobody does anything about it. It was just way, way, way too long. Wikipedia is not a textbook, it is a quick and easy, down and dirty, on-line introduction to things, not an end in itself. The article has been, frankly, and I do not mean to offend, but it has been ridiculously long and has been a battleground for idealogical differences to play themselves out constantly, with one POV warring against another, and all POVs denying that they have one, but the other guy sure does! It's been silly. I've spent a lot of time reading the history here. The best thing to do is chop it way back. It has become like one of those bushes you never both to trim back. Keep it short! Keep it simple! Short is good. Justas Jonas 02:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I support Q's version of the section. It is about the right size and smoothly written. It could be smaller, excluding the quotations, but they do help fill things out.

That having been said, We need to do everything we can to write in the style of an academic abstract, a.k.a. Wikipedia:Summary style, while also providing smooth and easily read prose. The details should be put in sub-articles, so that those who want "the rest of the story" can read it. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• CTSW, I mostly agree you. And I'm coming to the conclusion that the only way I may see an article like what the group envisions is if one or more of us build one on a private user page and sub-pages. When ready, we could discuss it with folks, still leaving the content there. Then, when a significant number of us were happy with it, we would replace the entire existing article with our "re-write." Due to the nature of us all having time to "work" on this at different times, it is too discombobulated (sp?) for us to accomplish anything here if there are folks who want to edit w/o discussing. It is too easy to end up with an oft fragmented article that we still are not proud of. Just my 2 cents. Please know I do appreciate your perspective and scholarly, summary-style article proposals. I feel you are right. A case in point: even I have not yet gotten through the entire Martin Luther article once yet. It is just too long. And there are too many gaps and questions. If I really want to understand this, I am better off going to another encyclopedia. Sad, but true. Keesiewonder 11:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I see some merit in Justas's approach, if applied uniformly and fairly. He does have a point about summary style and this article being about the weather (everybody talking and not doing) and also about the POVs. However, this is not an endorsement of all his cuts by any means. I would like to see more imput from other editors from both sides, fer instance, on the always contentious Jewish stuff.--Mantanmoreland 22:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Not Needed

I guess I wasn't needed after all then, nobodies challenged it. Homestarmy 22:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think/feel this is true, Homestarmy. Some of us want to discuss, reach a bit of compromise and consensus and then change the article. Others want to come from out of the blue (new user, strong POV) and just edit the article. The latter is not my style unless it is something that is unlikely to cause discontent. Unfortunately I'm too busy in real life this week to spend much time in the article. Keesiewonder 11:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I was asked by a friend to come help out, but since the Anti-semitism part is so much shorter now, I suppose it doesn't necessarily need to be re-written :/. Having it mostly be quotes though seems sort of odd, my first re-written paragraph might be helpful, but I was primarily re-writing things to try and help lower the length. Homestarmy 13:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't go off just yet, as this entire article is in a state of flux. I am sure that efforts will be made to re-lengthen the article in general, as that has been the pattern.--Mantanmoreland 22:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Relying on quotes and not writing our own material could be considered the easy way out. i.e. we aren't able to write in our own words, so we quote someone else. Any academic writing class I've taken has emphasized this and provided guidelines for the the appropriate amount of material that should/could be quoted. Keesiewonder 23:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

What is the answer?

Justas Jonas, I would appreciate you answering, directly and publicly, my question. You've wanted this from others on this talk page. But, you don't really answer other people's questions. I'm looking for a content answer. I don't need to hear about the existence of sub-articles and I don't need to hear about the length of the current article and I don't need to hear about how many times "we" have talked about this before. (My WP usage is senior to yours, according to the Justas Jonas username usage trail. So, WE have not talked about this before.) What majority viewpoint? Viewpoint on what topic/aspect/theory/thought? Are you sure you're speaking for the majority? Thanks for the forthcoming clarification. Keesiewonder 11:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

One [edit of yours] that I see is this ("further trimming to avoid giving impression that "minority viewpoint" is equal to majority viewpoint"). Please articulate just what you find the "majority" viewpoint to be so I can better follow your thoughts.

Keesiewonder 11:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

A reference to the "majority/minority" viewpoint in the Luther and Antisemitism article on the question of the influence of Luther's harsh comments about Jews during the Nazi era. Justas Jonas 12:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Please elaborate. Talk is a good place to do that. As I read what you are calling majority does not necessarily reflect majority. If you don't talk here, I am more inclined to revert your edits. I'd rather not do that, but if you don't help me understand your point, which I currently disagree with or don't understand, you don't leave me many options. If you have specific points in the edit history you want me to see, you could be helpful and direct me to them with links. i.e. "07:00, January 11, 2007 Justas Jonas (Talk | contribs) (Try reading the edit history more carefully) is not really useful - please write here what you are talking about. I do and have read the edit histories; thus my question to you, which, remains unanswered. Keesiewonder 12:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Asked and answered. Article length presently balances properly between the majority view and the minority view. I can't help you understand what you refuse to understand. Justas Jonas

Nice example of collaboration: [2]

Would you like to try again? Keesiewonder 12:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I was confused a bit by the minority/majority remark. Can you pls clarify?--Mantanmoreland 22:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Until JJ reveals it to us, it is at best a mysterious majority on a mysterious aspect that JJ is an expert on, but he cannot cite the topic or the scholars he is relying on. It is so obvious, yet is anyone understanding what he is talking about? Scholars in general don't profess there is a majority viewpoint on the more complex aspects of Luther and the Jews, yet, JJ knows what the majority stands for. Sounds like JJ POV to me. If someone else can explain what JJ is talking about, I'd appreciate it.

I can't help you understand what you refuse to understand. No, JJ, I'm not refusing to understand something - you are refusing to answer honest questions from another editor.

Just blank your talk page like this [3], calling it spam and post messages like this titled Your_patronizing_remarks_and_personal_insults_on_the_Luther_page and feel like you've made yourself clear. I wonder why this isn't in the WP guidelines yet? Keesiewonder 00:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Here, let me try to make this as plain and simple as possible, since, Keesie, you say you just have no idea what I'm talking about. For the third, and last, time: I am referring to the balance in the "Luther and Antisemitism" article. The amount of text devoted to the majority scholarly view must be more than that devoted to the minority view, otherwise, it would appear that there are simply two equally popular viewpoints on this issue. Now, if you don't understand that, the problem is wholly your's not mine. I can not help you if you choose to remain "confused" and choose not to "understand." You can drop your melodramatic comments, unless that is just your "style" as an "experienced" Wikipedia editor who is just so terribly busy you only have time to contribute these kinds of remarks. Keesie, I've learned that the best way to deal with people like you in any Internet forum is just to ignore them and pretend they do not exist. That's what I'm going to do with you. You leave me no choice. <click> Justas Jonas 00:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Nationalism

It has been said that Luther contributed to the rise of nationalism in Europe. Could this be mentioned in the article? Steve Dufour 18:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for it? I vaguely remember hearing it, but have no recall of seeing it in print. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 21:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I am a big fan of the old BBC PBS series "Civilisation" by Kenneth Clark. My wife gave me a set of the DVDs for Christmas. Clark makes the point in his discussion of the Reformation. BTW, Clark, who seems to be a Catholic - or at least a major fan of the Catholic Church, counts Luther as one of his "Heroes of Civilisation". Steve Dufour 04:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC) p.s. The British spell "civilisation" with an "s" not a "z".

I would love to include the point, but I'm not eager to get into a reference fight later with someone. If we run across it in print, now, THAT'S another kettle of fish. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 13:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Many Scholars ...

The way it's written, citation 9 in the article should be citing a scholar who calls ML's writing anti-semitic ... rather than citing ML's article itself.

Luther is also known for his writings about the Jews, the nature and consequences of which are the subject of much debate among scholars; in fact, many scholars characterize these writings as anti-Semitic[9] or anti-Judaic.[10]

Keesiewonder 01:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No discussion on this? We need a non-self-referential source, i.e. Luther himself is an not adequate citation for 'many scholars characterize these writings as anti-Semitic.' I'm inclined to move the above # 9 to a {{fact}} ... Keesiewonder 22:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

There was a reference to this before. One from the subsection itself should serve. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 00:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok; I think I've figured it (or at least something) out. I will store a previously used multiple reference here for safe keeping and then cite one to three sources in the # 9 spot mentioned above that was my original concern. The one I'm copying here for safe keeping seems to now be one that is not used, at least in the multiple format.

