Talk:Martin Luther/Archive 6

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Augustinian

I can't believe that the word Augustinian has been deleted since last week. From my POV it should not be deleted at all. CTWyneken - can you help here? You know what you're doing! Cor Unum 14:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

{source}

Dear Cor: I have no problem with the word Augustinian, because he was one. I don't think its quite accurate to term his whole theology as Augustinian. 8-) I'm not sure who deleted it. My guess was readability was the concern, but that is grasping at straws. --CTSWyneken 15:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

To Do List

Now that things have quieted down a bit, why don't we make a to do list here. I'll get us started:

Finish adjusting notes to Chicago Manual of Style.--CTSWyneken 10:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Add a section on Luther's hymns and congregational hymn singing.--CTSWyneken 10:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Streamline language where possible.--CTSWyneken 10:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Think about creating subarticles and moving some detail to them.--CTSWyneken 10:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Create a Historiography of Luther article.--CTSWyneken 10:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to add to this.--CTSWyneken 10:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you like help with any of these objectives? Thetruthbelow ^(talk) 03:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You are very welcome, Truth, to try your hand at some of these. I'm not sure how much of it you could do without some substantial reading, though. Why don't you read through the article and make suggestions here. We can see what others think and go from there. I'd suggest you not do more than minor tweaking without talking about it here first, though. --CTSWyneken 19:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Notable Descendants

I just read here that August Ferdinand Möbius is apparently a descendant of Martin Luther. Seeing as he is an important mathematician in history, might we want to make note of it? Of course before anything goes down it would probably be best to find a good source and hopefully the actual lineage as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by mobius (talk • contribs)

Hmm... I'm not sure. I have nothing against it, per se, but are we doing this with other biography articles? In any case, if it is true, we could mention it in passing, or in a see also link. I'd be against going much beyond that, since it is a bit of a tangent. --CTSWyneken 11:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Inscription to Mary in Luther’s burial chamber

Fr. Peter Stravinskas, in his book, Mary and the Fundamentalist Challenge, p.73,[1][2] makes the following rather remarkable statement: “Nor was Luther an iconoclast, for he strictly forbade the fanatical destruction of images and demanded at least a crucifix and a representation of Our Lady for his own use. He quite clearly did not see the Old Testament prohibition against images as having any application, so long as the images were not used in an idolatrous manner.25 Most interesting of all, perhaps, is the realization that his burial chamber in the Wittenberg church, on whose door he had posted his 95 Theses, was adorned with the 1521 Peter Vischer sculpture of the Coronation of the Virgin, with the inscription containing these lines:

<Ad summum Regina thronum defertur in altum: Angelicis praelatia choris, cui festus et ipse Filius occurrens Matrem super aethera ponit.>26

The endnote(#26) on p. 113 states that “the gist of these lines means that Christ Himself exalts His mother above all creation.”

Can someone tell me if this inscription does in fact appear, as described above, in Luther’s burial chamber, and if so, are there any images available of it either in print or on the web? I thought I was reasonably familiar with luther's opinions on Mary, but I was astounded when I came across this bit of information, and I would just like to verify whether or not it is correct. Thanks. Delta x 17:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard this before. Perhaps someone who's been there can say. I'll also do some digging tomorrow re: personal use of an image of the Virgin.

--CTSWyneken 23:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

From what I've been able to discover so far, Peter Vischer's bronze plate of "The Coronation of Mary", does in fact exist in the Castle Church in Wittenberg. However, it appears that this plate is not related to Luther at all, but is instead, "the tombstone for Henning Goden, Jurist and last Catholic Provost of the Castle Church."[3] This of course conflicts with Fr. Stravinskas's statement that Luther's "burial chamber in the Wittenberg church...was adorned with the 1521 Peter Vischer sculpture of the Coronation of the Virgin," since apparently there is no "burial chamber" in the Castle Church to begin with! [4] Fr. Stravinskas seems me to be a very careful scholar who does an excellent job of documenting his sources, however, in this particular instance I think he has indeed made a "pious mistake." As for Luther's use of an image of the Virgin, well, one thing at a time... Delta x 07:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Having taken a look at one of many photos of the tombstone, you are correct. There is no such inscription on it. I'm having trouble finding any use of an image of Mary by Luther at all, and, with the text of the Invocavit Sermons, I would suspect this is also a Catholic myth. --CTSWyneken 10:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if this matter has been resolved, then I guess the cause of Truth (which alone can make any of us free - Jn. 8:32) has been served (myths 0 - truth 1). Maybe an article on the Castle Church itself someday - with lots of photo-documentation! At any rate, thanks for looking into this from a sometimes controversial, but always friendly - Delta x 16:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have been through the Castle Church now twice, very thoroughly. What the Roman priest claims is absolutely false and untrue. There are very old burial markers in that church dating to pre-Reformation times. It may be that on them there is some symbol for Mary. But there is no such image, symbol or other representation of Mary on Luther's grave marker/monument. PTMcCain