<ref name= LutherJews>Martin Luther, "On the Jews and Their Lies," Tr. Martin H. Bertram, in <cite>Luther's Works</cite> ed. Franklin Sherman (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), 47:268–272 (hereafter cited in notes as ''LW'').</ref>

Keesiewonder 11:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

EB Citations

Where in the EB article on Anti-Semitism (currently citation 11) do I see that it is written by Michael Berenbaum? I know it is APA and not CMS style, but if we were citing APA, EB itself suggests this for a citation which does not include a reference to Berenbaum. Just a thought.

• anti-Semitism. (2007). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved January 11, 2007, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article-215021

Keesiewonder 01:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You can find the signature of the scholar that produced the article at the end of the entry, just before the bibliography. CMS includes authors of signed entries so that you know who worte them without going through the trouble of looking it up. If you have trouble finding it, I'll be more precise when I have access to the article tomorrow. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 01:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope, that's fine; I see it now on the bottom of page 6 in the online version. Thanks. Keesiewonder 02:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Opening Image

How about a caption for the opening image indicating the date and painter of the representation, similar to what they do at the German page [4]? Stating birth and death dates and locations is redundant with the text. Keesiewonder 01:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. Go for it! --CTSWyneken^(talk) 01:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Who painted it? If I'd known that I would have done it. Keesiewonder 02:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a big thing out there called "The Internet" and I bet if you use "Google" and do an "image search" you might find something. Good luck and good hunting. I'm sure you can bird dog it down. Justas Jonas 02:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is a Lucas Cranach the Elder. I uploaded it a little while ago. Try double-clicking the image. The info should be there. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 02:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the caption and entered a test of some additional information making use of standard biography infobox fields. (To see the changes, you may need to view previous versions since one user does not want it visible.) Keesiewonder 12:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The additions are entirely unnecessary and cause serious problems for page layout. No need to put all these details in the box when they are in the article. Please don't mess up the article's page layout. Keep it short. Justas Jonas 12:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop being disruptive and trying to own the article. Several other Feature Articles include a content rich info box: Pope Pius XII, Charles Darwin, Mahatma Gandhi, Hurricane Katrina. We can use the infobox technique in the ML article too. You remove great portions of the article, and expect it to stay that way; someone else enhances a part of the article you hadn't touched yet, and you call it clutter, spam. There may be some users who are not you who would appreciate an infobox where at a glance they could click over to the link for ML's spouse, for instance, if that is who they really came to WP for. There is no good reason to not leave the longer infobox in for a few days so that other editors, besides you, have a chance to view it and, if need be, fix any formatting issues. Please read the policies on WP about how to work with others and how to be civil. If you need a page that looks only, always, exactly the way you want it, make it a sub-page to your user page. Keesiewonder 13:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The larger box displays fine in Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.1 for Windows. If you have trouble with another browser, reveal what it is - or fix it yourself without deleting other people's work. If you have display problems in Mozilla Firefox, then you need to adjust your computer settings. Keesiewonder 13:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the additional info in the info box. It displays fine in IE 7 as well. There are slight formatting problems, but nothing that cannot be dealt with by asking a graphics guru to come by and help.

By the way, both of you have now reverted three times, so let's let this one settle a bit for others to comment. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 13:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I just tested IE 6 which also displays fine. Glad to hear someone else likes the alternate box. Keesiewonder 21:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• So, we have two users who like something and one who does not. We need discussion from others, besides these three users. Keesiewonder 13:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

What versions of the illustration are in contention? There have been so many changes made to the page that I have lost track. I do like the bigger picture and I agree that dates of birth and death are redundant.--Mantanmoreland 17:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mantanmoreland, Try looking at an older version from the edit history such as [5] for what I tried to propose as an alternate infobox. All revert wars have involved the same illustration; the issue is apparently the size of it, who last edited its contents, and whether we use the bare minimum of the infobox or use it to its fuller potential. Keesiewonder 17:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• i.e. Some readers understand that there is an Elder and a Younger Lucas Cranach ... each with separate articles on WP ... Keesiewonder 17:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. Am not sure of the alternative that is being proposed to the current infobox, which seems OK to me. --Mantanmoreland 02:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The current is what I proposed. Thanks for looking. Keesiewonder 02:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The current one is fine. Heck, it has been fine for months. WTF??? The cutting has gone a bit overboard.--Mantanmoreland 15:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of only the opening image, I believe it is new to include who painted the image, location of the artwork, links to spouse and parents, etc. It does take up a little more space, and is a bit different than it has been for months. However, it is also akin to the opening image style infoboxes on several other (perhaps all) FA articles. Speaking just for myself, when I first started brainstorming ideas for how we may be able to pull up to FA, one thing that bugged me was not quickly seeing much of anything about the opening painting. What I've proposed, I feel, addresses this plus provides quick and handy access and context to other parts of Luther's family and life.

I think it is a good idea to add information on the art as you have done. It is just a tiny bit of space anyway. --Mantanmoreland 15:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

---

The last time this article was reviewed for FA, one item of feedback was to consider using an infobox. An excerpt from that process is

* There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.

Done --CTSWyneken 02:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no good reason and no voice other than from one user, Justas Jonas, to not use the infobox that includes more information. If anyone doubts my perspective, review the other articles at FA status to see what they maintain in their article for an opening imagebox. I provided a sample list above.

I would welcome discussion on this from editors who have not yet weighed in. Keesiewonder 11:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

What to say to introduce him?

I made some changes, which were quickly reverted, to this sentence in the opening:

"His teachings inspired the Reformation and deeply influenced the doctrines and culture of the Lutheran and Protestant traditions, as well as the course of Western civilization."

I agree with the reverter 100% (I could not agree more with him or her!) that everything in this sentence is true!!! However because it is the second sentence I would prefer it to say:

"He helped to inspire the Reformation and deeply influenced the course of Western civilization."

The facts mentioned in the original sentence are all covered in the article. The doctrines and culture of the Lutheran and Protestant traditions are a part of Western civilization so if they are not mentioned just yet nothing is lost. I also have a feeling that words like "teachings", "doctrines", and "traditions" (while perfectly fine words!) tend to sound a little like religious jargon to a non church-going person. I would like people who don't know much about Luther and maybe who are not Lutherans, Protestants, or even Christians to want to read this article. In my opinion a shorter, punchier sentence would be more likely to inspire them to keep reading.

Thanks for your indulgence to my, perhaps a bit eccentric, opinions. Steve Dufour 05:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• CTSW is probably the one you need to hear from. I wouldn't call your offerings eccentric; rather you're trying to keep our target audience in mind and trying to focus on just enough in the opening paragraph so the reader wants to read more. Keesiewonder 10:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for coming here to discuss, which was really the point behind my reverting. I have no problem with finding other language to say this. The change has two problems with it. First, Luther really is the figure that inspired the reformation. "Helped to" is a bit misleading an uses indirect language where it isn't needed. The second, while true and much more streamlined (a very good thing, BTW) leaves out that his theology gave birth to the theology of the Lutheran tradition (the latter is a bit of a jargon term used in religious studies, sociology and psychology because it avoids throny issues with terms like denomination, classing people with those they do not wish to be classed with, sect, cult, scism, etc.), the Reformed tradition and to a lesser extent those who class themselves as Protestant. The last term itself is problematic because about all groups so classed have in common is that they are not Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. For some Lutherans, Anglicans and Baptists, this is at least mildly irritating to downright offensive.

So, anyway, let me stop rambling. I have no problem with rewording the sentence as long as we make the point that Luther inspired the reformation and that we find a way to say his theology gave birth to several major Christian traditions. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 13:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. I am not any kind of expert on Luther. I guess we could say: He inspired the Reformation and his theology gave birth to several major Christian traditions. Steve Dufour 17:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. That will work for me. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 17:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Great working with you. Steve Dufour 18:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Massive deletions

Justus Jonas, please stop making massive changes without discussion. Most of this detail belongs in a general article on Luther. Deleting it is such a way lessens the quality of the article and puts at risk the attempt to raise it to FA standards. I have chosen not to consider it blanking. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 21:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. --Mantanmoreland 02:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Info Box vs. Image

As far as I can tell, only Justus Jonas opposes using the current portrait in info box. As far as I can tell, his argument is about size. The info box is one of the more common graphics in wikipedia. I favor keeping it. Does anyone else oppose it? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, we are back to the old, Justas Jonas style info box without any discussion. I wonder if this was an editing oversight by SlimVirgin since she did not participate in our discussion about this at all. From her edit summary, it appears she was focused on text and not on the imagebox. Other than JJ, every other editor seems to like the infobox I proposed. Slim, what is your take on this? Keesiewonder ^talk 01:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Article now in acceptable size range

We are now safely tucked away within the acceptable size range of an article according to FA standards -- between 30kb and 50kb. The next task, I think, is to ask if any subjects are missing. We can afford several more subjects, especially if we go to more summary style throughout the article. Once we've covered all the important subjects, we can work on writing style and smaller items. I'm getting the impression we're close to FA standard. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 12:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see restoration of notes that currently remain empty due to various edits. For instance, # 35 and #46 are currently "null." And, as I've mentioned before, # 9 is self-referential and thus useless (IMO). I know "who" can be substituted in for Luther in # 9, but haven't been able to implement the fix yet. Perhaps this is something you could do for us (and the article?) Kind Regards, Keesiewonder 12:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If the text is reasonably stable, I can go through the article and untangle the mess. This is the result of folks getting too clever and using <ref name=""> It really gums things up when you move, alter or delete lots of text -- like we have been doing. It appears that the ol' fashioned sequential notes are not all that bad after all! I'm loathe to do that, however, if much work is left here.

Right now, I'm concerned to be sure we've fully covered Luther's life and work. If we have, then we can make a language and style pass through the aricle, fixing notes, etc. Maybe a pass through the old peer review and FA nom files would help? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 13:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've done a review of this article with an eye toward FA status, and have several thoughts. I think the current arrangement of sections, where everything is at the same level with no subheadings, does not organize the information as well as could be. For example, it may be that the discussion relating to conflicts with the Pope could be put under a common heading. Also, reiterating a comment I made during the first FA, it would be good to have a little more context in the article. As an example, understanding the implications of his marriage, the basis of the dispute over marriage for priests, and the extent to which it was going on elsewhere with other priests would make this richer. This can be done in the article directly or through references to other articles, such as Priesthood (Catholic Church)#Clerical celibacy. As another example, the shortening of the article to a more fact-intensive discussion means that a reader no longer learns about the substance of the dispute over indulgences, only that there was one. I note that I have made the comment about broader context in a number of cases on biographical articles, and have had a number of people disagree and contend that a biographical article is best when it leaves those issues to broader historical discussions and focuses on the life of the person involved.

Likewise, in the heading, there is the claim that he inspired the Reformation, but there is mainly implicit discussion of how that occurred (e.g., Bible, marriage, doctrines, etc.), and I'd like to see a couple more sentences discussing his impact on the Reformation generally. I'd be tempted to add a brief reference (a genuflection if you will) to the religious wars that accompanied the Reformation (the Reformation, of course, was not always a pretty process). I have one issue on a citation: note 52, that describes one point of view on Luther's anti-semitism to minority and one to a majority viewpoint, really should include an article that makes the specific claim as to what the bulk of scholars think, as well as including examples that hold to this viewpoint. If this issue has been hashed around enough so that the authors are generally satisfied that the point is correct, I'd say go ahead and leave it and keep looking for the proper citation in everyone's travels. Also, I don't think it is necessary to include such a lengthy list of the proponents of this view - that can be left for the daughter article, with just a couple included here.

My conclusion: I would give this weak support for FA status right now; the main issues I see are whether the prose is sufficiently compelling (I think this could be punched up through better organization and a bit more thematic rather than factual approach) and whether the article is truly comprehensive (the issue here being context). Sam 15:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Sam! Some very good thoughts. It would be good to go with much of what you suggest. How do the FA voters typically feel about file size? The problem with providing fuller context would be that we would likely go over the 50 kb size somewhat, perhaps by a great deal. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 17:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

My experience has been that the importance and complexity of an article can justify modestly greater length, provided summary style is being used and there is not a lot of fat on the bones. I think any changes in response to my suggestions should be in terms of sentences added, not paragraphs or sections. The fuller context is something I feel strongly about in historical articles, but I have seen it debated more than once on historical FAs. I haven't been watching the FAs very closely the last few months; I don't know what approach is more favored today. Sam 17:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

References and an AfD to follow

Two references here have lost their text - #35 and #46 currently. Also, given the two articles on list of books linked from this article, some here may be interested in this AfD discussion, where a number of editors consider a bibliography list not "encyclopedic". See also archive9. Gimmetrow 17:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

There are several reasons for maintaining a separate set of articles on books by and about Luther. First, Luther is one of the most prolific writers in Western Christianity and one of the most written about. People constantly add to our list, expanding this article. Some of it can be shifted to sub-articles, but much of it cannot. Second, over the last few years, nearly every statement in this article has been challenged. A bibliography is very helpful in answering such challenges, especially for editors new to the subject. Imagine trying to answer a challenge to a phrase like "most scholars..." without one. Third, if we are only to keep a few articles, which ones? My opinion is considerably different than others here. The lists (how is a bibliography less important than lists of Football Players from Alabama? (I have no idea if we have such an article, BTW.) If you will look at Encyclopedia Britannica, you'll notice extensive bibliographies. Are we saying Encyclopedia Britannica is not... encyclopedic (see also Encyclopedia)? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 18:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with bibliographies in general on topics deserving of them. As long as the bibliography is balanced and does not exclude books by persons on some pretext (e.g., they are not "scholars") I think such articles are very useful to the reader pursuing research in the area.--Mantanmoreland 19:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The advantage of a free-standing bibliography article is it can be fairly extensive. (Although with Luther, a comprehensive bibliography would be way too big!) --CTSWyneken^(talk) 15:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if no one objects, why not commence one? I haven't heard any objections. If there are, please do speak up. Perhaps there is a problem with freestanding bibliographies that I haven't thought of. I note that in the AfD referenced earlier, however, there was unanimity in voting to delete![6] I voted to keep, but was in the minority. It was a bibliography for a common neurological disorder. It almost certainly will be deleted, which is not a good precedent.--Mantanmoreland 16:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Already done! 8-) List of books by Martin Luther and List of books and films about Martin Luther.--CTSWyneken^(talk) 18:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh. I misunderstood your response to the gent at the top of this topic. I see that the bibliography has been there for quite a long time, and no one has objected to it.--Mantanmoreland 19:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just bringing the AfD to your attention, because of the two bibliographic pages associated with this article. Gimmetrow 17:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I know--my mistake.--Mantanmoreland 21:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

(outdenting) Thanks! I appreciate it! --CTSWyneken^(talk) 19:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Notes #34 and #45 are still missing. Gimmetrow 01:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

So true; we can hold CTSW to his promise, somewhere, I think, that once the article is stable, he will retrieve the currently null citations. Unless one of the others of us accomplishes this task before he gets to it. I think if we look in much older versions present in the edit history, we should be able to extract the needed info even if we don't have the book on our own desk. I took care of some graphics sizing issues this morning, so many of the sub-sections should sit better now. We'll get to FA yet! Don't you think? Keesiewonder ^talk 02:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to fix them, you all. I will get to it, but ame both very occupied with teaching and writing course syllabi and loathe to put the hours of work needed to polish and properly document what we have until the good efforts of Homes, Kessie et al. have reached their happy conclusions.

If you'll note Sam's ideas above, we have a bunch to do. The text the missing notes support may well be edited out in the process. (or not) If not, we can go to documentation mode. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Question about the Martin Luther Timeline

I noticed that the Martin Luther Timeline graphic (found in the articles for "Martin Luther" and "Martin Luther and the Jews") incorrectly shows Martin Luther's "On the Jews and Their Lies" as "On the Jews". Is there a reason for this? Repentance 21:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It's an abbreviation. Is there are a reason why you don't know that? Justas Jonas 23:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Why such a rude question, JJ, in reply to another's basic question? Anyway, ..., Repentance, other lines on the graphic contain more characters, so it is not a matter of space. Maybe there's a way to upgrade the graphic somehow. If we did so, it may be good to put the article title in italics to indicate it's a piece of writing. I expect there isn't any reason other than an oversight. Thanks for the question and your observation. Keesiewonder 00:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The graphic was designed to fill space left by the Table of Contents, which a lot of us find an unattractive feature of Wikipedia. The sizing and position are both up for change. To some extent, the items on the timeline need tweaking.