I agree with you that Stravinskas undoubtedly erred regarding the inscription to Mary. However, his assertion that Luther “strictly forbade the fanatical destruction of images and demanded at least a crucifix and a representation of Our Lady for his own use” is in accordance with statements made by Luther himself in his 1525 treatise “Against the Heavenly Prophets.” Of course, Luther strongly warns ( and I applaud him for doing so ) against the worship of these images.

Luther on the destruction of images: From Luther’s Works, American Edition, vol. 40 ( Church and Ministry II )

“Furthermore, I have allowed and not forbidden the outward removal of images, so long as this takes place without rioting and uproar and is done by the proper authorities…However, when Karlstadt disregards my spiritual and orderly way of putting away images and makes me out to be only a “protector of images,” this is an example of his holy and prophetic art, though I only resisted his factious, violent, and fanatical spirit”. p. 85.

“If, however, it had been incorrect to make an altar, and God’s commandment had been strictly applied to making, they would have reduced the altar to ashes. Otherwise they would not have escaped sin, as they said they would. Now the making of altars is as strictly forbidden as the making of images. If one can make and set up altars and special stones, so that God’s commandment is not trespassed because worship is absent, then my image breakers must also let me keep, wear, and let me look at a crucifix or a Madonna, yes, even an idol’s image, in full accord with the strictest Mosaic law, as long as I do not worship them, but only have them as memorials.” p.88

“Now we do not request more than that one permit us to regard a crucifix or a saint’s image as a witness, for remembrance, as a sign as that image of Caesar was. Should it not be as possible for us without sin to have a crucifix or an image of Mary, as it was for the Jews and Christ himself to have an image of Caesar who, pagan and now dead, belonged to the devil?” P.96 [5]

May this post help serve the cause of mutual friendship and better understanding between our respective traditions. - Delta x 18:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

captivation of the will

I'm not sure it's wholly accurate to state in the section on Luther's other writings that "...he refused to engage fully with Erasmus's ideas, but composed a far more personal attack." While it is true that Luther made no attempt to hide his disdain for the position Erasmus held, there is fairly good evidence to suggest that Luther respected Erasmus as a scholar, knowing the man's influence on the thought of the day; and furthermore, the characterization stretches neutrality in the direction of a mischaracterization or even an accusation that Luther didn't actually engage Erasmus' ideas. The Bondage of the Will is hundreds of pages long and certainly does deal quite directly with Erasmus' ideas. Three hundred pages of personal attacks would not endure as monumentally as this work has done, influencing theology and Reformation thought for almost 500 years. Example: in discussion of the First Part, Luther directly quotes Erasmus. He does make several digs at the other author ("you have here stated a mere naked definition, without declaring any part of it, (as all others do); because, perhaps, you feared more shipwrecks than one") but he goes on to engage this and many other ideas. The implication that Luther somehow spent his energy and ink on only personal attacks is inaccurate and seems to attack Luther and defend Erasmus. Neither of which needs to be done to give the average lay reader the necessary facts or point them in directions that enable their further study. burnunit 07:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)burnunit

I think that you make a good point here, and I think that the appropriate emendation should be made in this section.--Drboisclair 01:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up. It makes way for the important quotation of Luther about his writings. Like Saturn he wanted to devour the vast majority of them. Of course, this was his view on July 9, 1537.--Drboisclair 02:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther the anti-semite?