The title of Von den Juden und ihren Lügen is often abbreviated in conversation as "on the Jews" Many of Luther's works are abbreviated in conversation: "The Babylonian Captivity" is an abbreviation of Prelude on the Babylonian Captivity of the Church and "the 95 Theses" for A Disputation on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences. It is simply a short form for the name of the work. We can add elipsis or the full title or even delete it, as far as I'm concerned. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 00:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Keesie, it is interesting to me how you operate with a double standard. When I was using a "red name," not knowing how to change that, you harassed me mercilessly on that point, yet for Repentance, not a word. If you would have bothered to check "Repentance" and his/her edit history you would have realized his/her was no innocent question, but just POV pushing. I wish you would stop this obsession you seem to have developed with me. I was just informed today that you have attempted to raise accusations against me and smear me on the admin boards, without, I might add, bothering even to notify me or inform me. Stop the personal attacks. Stop the harassment. It is unbecoming of a more senior Wiki user. Justas Jonas 00:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Justus, I would appreciate it if you would stop trying to pick fights. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 01:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

CTS, how about you mind your own business. Keesie is the one who have been harassing me since I got on Wikipedia. She launched an attack on me on an administrator board without informing me. She seems to have it "out" for me and I just want her to stop the harassment and stop her passive-aggresive double-standard hypocriical way of acting all "nicey-nice" and then turning around and lashing out at the least perception of a slight. It is wrong and bad behavior and she needs to be called on it. Justas Jonas 01:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, CTSW! It is helpful for those among us who are not clergy or holding graduate degrees in theology, yet who still enjoy working with this material. I don't have strong feelings about the timeline other than it should remain near the beginning of the article, and that I like it occupying the empty zone next to the TOC. Considering who our target audience is, it may make things clearer and cleaner if we polish our graphic a bit, as may have been implied by this thread's opening. Keesiewonder 01:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the "user" is a person whose edit history shows a long string of POV pushing edits. Let's get real here. It was not an innocent question. Whose kidding whom here? Justas Jonas 01:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The "real" appears to include that you (JJ) revise my words to try to make your point. I said "basic question." You've altered that to "innocent question." I have read all of Repentance's posts, before today (and including today's) ... and yes, I know s/he and I probably don't agree on everything. But, the question at hand does not necessarily mean realms of POV. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. I still found it to be a question worth consideration. Even if Repentance and I have a difference of opinion on things, it is possible that for different reasons, we both may appreciate a graphic that includes "On the Jews and Their Lies" as an alternative to "On the Jews." Keesiewonder 01:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the admin boards, I followed the procedures as outlined. If you, JJ, do not agree with the process in place, i.e. there is no requirement for the user with the request to directly inform the user in question, please raise your issue with those that discuss and adjust the policy. If I have inappropriately accessed the admin boards, I will listen to feedback from them. Keesiewonder 03:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Since you have persisted in reminding me of how you are the more experienced "Wiki" user I find it odd that you think you followed the procedure appropriately. I guess you must have missed the little details in the policy about going through a number of steps *before* you fired off your wacky conspiracy theories on the admin boards, which, I note are provided as a "last resort." You have been, based on your user contribution, obessing over this. It's just weird "Keesie" and I wonder about you. Stop the harassment and passive-aggresive behavior.Justas Jonas 03:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the replies. Repentance 16:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this true?

My teacher tells me that on his deathbed, Martin Luther turned back to Catholicism. From what I have read in several biographies, this is untrue. Has anyone else heard of Luther turning back to Catholicism?Gotmesomepants 18:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Tis an Internet rumor, my friend. Not true.--Mantanmoreland 18:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

From my in depth studies I second Mantanmoreland's point here. Luther did not "convert back" to Roman Catholicism; however, he is shown in pictures with a rosary in his hands on his death bed in that recent PBS special Martin Luther. --Drboisclair 20:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. The account of his last hours states that he was asked if he stood firm in the faith he taught and confessed and reports he said yes. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This subject was raised recently on a number of message boards, as was the identical question posed by Gotmesomepants. See [7].--Mantanmoreland 21:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

more minority rule w/o discussion

What's up with this? Change is not better. Thanks for trying though, but it's better the way it was. We did discuss this, and everyone but one user expressed liking Homestarmy's edits. Keesiewonder ^talk 01:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Keesie, you seem to be under the impression that you own this page, or have somehow been appointed as "mother hen" to the page. Would you please let me know when you arrived at this status? Perhaps I missed some kind of new category of Wiki administrator: "Official Mother Hen." Justas Jonas 01:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

In a way, when a supermajority forms one way or another towards something, that supermajority does often have the right to implement agreed upon changes... Homestarmy 02:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Justus, you are the only one who disagrees with this change. I support Homes restoring it. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 02:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Home, I wonder why some here are so anxious to keep Luther's actual words from being quoted? And where is this alleged "supermajority."? Justas Jonas 02:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to help someone who asked me to aid in shortening the article, and as i've said above, this was the version I came up with to shorten it. People felt it was still a better way to write it overall it seems, so I figured i'd implement it anyway. The supermajority is the very large majority of editors who apparently supported my version, unlike a consensus which would be a 100 percent agreement or some sort of agreement between majority or minority, apparently there is no such agreement I suppose, leaving us with a supermajority. Homestarmy 02:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Please point me to this supermajority that expressed their support for your edit. Names and dates please. Thanks. Oh, by the way, you avoided my question...why not let Luther's words be read by Wiki readers? I smell a POV here!Justas Jonas 02:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I see a 4 to 1 in the topic I first started, the names and dates are in their signatures. Of course, a supermajority is ambiguous to define, I wouldn't complain if you didn't see it the way I do. I was re-writing a version without Luther's direct quotes firstly to try and shorten it, and secondly because by quoting Luther directly, it wasn't as small as a summary could reasonably get. But I don't care enough to fight over it or something right now, smelly POV's or not. Homestarmy 02:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• -> "Supermajority" -- Basically everyone except Justas Jonas who has edited the talk page or the article since 19:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC). (Homestarmy's edits today were after SlimVirgin's.) Keesiewonder ^talk 02:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for the confusion I caused earlier with my edits. I was intending only to fix the third paragraph of the lead, because someone had fiddled with it and the writing wasn't so good. I must have gone back into an earlier version and reverted the whole thing inadverently, when all I intended to do was cut and paste. When I realized what I'd done, I went back and undid it, but didn't realize I had also changed the infobox, so I didn't think to undo that. I've therefore now reverted to CTSW's version that was in place before I made my edit, but I retained the tweak I made to the intro. Hopefully I didn't make yet another mess, and I hope the infobox is back as it was. I have no opinion on that, by the way, except I'm not keen on the look of the white space it creates between the lead and the toc, but that's not an issue I'm overly concerned about. Once again, I'm sorry about the confusion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to revert yourself, that's just fine of course, but the way you reverted you wiped out all my edits from tonight. Please try it again. Thanks. Justas Jonas 04:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

---

No problem, Slim. Thanks for the clarification. I will re-incorporate the infobox we all have agreed on.

It is clear from your edits that the paragraph rewrite here was not your focus. So, again, everyone participating (except one user) agrees with new text for this section.
Keesiewonder ^talk 10:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ref name =/ missing refs

I restored the following missing refs. I dislike the 'ref name =' style for many reasons, but might I suggest that when it is used, the full form be used each time, rather than the abbreviated form. The reason is that if the master ref is cut, the abbreviated versions are left empty, whereas if all the tags are full, there's no problem—and what's more, editors can easily see which book is being quoted without having to scan for the master reference further up the page. (By the way, filled references don't need to be lengthy, provided the book is fully listed in the bibliography—for example, the first one below could be:<ref name = "Hillerbrand463">Hillerbrand, 2:463.</ref>)

<ref name = "Hillerbrand463"><cite>Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation</cite>, ed. Hans J. Hillerbrand, s.v. "Luther, Martin," (by Martin Brecht, tr. Wolfgang Katenz) New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 2:463.</ref>

<ref name = "Herzog74"><cite>Schaff-Herzog</cite>, [http://www.ccel.org/php/disp.php?authorID=schaff&bookID=encyc07&page=74&view= "Luther, Martin"], 74.</ref>

For my sins, I often have to check other people's references, and then I find the 'ref name =' format a pain in the neck. It makes it impossible to combine references, leading to more tags; it is unhelpful, as the note tag simply takes the reader down to a series of letters which don't necessarily pinpoint the reference; the letters may confuse you as to which one to click to return to your place in the text; the abbreviated tags are a menace after cuts; and their mono-form is confusing amidst massed citation templates.

Oh, but don't get me started on citation templates! Trying to edit round those blighters is like negotiating a London bus jam on a push bike. Is it so difficult to write out 'author, book, publisher, date, ISBN, page no' by hand? OK, rant over; time for breakfast. qp10qp 09:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for restoring those references! And the citation perspective ... :-) --Keesiewonder ^talk 10:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

As long as no one objects, I'll eliminate all those ref= cites. It's well-intentioned coding that simply does not work well in articles that change a lot, like this one.

BTW, I like the 95 Theses edit, although I may try tweaking the language. (I hate long sentences, gerunds, passives, etc. The curse of a college prof). --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd be delighted to see the "ref name = ..." style converted over. It is, as you both have pointed out, quite a problem in a volatile article like this one. Not until WP did I realize how ultra controversial (like in the top 100 maybe?) a topic this apparently is ... Keesiewonder ^talk 11:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Anything relating to religion is inherently controversial on WP. However, though we have not always agreed I am sure I speak for many in saying I am pleased by your moderating influence on this much-debated page.--Mantanmoreland 14:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks ... Keesiewonder ^talk 14:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

On the 95 Theses edit, I went along with the suggestion to drop the quote notes. But I'm aware of the thinking at FA that inline citations are required for just about everything. The language may seem slightly sticky but it is almost closer to a translation than a paraphrase of Luther. The reason I had the quotes in was to show that the form of words was there for a reason.

I must say that I'm not entirely happy with the present truncated form of the article, which it seems to me achieves brevity at the expense of the theology and the precise progress of events. I was always in favour of cutting the article down, but I never felt it could reasonably go below 60kb without losing part of its usefulness. FA don't mind articles of that size for meaty subjects. qp10qp 15:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There certainly is room to expand the article a little, providing we keep summary style in mind. What I don't want to see is someone coming at us saying its too long and pointing out areas that go beyond summary style. Along those lines, I think the MSN Encarta article on Luther has some nice ways of accomplishing this.`

On the notes: if we quote something directly, we really should footnote it. The explanitory notes can go, though, since subarticles can serve that purpose in wikipedia. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 15:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• I too advocate more material than we have now. I have not yet taken the time to propose where that content could go, but, in due time, will. I have seen several FA articles that are longer than the ML article, so, the number of bytes certainly is not the only thing to keep in mind while implementing summary style. Keesiewonder ^talk 17:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

missing ref

I was looking for the reference that substatiates Response of the papacy

Cardinal Albert of Hohenzollern, Archbishop of Mainz and Magdeburg, with the consent of Pope Leo X, was using part of the indulgence income to pay his bribery debts,[26]

ref 26 has nothing to do with the claim that Pope Leo X knew of the Archbishops sale of indulgences. something I have heard disptued by some theologians. the ref only goes to a definition of indulgences. Someone should find a proper refrence. or remove the statement as unsubstatiated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.49.40.232 (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

philosopher

Someone added a philosophy tag to this talk page; we mention that L was nick-named "the philosopher" by the time he entered university. We don't really discuss Luther's philosophy, or do we? philosophy ?= theology ... (not always, IMO) Thanks ... Keesiewonder ^talk 00:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Normally he isn't classed a philosopher, although one could argue that theology is philosophy with God in it. 8-) --CTSWyneken^(talk) 01:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

substituted or dead references?

I just noticed this from the beginning of the Justification by Faith section

<div class="noprint">''Main article{{#if:{{{2|}}}|s}}: [[Theology of Martin Luther|{{{l1|Theology of Martin Luther}}}]]{{#if:{{{2| }}} |{{#if:{{{3|}}}|, | and }}[[{{{2}}}|{{{l2|{{{2}}}}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{3|}}} |{{#if:{{{4|}}}|, |, and }}[[{{{3}}}|{{{l3|{{{3}}}}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{4|}}} |{{#if:{{{5|}}}|, |, and }}[[{{{4}}}|{{{l4|{{{4}}}}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{5|}}} |, and [[{{{5}}}|{{{l5|{{{5}}}}}}]]}}''{{#if:{{{6| }}}| (too many parameters in {{[[Template:main|main]]}})}}</div>

I also just fixed a situation very much like this in another article.

Per WP:CITE, my understanding is we should convert this over to something more readable/useful. Thoughts? Keesiewonder ^talk 09:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm kind of puzzled, since I do not see this in the visible portion of the article. Can you tell me where it is hiding and what it is supposed to do? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the wiki source for the visible line

"Main article: Theology of Martin Luther".

Per {{main}} it looks like this should be replaced by {{main|Theology of Martin Luther}}. In the past, this correctly-used template must have been unwisely substituted. When you substitute a template that's full of conditional structure, it can make it very hard to update in the future. See WP:SUBST for list of templates that should not be substituted. In this case, the problem is easy to fix. EdJohnston 16:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, EdJ - Thanks for taking a look; I believe I've fixed it. Keesiewonder ^talk 23:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking around for other examples of templates that might have been substituted unnecessarily, I came across 'sisterlinks', which I went ahead and fixed. This is the kind of template that benefits from being un-substituted, because future changes in the spectrum of Wikiprojects will be automatically picked up. EdJohnston 04:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Witcraft/Trivia

Frankly, this is a section with no point. This has no real bearing on a consideration of Luther's life, and that makes it trivia per W guidelines on trivia. If anyone can incorporate this into another section in a legit way it should be; otherwise it should be deleted.Darentig 21:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

We've deleted it repeatedly, but it keeps coming back. We've just lost the energy to keep removing it. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 21:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

OIC. Darentig 21:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it coming back just because random people just come by and re-insert it? That doesn't sound very fair. Homestarmy 03:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Not random people. The same editor. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 15:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Who, and why? :/ Homestarmy 15:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Finding out who and why is relatively easy, though painstaking: go through the "history" tab. Remember all editors are anonymous in Wiki theoretically. I remember when the article was put in. The references were taken from the 18th Century Walch edition of Luther's works. I rewrote it, finding the Karant-Nunn resource, trying to improve it to Wiki standards. Presently I agree with its removal and permanent exclusion from the main article, but as CTS has stated: there is a particular editor that continues to readd it. --Drboisclair 16:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: This discussion is concluded in #Witchcraft section. --Kevinkor2 21:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ruined...

someone sabotaged the article... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Catherine the Great does not deserve her title (talk • contribs) 03:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Diet of worms?

Why is the section titled the diet of worms and not the edict of worms? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aceofspades1217 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Because it is about the events at the Diet. The edict is important, but is the result of these events. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 15:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Saints?

This article has been added to that category. I don't know of a St. (Martin) Luther (1483-1546) ... Keesiewonder ^talk 22:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

St. Luther was the patron saint of Konzentrationslager Auschwitz. NumberedMan 23:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

NumberedMan's comment makes it clear that the addition of this article to the "saint" category was meant as a political/polemical statement related to the Luther's anti-semitic writings rather than as a statement of fact appropriate for this encyclopedia. I will remove that category. --Apostlemep12 00:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as the person who added the category and the banner, it is because the project, in the interests of fairness and neutrality, is now trying to include all those individuals who are commemorated in Christian liturgical calendars. The introductory comment in Category:Lutheran saints I think clarifies this a little. We are also hoping to add high quality and importance articles of Lutheran, Anglican and Orthodox saints to the Portal:Saints. I didn't add the data on his commemoration in the Calendar of Saints (Lutheran), as I have to the pages of the other parties included in it, as I thought it kind of obvious in this case. The Category:Renewers of the church, which is a more specific subcat of Lutheran saints, was added later, after I created the subcat. However, speaking strictly for myself, I'm not sure that the project will necessarily object to having one less contentious article to worry about. 'Bye. :) John Carter 18:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If you will notice, it was not numbered man who added the Wikiproject banner, but John Carter who added it in very good faith. Too be less Roman-leaning, WP Saints is adding those commemorated on liturgical calendars of protestant churches. I am re-adding the banner. It is not a political or theological statement. It is merely an achnowledgement that Luther is commemorated on the Lutheran (and also the britissssssh) calendar. -- Pastordavid 12:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't help but wonder if WP Saints should be renamed to something a little more appropriate that directly describe all persons in the category. Honestly, I can't think of a better name off the top of my head, but to put Martin Luther, or even say (don't know if he's in there) John Calvin or Gahndi is misleading at best. Saint Definition: A person who has been declared a saint by process of canonization. Anyway, to put Martin Luther in a category in which he technically does not belong, seems ( albeit unintentionally given the previous post ) a bit POV. Guldenat 04:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Suitable Graphic for Luther and anti-Semitism section