I just removed one other person, Isabella of Castile from the category anti-semetic people because these and a number of other persons were added awhile back and a number of them were not appropriate. Has it been decided beyond all resonable scholorly(sp) research that this label fits? I voted to keep this category as long as we/you/I were able to say 110%, not ifs ands or buts, this guy/gal was/is an anti-semite. Again, are we going to go back and "historically" categorize every notable person in history? Again, I am not a Luther scholor by ANY stretch, but it seems that his anti-semitic writes were a very small percentage of his overall body of work and weren't until his last3-4 years of life?. I am sure the category will get added back but just wanted to add the history behind the first inclusion as best I can tell. Thanks! --Tom 18:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This question has been discussed at great length with me as a Luther scholar disputing this designation of Luther for the same reasons as you assert here. The consensus of Wikipedia seems to be that we keep Luther in this category. I agree with you, but Wikipedia is a joint project.--Drboisclair 01:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

New subpage: Talk:Martin Luther and the Jews/Religious or Racial Antisemitism

For ease of reference, I'm gathering documentation of views on whether Luther's motives were racial at:

Talk:Martin Luther and the Jews/Religious or Racial Antisemitism

Please feel free to add references to secondary sources here. --CTSWyneken 13:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article

This article is up for Featured Article status. Please leave your "vote" here. Thetruthbelow 00:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of the nom and will support it, but I think there's some work to do on it yet. To that end, let's make a list here of things we think need doing yet.--CTSWyneken 11:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, let's all keep an eye on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Martin Luther for suggestions and act on every one that is sensible and review Wikipedia:What is a featured article?. --CTSWyneken 11:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that this article is going to become a featured one. Sorry that I haven't worked on this article for a while, as I just started a Wikiproject, and it needed some work. Thetruthbelow 19:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I'm going to be away from wiki entirely Wednesday to Saturday, so I won't be doing much editing either. One question: Have you discovered a way to deal with the white space to the right of the TOC? I'd love to get rid of it. --CTSWyneken 19:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

YAY!!!! I fixed the table of contents thing, but in order to do it I had to remove the infobox. Thetruthbelow 22:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Nicely done. Thanks.Ptmccain 23:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

To Do List

Continue the quest to CMSize the notes. While not required by Wikipedia, it makes them consistent and provides full information for those who wish to follow them.
Look for print citations for all of the notes. The more solid the references, the better.
Read the article front to back, looking for the same style, to reduce the use of less than common vocab (like rumination), to see if we introduce the titles of Luther's works in German and Latin as well as English, and, adopt one or the other style, etc. --CTSWyneken 11:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph from De Servo Arbitrio

I hope it is OK with all that I have omitted the paragraph from the "Luther's Other Writings" section of this article. It shortens the article as we wanted, and it does not give us a true representation of the subject matter.--Drboisclair 13:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is getting too long. The talk about De Servo Arbitrio is not necessary to offer the reader an overview of Luther's life and work. That subject can be taken up in a separate article, if somebody wants to do that and we can refer to it from the main article. 00:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, we do have such an article. --CTSWyneken 00:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Moving German and Latin titles to notes

Does anyone mind if I move the German and Latin original titles to notes to improve the flow of the article? --CTSWyneken 19:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful. They only clutter the article, which is for the non-specialist for whom German and Latin titles are probably of no great interest. Plus, they are used rather electically. Ptmccain 23:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Luther's comments about the collection of his works

I think that it is important and helpful to include the quotation about how Luther was cool toward the idea of collecting his works. I had it in the De Servo Arbitrio section that was rightly omitted, but perhaps it could be put into the Catechisms section. It makes the point that Luther might have been less than happy with some of his writings.--Drboisclair 15:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

"In response, Luther prepared the Small and Large Catechisms. They are instructional and devotional material on the Ten Commandments; the Apostles' Creed; the Lord's Prayer; Baptism; Confession and Absolution; and the Lord's Supper. The Small Catechism was supposed to be read by the people themselves, the Large Catechism by the pastors. /Added sentence:/ There were only two of his works that he thought worthy of preserving:

Regarding [the plan] to collect my writings in volumes, I am quite cool and not at all eager about it because, roused by a Saturnian hunger, I would rather see tham all devoured. For I acknowledge not of them to be really a book of mine, except perhaps the one On the Bound Will and the Catechism.