May we discuss the addition of a suitable graphic for the Luther and anti-Semitism section? The article currently has 17 graphics:

• a painting of Martin Luther
• a Timeline graphic
• View of church where Luther was baptized
• One of Luther's monastic cells
• The Luther seal
• Pope Leo X by Raphael
• Luther as Monk, 1520
• First printed edition of Exsurge Domine
• Wartburg Castle Eisenach
• Martin Luther's mother Margarethe Luther
• Portrait of Katharina von Bora, wife of Martin Luther, by Lucas Cranach the Elder. 1526. Oil on panel. Warburg-Stiftung, Eisenach, Germany
• Luther's 1534 bible
• Rare, early printing of “A Mighty Fortress”
• Statue of Martin Luther outside the Marienkirche in central Berlin
• The Augsburg Confession
• Luther's grave in the Castle Church in Wittenberg
• Part of a series on Lutheranism (which contains another "Luther's Seal"

Noticably absent is a graphic for the Luther and anti-Semitism section. I propose the addition of

• On the Jews and Their Lies

Any comments or suggestions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GraphicPatrol (talk • contribs) 22:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Anti-Semitism

Jayjg, consider the following sentence: "There is little doubt among historians that Luther's rhetoric may have contributed …" I suggest to you that it is meaningless and nonsensical to say that there is little doubt that something may have happened. The sentence needs to be fixed. Apparently you consider it inaccurate to say that "a number of historians" set forth the assertion. What exactly is offensive about that particular phrasing?

You have no citation on the page indicating which is the majority and which is the minority position (nor will you find any). You simply make the claim blindly. Furthermore, I would like to point out that the so-called minority position is held by so many independent sources that they could not all be placed in individual footnotes but were grouped together in a single footnote. The self-titled majority position has all of its sources (two of which are identical—Berger p. 28, and Berger p. 28) in individual footnotes in order to make it appear as though it is heavily supported. If you wish to call your position the majority position, I suggest that you find a greater number of sources than the wimpy minority position. Your current deficit is seven sources.

Regarding your removal of the supposed "original research," I have consequently removed the remaining section portions that quoted Luther directly. (Actually, I have never seen a Wikipedia policy stating that the subject of the biography should never be quoted. Who could be more qualified to tell us about Luther than Luther himself? Nevertheless, I will play by your rules for now.)—Emote _{Talk Page} 04:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I weighed in with my take. I agree that the majority/minority issue has not been supported by a citation (which should be an historiographical work or a survey showing that it is indeed a majority postion). Indeed, I made this point when the language was first added last July and again a month or two ago. I don't think "counting cites" is the way to do this, but rather that a scholarly survey which comes to the majority/minority conclusion is what is needed. However, I thought "conjecture" was too weak - these people have concluded these things. Also, I note the citations include at least one who is a theology professor, and so used the "theologans and historians" phrase in parallel. I do happen to agree that as set out, the last paragraph is original research, since it cites to a work to demonstrate its analysis, rather than to an analytical work that concludes that Luther was not anti-semitic, which is what has been posited in the sentance. The earlier Luther quotes are set out to speak for themselves, not to support any particular point made in the article; there is no analysis that they are intended to prove (that follows the quote and has citations). Just my thoughts. Sam 22:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Which "theology professor" are you referring to? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Michael Berenbaum. You can check his biography at the University of Judaism. Sam 22:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

He is "an American scholar, professor, writer, and film-maker, who specializes in the study of the memorialization of the Holocaust. He is perhaps most famous for his work as Project Director of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum". He appears to have written this as a historian of the Holocaust, not as a theologian. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any issue with what you want to call folks; I made it parallel because others seem to care enough to make the label for the other perspective "theologian and historian" and it strikes me as accurate in both cases. There are plenty of very scholarly theologians out there, so in my view the label does nothing to question anyone's credibility. My bigger concern, the one I've expressed in multiple posts over many months, is that the citation on the "majority" and "minority" positions strikes me as lacking; I think this is a conclusion that constitutes original research. I have looked for an historical survey that addressed the question, and have not found it. Sam 23:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The difference would be that the vast majority of people who think Luther was not antisemitic happen to be theologians, not historians, often Lutherans working for Lutheran bodies. Go figure. Anyway, "parallel" isn't always accurate. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The quote at issue does not argue that Luther is not anti-semitic: it says that there are historians and theologians who do not link Luther causally to the rise of Nazi anti-semitism, which is a very different statement. Indeed, my edit deleted (unsupported) language that stated some argue Luther is not anti-semitic. Is there an authority somewhere that says this is a minority view, or that the position of Luther's antisemitism having a causal link is the majority? In reality, I think most discussions (including Rose's, for example), are far more complex and less conclusive that any of these statements. Sam 00:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I note that I've been looking for this citation for a long time; I get many reverts but no citation. Come on, guys, is there anyplace out there that explicitly describes what the "majority" or "minority" view on this is? I have done research and not found it. I'm willing to be convinced.A Musing (formerly Sam) 02:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The article also misses that the one historical survey Luther's influence on anti-semitic literature from the 16th to the 20th century concludes that his later tracts were almost completely forgotten from the early 17th century until the last decades of the 19th and that they were not widely known until after the Nazi ideology discovered it and used it as justification for its policies. (see Wallmann). Most scholars simply respond to the latter and hypothesize a causal connection. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 02:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sam, thanks for adding your comments here. I appreciate your thoughtful response. I agree that the majority and minority positions cannot be determined based on the number of sources cited. I wouldn't normally suggest such a criterion, but other editors had reverted my edits twice on the basis that I had compromised the majority position. Because the assertion of a majority position was not supported by any references, I resorted to the quantity of sources as a mild indicator of what the majority position might be. Just for the sake of clarification, I would like to say that I was not the author of the original research paragraph. It was submitted anonymously, and I, not realizing that it was original research, made several edits to it and attempted to incorporate it into the article. My apologies to Jayjg and anyone else who may have taken offence at my unduly brusque comments above. My edits had already been reverted once prior to that, and I perceived the lack of explanation on the talk page after the secondary revert as simply throwing away good-faith edits as though they were trash. I also misunderstood the point about original research. I mistook it as an excuse to delete content based on personal disagreement with it. That indeed was a breach of good-faith assumption on my part. Again, I apologize for the disruption.—Emote _{Talk Page} 04:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

CTSWyneken wrote: "one historical survey Luther's influence on anti-semitic literature from the 16th to the 20th century concludes that his later tracts were almost completely forgotten from the early 17th century until the last decades of the 19th and that they were not widely known until after the Nazi ideology discovered it and used it as justification for its policies. (see Wallmann). Most scholars simply respond to the latter and hypothesize a causal connection".

I don't have ready access to Wallmann, but is it his (or your) contention that Adolf Hitler was the one who resurrected Luther's writings (admiring Martin Luther in Mein Kampf in 1925)? Or does Wallmann conclude that there was a Nazi ideology before Adolf Hitler, that rediscovered Martin Luther's anti-semitic literature? If an obscure painter (without Google) could find Martin Luther's anti-semitic literature, how could Wallmann conclude that it was not widely known? HannahStu 20:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