The two catechisms are still popular instructional materials among Lutherans."

I would also add the notes that accompany it.--Drboisclair 15:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Images

In response to criticism at the featured article nom, I've created a gallery page (these pics are too good to not have available) and commented out some. If anyone would like to put one or more back, all you have to do is delete the  after the image tag, along with any comments.

The gallery page is currently linked at the beginning of the article, if you want to look and add to it. It needs work.

By the way, even if the article doesn't make feature status, the ideas at the nom are pretty good advice, by and large. I suggest we work at it regardless of how it turns out. --CTSWyneken 15:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Made the Layout Work!!!!

Check it out. I moved the TOC to a great place, formatted the pictures, and also moved the wikiquote and wikisource stuff to the see also box. Tell me what you think! Thetru thbelow 03:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I am disappointed by the edit

The changing of the sentence in the section about Luther's grave destroys the effect:

Old text: He was buried in the Castle Church in Wittenberg near to where he had made such an impact on Christendom: his pulpit.

New text: He was buried in the Castle Church in Wittenberg, underneath the pulpit, "one of the important places of Luther's activity."

The reason given is that St. Mary's pulpit was Luther's pulpit in a greater sense than All Saints' pulpit. Technically, that is inaccurate. Luther was not pastor at St. Mary's, Bugenhagen was. Luther may have preached there, but that was not his pulpit. His call was to the University and to the Castle Church or Stift (Foundation) of All Saints. I don't understand why the work of others has to be changed in this article. I would remind my fellow editors that this is a joint project. The rhetorical point made here is that Luther preaching made the largest impact on Christianity. There was no reason why this had to be changed.--Drboisclair 22:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi David, no, actually Luther was a preacher assigned to St. Mary's, from the get-go even before the Reformation. The Castle Church pulpit was not "his pulpit." When he was sent to Wittenberg he was charged to be preacher to his fellow monks in the Augustinian cloister, but...he was also assigned to be a preacher at the Stadtkirche. I can understand why there may be some confusion. For, the Stadtkirche was actually, at this time, incorporated with the All Saints Foundation, hence the chapter's canon, Ulrich von Dinstedt, was supposed to fill the spot of preacher at the Stadtkirche, but it was Luther who took up the responsibility to serve as preacher at St. Mary. Luther himself would talk about his "charge" to be preacher at St. Mary. During the Invocavit sermons of 1522 he talked about it, explaining that he had not aspired to the task of being preacher at St. Mary, but "was chosen against my will to preach here." Elsewhere he was more specific and here we have insight into his "call" to be preacher at St. Mary: "In spite of my reluctance I was called by the council to preach."(LW 51:73). Luther claimed that the Wittenberg town council had appointed him preacher at St. Mary, and on this basis he claimed that Karlstadt had no business changing things as he did in 1521-15222 while Luther was away at the Wartburg in exile. The right to fill preaching positions at St. Mary belonged to the All Saints Foundation, again, no doubt leading some to assume that Luther's pulpit was the Castle Church, but that is not true. Until the visitation of 1528, Luther received nine old schock, equivalent to eight gulden and twelve groschen, amazingly, for a long time this was Luther's *only* personal income. He never received a cent for any of his writings. Yes, it is true that St. Mary's became Bugenhagen's parish, but Luther was always serving at St. Mary as "assistant to the pastor" as we might say to day and indeed St. Mary's was his pulpit. I checked the Brecht footnote cited and the person who used it did not use it properly. If you can identify a nicer way rhetorically to say the same thing, great, but it is inaccurate to say the Castle Church was his pulpit. The reason the change was made was for the sake of accuracy, since Brecht was cited as if he was supporting the claim made, when in fact Brecht does not. Brecht has a wonderful section in the first volume of his three volume biography on "Luther Becomes A Preacher" and I think you would enjoy reading it. Oh, and one other thing, the pulpit in the Castle Church today is not one original to Luther, nor the one in St. Mary's today. There are at least two pulpits we can say for sure were used by Luther: the Torgau Castle Church and the pulpit where he preached his last sermon in Eisleben. OK, too much information, I know. Hope this helps David. For more details see Brecht, Volume I, p. 150ff.Ptmccain 22:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing this information with me. I think that it proves the point that you are making. It is not too much information. I think that all you have written here is helpful. Thank you.--Drboisclair 23:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The TOC should be more deeply imbedded into the article