CTSWyneken sent me the Wallmann article last summer when it was being discussed here. Wallman's basic thesis is that On the Jews and their Lies and the other anti-semitic writing of Luther's later life had little influence on the development of anti-semitism from the 17th century through the middle of the 19th century, and that those who espoused and developed anti-semitism in that period took their inspiration from other quarters; it is an article that questions the "continuity" of Luther's influence. It does not deal explicitly with the reception of Luther in the 20th century or by the Nazis, but it is a fairly convincing article on many of the points on which it focuses. I would think it should be fully discussed in the daughter article, rather than in this article, since it implicates some much more complicated questions about the nature of anti-semitism and the extent to which anti-semitism over the centuries has fundamental differences in type. I am still interested in whether there is any citation, though, as to what constitutes majority or minority opinion on the question of scholarly opinion on the extent to which Luther should be "causally" linked to Nazi anti-semitism. Sam 21:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It is easy to find Luther's writings on the Jews now mainly because of the Nazis and their use of Luther's words to justify their evil. Before the Nazis, these works appeared only in the more obscure scholarly sets of his works. If I remember correctly, the anti-semites of the early 20th century rediscovered them and the Nazis through their influence. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 02:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not know what "casually" means here. I think that this should be made clearer. Wallmann makes the point that the likes of Johann Andreas Eisenmenger did not use Luther's writings. He may not even have read them. In the early part of the 20th century they found Luther's Lectures on Romans, and a renaissance of Luther studies took place. In the midst of that revival the antisemites rediscovered Luther's writings against the Jews, and they popularized them. Wallmann does not deny that Luther's writings influenced 20th century antisemitism, but he would deny that they provided a constant, pervading influence from the 16th through the 19th centuries. Wallmann is the only scholar, as far as I know, who has sat down and done the reading and research into this question. The next step would be to research the influence of Luther's writings against the Jews in the 20th century.--Drboisclair 16:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I get the point that Martin Luther's influence on antisemitism was eclipsed by that of Eisenmenger and some other more "current" writers for 300 years, but that Luther's antisemitic works were "rediscovered" after 1908. Partly because of Martin Luther's "gravitas", especially in Germany, the Nazis used him as justification for their actions. Unfortunately, the Nazis had the opportunity to put many of these beliefs into action, in a way that overshadowed the actions inspired by Eisenmenger in the previous centuries. Eisenmenger, although an author, theologian, and professor, did not have the same stature as Martin Luther, and was not named by the Nazis as justification for their actions at their trials. So, is it accurate to link Martin Luther to the imprisonment and death of millions of people? Did he really mean it, or was he writing metaphorically? HannahStu 00:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

HannahStu, your question raises many historical and philosophical questions, and the article on the Holocaust has a pretty good summary of some of the writing on the subect. Anti-semitism is obviously horrific in and of itself, but the question fundamentally is whether there is something about Luther's anti-semitism in particular that paved the way for genocide. There are some who suggest that there was something particular about Germany and Germans that led to anti-semitism's virulence in 20th century Germany and ultimately to the holocaust, and the position being espoused as a "majority" position here is a strain of that thought. People advocating a German particularism often identify Luther as a key element in that German particularism (other candidates often include Neitzche, the Romantics, Kant, etc.), though I think Wallman is a challenge to the idea of German particularism being so deep seated that it reaches back to Luther per se. There are others who espouse the idea that the genocideal anti-semitism of the Nazis was not particular to a given culture or time, but an evil many cultures are capable of, and who would suggest the identification of German particularism as the fundamental cause of the Holocaust is an attempt to deny the complicity of other cultures and to distinguish German anti-semitism as somehow more fundamental wrong than the anti-semitism of other countries. The goal of this short summary, in my mind, ought to be to summarize the scholarship that has occurred in all its breadth on this issue. Articles such as the Holocaust article and its subarticles can explore the broader issues more fundamentally. Did Luther mean it? He was undoubtedly a virulent anti-semite, and his words and actions speak for themselves. But do scholars view intent as the issue, or is it historical impact that is the issue? That's the question that needs citations and footnotes, since we're describing the work done in the area here, not adding our own thoughts on the issues. Sam 16:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the following addition and restored the original text:

Hitler's propaganda machine attempted to manipulate several historic events into cultivating public opinion in his favor. Luther's 16th century audience likely understood his statement in a non-literal way, due to the fact that no violence between the early Lutherans and the Jews has been recorded by historians of this time period, be they German or Jewish. Alternatively, because of the Roman Catholic tithing laws exempting banking and finance from paying tithes, many Jews became bankers. Luther may have read the condemnations of usury in the Pentateuch, causing him to look down upon the German Jewish bankers.

My reasons are as follows:

• (1) The phrase "Hitler's propaganda machine" is, I believe, definitely non-neutral
• (2) No sources to verify the additions are included
• (3) The statement "no violence ..." definitely needs to be sourced, and it is not.
• (4) Luther had other specific reasons for condeming the Jews, as are indicated in his various writing. The quick, unsourced, and thus unjustified speculation as to his reasons in the final sentence is in clear violation of several wikipedia guidelines regarding objectivity, neutrality, no unsourced statements, etc. John Carter 21:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no shortage of discussion or citations that note Luther’s significance to the category of antisemitism. Therefore, I trust adding this article to Cat:Antisemitism will not be controversial.Doright 04:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Is Luther's suggestion that Jews be treated well so that they become Christians really "positive"? or is it just a cynical attempt to win them over or save them from damnation. More favorable than his later remarks to be sure but still seeing a need that they give up their religion.

Witchcraft section

I see how a section on Luther and witchcraft has been added, removed, and reinserted. The argument seems to be about whether the content is "extraneous" to the article. For what little it might be worth to the rest of you, I personally think that, at best, the bulk of this content should be spun off into a separate article. Witchcraft is not a particularly significant subject in the life of Luther, and the inclusion of this data would seem to give it more attention than it might be seen as deserving. John Carter 18:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The content has been spun off to Martin Luther and the persecution of witches and that article is about to be unanimously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Luther and the persecution of witches. So that definitely is a bad option. I don't really think it needs to be in the article unless there is some evidence that it was a major aspect of his ministry. There are thousands of Christian doctrines and we don't need Luther's opinions on all of them. Rather, the ones that are in some fashion important to his ministry should be there. --BigDT 18:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with BigDT, this IS NOT a major aspect of Luther's teaching.--ChesterMarcol 18:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

So the point is Luther opposed witchcraft? Unless I'm missing something, that would make him like every other Christian theologian, priest, and ethicist for um, 2000 years. I'm sorry, I just don't see the sense of the argument for inclusion. Did Luther instigate witch trials in Wittenburg? Did his opposition to witchcraft substantially effect his theology? Are the persecutions of witches attributable to Luther any moreso than to any other source? -- Pastordavid 18:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Further, it was removed a month ago as inappropriate ... It is being re-added now because the POV-fork article is being deleted. I'm sorry, if it wasn't appropriate a month ago, what has changed to make it appropriate now? -- Pastordavid 18:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in this section until a few minutes ago, but I don't understand the hostility to having a couple of good, accurate paragraphs somewhere on Martin Luther's attitude toward witchcraft. If you put Martin Luther and witchcraft in Google as a search term you get 746,000 hits. Even if half of that is extraneous it does show a lot written on the subject. Some of what shows up on Google appears to be misinformation, and I think it might be useful to have accurate info on the subject.--Mantanmoreland 19:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Martin Luther and sex gets 1.3 million hits [8]. Martin Luther and murder (excluding Martin Luther King) gets 370K [9]. Martin Luther and most any term will get lots of hits because a heckuva lot of his sermons or writings are online. But there needs to be some assertion that this section is actually important or relevant. Luther taught about a lot of things just like any other theologian. --BigDT 21:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps his views had impact on the attitude toward witchcraft at the time? I'd like to hear from whoever added this section originally. --Mantanmoreland 14:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Luther had no different view of witchcraft than most people at the time. He basicly thought of it as evil and as something that was quite existant. Captain panda In vino veritas 15:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this information could be included in the extant Christian views on witchcraft page? It would seem to be relevant to that page, and considering that article is rather short as is, it would probably be a welcome addition to that page. John Carter 22:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[outdent] Luther's views on witches and witchcraft, beyond his paraphrase of the second commandment, are so obscure and had so little influence that no biography of Luther to my knowledge, even mentions it in passing. If someone knows of such a reference, please provide it. The works our section quotes are so obscure they have yet to appear in English in their entirety. In contrast, virtually every biography gives substantial space to his views on Islam, the Anabaptists, and, of course, the pope. Even his hatred of the Jews gets some attention in most post-WWII studies. It really is not worth the space here under these circumstances. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 23:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think John Carter's suggestion has merit, unless there is a claim of undue weight such as being made here. I couldn't help but notice there has been no input from whoever placed the text in the article in the first place.--Mantanmoreland 14:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Although I was the one that cast the section into its present state, it was put in mysteriously by an anonymous editor, who obviously knew his/her German. This was over a year and a half ago. I tracked down the references to the eighteenth and nineteenth century editions of Luther's works, i.e. the first Walch edition and the second Walch edition (known as the St. Louis Edition). Fortunately, in the Karant-Nunn book the same references are provided and translated with reference to the definitive Weimar Edition. To some extent I could be said to be the author of the section, though I was not the initiator, and I agree with user Carter's suggestion that the material could be put into the Christianity and witchcraft article. Here it is a bit of trivia that detracts from the broad coverage that this article should have of Dr. Luther.--Drboisclair 15:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the initiator has vanished, and shows no interest in defending the section, then I guess that's that.--Mantanmoreland 17:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[outdent] I have implemented John Carter's suggestion. The witchcraft section is now part of Christian views on witchcraft. Because the first sentence says, "Martin Luther shared some of the views about witchcraft that were common in his time", his documented views on witchcraft are relevant to historical Christian views on witchcraft, which is well within the scope of that article. --Kevinkor2

He became an enemy of the Pope and his Holy Roman empire right?