I think that the Table of Contents needs to be embedded more deeply into the article as Thetruthbelow embedded it. It still creates that blank space.--Drboisclair 23:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

See the discussion at the featured article page. I don't think we win this one. --CTSWyneken 23:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

My vote would be for a better looking page than jumping through all their "Featured Articles" hoops. I kind of doubt some "powers that be" on Wiki would ever let it be a FA anyway.Ptmccain 00:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I suspect it will make FA, and it's a good article. The reasons to conform to the style are that it makes the TOC just alot less distracting. Yes, you need to scroll past. But if you embed it, you have to read around it, and it interferes with reading. But, hey, if anyone changes it, I'm not going to change it back. Sam 00:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the way page looks now is Ugly, with a capital U. Is this really how Wiki wants pages to look? Can we compare our page to others that are longer and have long TOCs like this one? Is this par for the course on Wiki, or have others identfied better formatting solutions? Ptmccain 00:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia style discussion is cited on the FAC page; if you want to see a lot of long TOCs and how they are dealt with, look at the articles on American Presidents. In general, this article has a longer TOC than most, because it has a lot of shorter sections (and those are also usually disfavored in the Style Manual, but I think they work just fine here). The American Presidents do have the benefit of having developed a great big infobox for use on top. Sam 01:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sam, is it hard to cook up these boxes, sort of like the related articles thing used in Jesus? --CTSWyneken 01:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you on this one, but the FA folks do have a point. These TOCs really narrow the text block when we embed them. They also have no padding, which would sure help, but I do not have the time this week to figure out how to get it done. You may remember my earlier attempts to fill the space with pictures. It kinda worked -- kinda. If we could find some other kind of info box, maybe we can put it there. Anyway, I'd like not to be distracted by this issue at this moment. Could you all work on the other suggestions? WHen Truth and I are back, we'll see what we can cook up. --CTSWyneken 01:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I've only done one, which I did by ripping off another box and changing the codes. Once you start figuring out how it works it is not hard. I screwed up in one place, and it took me a bit to figure out the fix, but I got it eventually (and I do not have any kind of software background). By the way, kind of funny to be thought of as an "FA" person; I've gotten one through (Roosevelt), and am working on another (Poetry), and have just commented on a half dozen FAs at this point, mostly history related. Sam 01:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes if you add spaces into an article, maybe one could "return" space the text below it down a little. One could experiment, but that can sometimes be embarrassing. --Drboisclair 02:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Missing Sections

For some reason the Luther page is missing sections now, starting in those in and following "Exile at Wartburg" -- I see them on the edit article page, but can't get them to show up on main page. Any ideas what's happening? Ptmccain 14:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

There was a ref tag without the /ref close to it - all the text was down in the footnotes. I deleted the ref tag; I'm not sure whether it was intended to have the ref with a /ref or not, so you may want to check it. Sam 14:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Aha! Thanks for your speedy help. Ptmccain 14:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Mailing lists

Dear Friends: the text on WP:RS that refers to Electronic mailing lists as legitimate sources has been removed, the editor arguing that such are self-published and against guidelines. Please removed all citations to such sources and the quotations they support. I recommend commenting them out until the debate on the guideline's removal is resolved. --CTSWyneken 02:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. When the person themselves is a well-known expert in the field, they can certainly be used: Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym. This obviously applies to Robert Michael. Please don't misinterpret this, it has already been explained to you. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

British historian Paul Johnson

Paul Johnson is a well-known historian, having written 16 works of history, many of them best-sellers. His Wikipedia article describes him first as a historian, since that is how he is best known. Please stop removing obvious and straightforward facts from articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason why the ascription was removed is that the term is used to recommend his opinion over that of others. If editors would allow the respect due to others, then I would not be inclined to delete this ascription. But if people are to be described by their primary occupation, then what applies to one applies to all. Johnson is primarily a journalist. He also writes histories. Here he is not trained. What is applied to one should be applied to all.

I also would like to see some kind of definition of what you think a historian is. Must a historian be popular to be a historian? Must he or she have an academic degree to be a historian? I'd like some kind of objective standard to be applied equally. --CTSWyneken 23:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You've already had an answer to this. Johnson is primarily a historian, as his 16 best-selling published works of history attest. And, for the purposes of Wikipedia, a historian is who other people say is a historian. 30,000 Google hits describe Johnson as a historian. Jayjg ^(talk) 11:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

So, say, a new Ph. D. in history is not a historian, because no one calls her or him a historian yet? --CTSWyneken 13:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Uwe Siemon-Netto has a Ph.D. in sociology, not history, and he's not even notable enough to be mentioned in this article, much less be called a historian. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

CTSW, you're doing the pointless, extended interrogation thing again. Why do you suppose no one would call someone with a PhD in history a historian? You seem to know little about academia. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

One more time, Luther the Anti-Semite

Can we source this? People should NOT be added to this category based on consensus, rather just provide sources showing that they have already been labeled as such otherwise this smacks of original research/POV...Thanks--Tom 15:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The Problem with Wikipedia is Manifested on the Luther Page

It is quite obvious to many people who bother to check the history on the Luther page that there is basically a gang of Wiki editors, including a few admins, who will continue to push their POV on this page. Their goal, quite transparent, is to do whatever it takes to push the POV that all that Luther did and contributed to both chuch and Western Civilization must always be subordinated to his writings against the Jews. They wish to push the POV that Luther is personally responsible for Nazi Germany, which any good historian, not journalists with no undergrad degrees even, knows is simply a fabrication. But, these few Wiki editors are intent on pushing this POV and indulge in all manner of page reversions and even now page vandalisms to push this POV. It gets very old. I've been told by many experienced Wiki users that this is the real downfall of Wikipedia, agenda driven admins and editors who do not hold any of their supporters to account for this kind of unscholarly and biased behavior, but who will do whatever it takes to slap down folks who protest, who speak out and who do what they can to point out this problem with Wikipedia. They attempt to verbally bully, abuse and attack those with whom they disagree and to play all sorts of "policy" games. You can follow several editors talk pages and notice how often they are asked to stop this kind of behavior on many pages across Wikipedia, but it just never ends. These individuals putting themselves forward as experts rarely offer any evidence that they have even the least credentials to write intelligently. They hid behind their fake names and fake identities, thereby avoiding any public scrutiny or public examination of their background. It gets more than old. It's no wonder Wikipedia has no respect in any legitimate scholarly circles. But one does what one can for the sake of whatever good Wiki can be, dubious as that may seem to many I've spoken to about this problem. Ptmccain 15:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No weakness - the strength of WP comes with the refusal to accept the barking propaganda. Early days yet.--Shtove 21:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hell, even Shakespeare wrote against the Jews, respect for them and other religions is rather a "new" thing of the second half of the XX century to begin with. People who keep pushing the jewish holocaust wagon are beginning to sound as pathetic as anyone from Stormfront at this point of history. History is complex, never one sided, if we were all chinese, we might not be having this problem, since they have no problems with ambiguety as i once read (of course, thats too pragmatic, but it serves as an example).

POV Tag

Doright, since you put the tag up, would you explain why? MPerel's version should seen to be agreeable to you. Unless you are accusing this user of bias... --CTSWyneken 19:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Marius comment