Was he the first Christian to stand up against the Catholics? --Arigato1 23:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

He wasnt the first, but he was one of the first that wasnt burnt at the stake. See Protestant Reformers--ChesterMarcol 23:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, technically, since Luther was a catholic, he wasn't standing up to them. 8-) --CTSWyneken^(talk) 00:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

He was catholic, until he stood up to the Pope which got him excommunicated, so he wasn't catholic anymore.--ChesterMarcol 01:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Luther and the reformers claimed that they were the true catholics and it was the Pope that left the Church. 8-) It isn't for a generation or so that everyone settles into using the term Roman Catholic for those who confessed the articles of Trent, or, for that matter, the term Protestant to mean not-catholic, not-eastern orthodox. But a rose by any other name... --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Luther never chose to leave the church. The church excommunicated him. He always thought of himself as a Catholic trying to improve the church and not the maker of a new church. Captain panda In vino veritas 15:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The pope excommunicated Luther and not "the church"; however, it depends on the side of the fence one finds oneself on. There was a continuning debate between those who held that church councils should have highest authority (conciliarism) and those who held that the pope should have highest authority (papal monarchialists). Luther appealed from the pope to a general council in the early stages of his "trial." I think that I agree with the main point of User:Captain panda's post here: Luther didn't leave fellowship with the pope, the pope kicked him out. The sainted Danny Thomas once said that if Pope John XXIII had been pope in 1517, there would have been no need of a Reformation. --Drboisclair 15:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I submit that it may be a bit POV to say the Church needed reforming at all, particularly at the theological level. Let it be known that Martin Luther was excommunicated more for his opposition to certain theological doctrines ( fine points of transubstantiation and such ) than for his critiques of certain managerial flaws ( selling of indulgences, etc.. ) Also, it's important to see the trend that virtually every protestant and schismatic group within the Catholic Church makes the argument that it was the Pope who left the church, not themselves. In fact, even now their is a schismatic group in the US midwest, I believe it is called the Followers of Pope Pius XIII who continue to use that exact same logic. Pretty convenient scapegoat that gets tired after a few centuries of use. Guldenat 04:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdenting) We can, of course, add qualifying language to make clear that Luther and the Reformers thought it was necessary to reform the church -- if you can find a cite that anyone in the Western Church of the 16th century didn't think it needed such. I cannot recall anyone who didn't think it needed such -- although there was a wide difference of opinion as to what or how much reforming was needed. In fact, there was a whole council -- that of Trent -- in which multiple reforms were promulgated along with the famous condemnation of the "protestant" changes.

Please note that we say that Luther believed it was the Pope who departed from the Church. If we say it in the article (which as far as I know we do not and never have), that would be accurate. Do you have evidence that it was otherwise? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 10:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

From at least two prep schools. Time to semiprotect?--Mantanmoreland 18:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd go for it. Let's give the reformer a few week's rest... --CTSWyneken^(talk) 21:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

School's out. Let's see if it starts again tomorrow.--Mantanmoreland 21:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism resumed. I've requested semiprotection.--Mantanmoreland 23:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Lutheranism Project

A new wikiproject has been formed, focusing on articles relating to Lutheranism. Come by and check it out, and sign up to help improve articles about Lutheranism on Wikipedia. WikiProject Lutheranism. -- Pastordavid 20:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

catagories

We should not have so many categories that it is hard to find ones that are truly useful. I have trimmed out tangental ones. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 18:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"Endured criticism"

This phrase is totally unnecessary and uses the word "sects," which is considered a pejoritive in Lutheran theological circles. It is thus both redundant and POV. I have removed it. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 18:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Martin Luther never heard of Jan Hus?

I find it hard to believe that Martin Luther never heard of Jan Hus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.78.91 (talk)

May I say... huh? Of course Luther heard of Hus. Who says otherwise? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 16:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.78.91 (talk • contribs)

You'll have to be a bit more specific than that. I don't find anything to that effect here. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 16:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is the point. There is nothing about Hus, absolutely nothing! Even though the Czech lands had been out of control of Rome for 100 years, that many crusades had been organized, even though Hus had objected to indulgences, and the Hussites and Utraquists introduced receiving both the consecrated bread and wine, even though Hus translated the Bible to Czech long time before Luther translated it to German, even though the borders of Bohemia are not too far from Wittenberg, there is nothing. All we are told is that Luther came to the conclusion that salvation is a gift of God's grace. The article does a poor job putting Luther in the historical context.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.78.91 (talk • contribs)

Also, please take a moment to register as a user (it's free) and sign your talk page comments. It helps to know something about editors when we're working with him or her. --CTSWyneken(talk) 18:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is not about Hus, but Luther. Nor is it about Slovakia, Bohemia, or anything like it. So it is natural that nothing is mentioned about Hus in this article. There isn't anything about the Roman Empire in the Abraham Lincoln article either, I'll bet. A little later, I'll check a few encyclopedia articles about Luther and see if Hus is mentioned at all. If he is, I'll put a mention in here. If not, I'll assume that you have some sources on the life and work of Luther that you can cite and await you creating your own username and contributing to the article.--CTSWyneken^(talk) 21:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The article about Hus is not about Wycliffe, yet Wycliffe is mentioned 13-times.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.78.91 (talk • contribs)

Again, if you have a source that draws a connection between Hus and Luther, go ahead and add something to that effect. I hate to break it to you, however, but Luther's life was very little impacted by Hus. So you might just have a hard time finding much. Much stronger a connection is the black death -- which we do not mention -- and dozens of other factors. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 10:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This is absurd! The following had happened in the Czech lands in the 100 years before Luther: 1) Repudiation of the indulgences 2) Emancipation from Rome (won on the battlefield) 3) Receiving both the consecrated bread and wine 4) Translation of the Bible in the native tongue Luther never heard of any of these?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.78.91 (talk • contribs)

So, be bold, find a source and summarize it. I'll put no more energy into this discussion beyond checking encyclopedias. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 10:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

>> Hus was a key contributor to the Protestant movement whose teachings had a strong influence on the states of Europe and on Martin Luther himself. The Hussite Wars resulted in the Basel Compacts which allowed for a reformed church in the Kingdom of Bohemia - almost a century before such developments would take place in the Lutheran Reformation. << This is from the entry "Hus" in this very same encyclopedia. Please look at the four point above. Are you saying that a) you are not aware of them b) Luther never heard of any of those c) Luther did hear that but he completely filtered it out and reinvented the entire wheel by himself Excuse me for being sarcastic but that is the appropriate format here. Without Hus there would be no Luther, no Protestantism, and no America as we know it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.78.91 (talk • contribs)

Dear Friend: you are welcome to do some reading in the life of Luther and find information about the influence or lack of it on him. You are welcome, having done this, to add a reference or two to that influence in this article and cite it. No one is stopping you, and, as long as it is referenced, no one I know will remove it.

The last thing I'm going to say on the subject is that I have checked the Luther articles in several major encyclopedias and not a one mentions Hus. Therefore, I am not going to spend any further effort arguing with you on it. Hus is simply a minor influence on Luther's life, no more and no less.

Also, please note that it is annoying to have you expect to hold a discussion when you do not establish a username and sign in. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 02:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Does no one remember the days when the following was in the article?

"One opponent, however, was the theologian Johann Eck, who clashed with Luther later that year in a debate at Leipzig (27 June – 18 July 1519) during which Luther insisted that the power of the keys belonged not to popes but to the whole Church, defined as the congregation of the faithful.[38] Eck afterwards called Luther "the Saxon Hus" and from that moment devoted himself to his downfall."

I must say, I regret the loss of the Leiden debate from the article. qp10qp 05:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome, of course, to add it back. My only concern is to keep the overall size of this article down through summary style. There would even be room for a new article on the debate itself, with some sort of overview here. The balance is to avoid leaving major items our (which I don't think we've done) or moving towards a monograph-size article (which we've tended to do). --CTSWyneken^(talk) 10:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)