Marius's comments were not even relevant to Johnson's assessment of Luther's book, much less contradicting them. Please stop whitewashing, especially with irrelevant statements. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop pushing your POV on this article "Jay." It is so obvious what you and a handful of other --CTSWyneken 00:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)"editors" are doing.Ptmccain 23:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ptmccain, if you cannot restrict your comments to article contents, rather than other editors, you will undoubtedly be blocked yet again. Please review WP:CIVIL. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if you would comment when Doright attacks just as quickly as you have done here. --CTSWyneken 00:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The comment is relevant to the quote before Johnson. It is POV to exclude the comments of a historian by your standards, a Luther scholar and a non-Lutheran at that. --CTSWyneken 23:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not relevant in any way; the previous quote is talking about whether On the Jews and their Lies was a work of anti-semitism, and led to the Nazis. The Marius comment deals with none of those things. Please ensure that comments are relevant to the section. Also, the section is a summary, and is currently balanced. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"Balanced" as in "it reflects my POV on these issues." Ptmccain 23:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It is not balanced when it fails to take into account that at least several Luther scholars do not believe Luther sanctioned murder. In fact, only Robert Michael has been produced who claims this or even quotes this portion of Luther's venomous tract. --CTSWyneken 00:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The quote is being used to balance claims about Nazism, The Final Solution, etc., but it doesn't have anything to do with that. It's irrelevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and for some reason Ptmccain feels that it now must be quoted twice in the section. That's what comes of blind edit-warring. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm done for a day to let all this settle. Please consider that you all are also contributing to the conflict here. --CTSWyneken 00:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

POV Tag

Doright, since you put the tag up, would you explain why? MPerel's version should seen to be agreeable to you. Unless you are accusing this user of bias... --CTSWyneken 19:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

User Doright put up this flag after reverting to a version of the page by MPerel. He has yet to offer an explanation as to what in MPerel's version he feels is POV, or even what in this version he thinks POV. --CTSWyneken 11:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

CTSWyneken, still waiting? You post this only 14 hours after your first request ... So, try to be a little more patient and attack a little less.

Even a casual reader of this talk page and its archives quickly discovers that there are numerous POV disputes. More are identified [here]. Also, if memory serves, it is YOU that taged the sub-articles with the NPOV flag. Martin Luther and the Jews On the Jews and Their Lies (Martin Luther) are essential parts of this article ... I suggest you start addressing the POV problem and stop attacking me. --Doright 07:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Jesus/Christ

Does anyone know what the policy is in Wikipedia for naming religious figures? I see that Jesus is referred to as "Christ" or "Jesus Christ" throughout this, even when not in quotation marks. I'm thinking this is a bit like writing PBUH after the name of the prophet, but there may be conventions and agreements for religious articles in WP that I'm not aware of. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to explore the policies and guidelines to seek what is said about such. My observation here is that Luther clearly believed Jesus to be the messiah, as did all of his Christian opponents, their descendants and Lutherans to this day. If adjustments to the language of the article can be made that reflect this fact and that are not awkwardly worded, I have no problem with that.

Would you have any difficulty with the custom in some scholarly circles with language like: "Martin Luther believed that the central message of the Bible is Christ. Jesus came...." (this is not an actual proposal, just an example). The point would be that the leading sentence indicates that the rest of the paragraph is Martin Luther's view. In a Jehovah's Witness article, for example, we might say: Jehovah Witnesses believe that Jesus is not God. To worship Jesus, therefore, is treason against Jehovah and the worship of a false god." --CTSWyneken 14:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't entirely understand your point. My point is that the historical figure is called Jesus, but in this article he is called Christ or Jesus Christ, which is a POV. It's fine when the POV is attributed to Luther, but we're not writing this article from Luther's POV; rather we are writing about his POV. We therefore shouldn't use his language, except when quoting or (perhaps) paraphrasing, but we have to be careful not to write this page as though he were writing it himself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, now I see your point. Well, we need to be careful about when the basic premise is explained and how often. It wouldn't be enough to say it once at the top of the article, and from then on, to refer to Jesus as Christ. Christ was not his name, and I think we should refer to him using what is regarded as his name, unless of course there are specific exceptions for articles about religious figures, but I'm not aware of any. This article should read as though it could have been written by a Christian, Jew, Muslim, or Hindu (or none of the above) and anyone from these groups reading it should not be able to tell the religious background of the editors. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

We also must be careful to distinguish between the person of Jesus and his role as the Christ in Christianity. For example, Jesus said that the cup of wine was "shed for ... the remission of sins", and Luther states that Christ is present in the Eucharist. Dr Zak 15:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You seem to still think that "Christ" is a last name; that's certainly the way you've worded things. In any event, Wikipedia has standard terminologies, regardless of what Luther used or the Lutheran church currently uses. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

We should rather concern ourselves with the conventions in Christian theology, where "Christ" is sometimes used to point out the divine nature of Jesus. Considering that Luther maintained the doctrine of Real Presence, it is more exact to refer to "Christ" instead of "Jesus" when discussing Luther's view on the Eucharist. Could you explain why I "seem to still think that "Christ" is a last name"? Dr Zak 18:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No, when writing Wikipedia articles we need to concern ourselves with Wikipedia convention; Wikipedia is non-denominational. And you must think "Christ" is a last name, since you refer to Jesus as "Christ", and not "the Christ". Jayjg ^(talk) 00:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you at least read the theological reasoning on this page? There is more of that a little further down at Talk:Martin_Luther#Jesus.2C_Christ. Dr Zak 00:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It is perfectly fine, in my view, to make it clear that the viewpoint belongs to Luther, and in other articles, Lutherans. There should be no controversy, I would think, about saying something like: "Martin Luther held that Christ's body..." It should be clear that it is his view. This can be said in a variety of ways as I'm open to anything that is not awkward. Also, I'm very comfortable with Slim's comments above.

Just a note for Zak: Neither I nor the Lutherans here make a distinction between Jesus and what we believe to be his identity as the Christ. To do so sounds kind of Gnostic to us. This, of course, has nothing to do with this article. It is what Luther believed and how we characterize it that matters. --CTSWyneken 16:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, it's not okay to say "Martin Luther held that Christ's body ..." It's the body of Jesus, not Christ. It is exactly like writing "peace be upon him" every time we write Muhammad. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

To CTS: I'm actually Catholic. Seems we have just come across a distonction between Lutheran and Catholic usage. Somewhere in his "Introduction to the New Testament" Raymond Brown makes the offhand remark that (quoting from memory, can't find the reference right now) had the Gospels been lost and only the Pauline Letters been preserved "we would know everything about Christ and nothing about Jesus". Dr Zak 18:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If I might weigh in here. I understand that it is in accordance with NPOV to omit references to Jesus as "Christ" because this is a Christian confession of faith: Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of the living God; However, it would be awkward because Jesus Christ is his name: how he is known among his followers. How many readers know, though that "Christ" is Greek for Meschiach or "Messiah"? Most people consider this his name pure and simple. We could put in a disclaimer about the fact that Luther as a Christian held to the Christian POV and thought of the founder of Christianity as Jesus Christ. "Jesus Christ" is his name. One should remember that the vast majority of the people on earth are Christians or come from a Christian background, so if they read "Christ" for "Jesus" they do not think anything of it. Yes, we as Christians want to confess to the world that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God, and that all who believe in Him have everlasting life, and those who do not believe in Him will not see life. Be that as it may in my view it is not in the common parlance or usus loquendi for there to be a NPOV conflict with simply referring to Jesus of Nazareth as Jesus Christ. One does not understand Luther, and cannot present what Luther said and wrote if one does not use the name "Christ" to refer to God the Son. As CTS has posted above, there is a problem with awkwardness. I think that some leeway should be given in this matter by simply considering Jesus Christ to be his common name, and that 99% of the readers do not know that "Christ" is Greek for Meschiach.--Drboisclair 18:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Zak, don't you see the awkwardness of simply taking the name "Christ" away? I think that anyone with any good sense would see that this is an article about a Christian theologian. Jesus Christ is his name to the vast majority of people. They do not bother about what language "Christ" is from Χριστος. Why does Wikipedia have to be the odd ball when it comes to encyclopedias?--Drboisclair 18:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Another thing to consider is in the Eucharist the elements are spoken as "Body of Christ" and "Blood of Christ." It is not common practice to say "Body of Jesus," "Blood of Jesus." For the sake of good editing, please leave it as it is.--Drboisclair 18:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dr, you said that most people consider Jesus Christ to be his name, but they don't. Most people aren't Christians. His name was Jesus, or at least that is the name that has come to be used for him, and it's the name we use in Wikipedia. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

As CTS has said above there is no conflict here, but I think that even non-Christians think of "Christ" as being his name. If one is directed to Jesus, one can see all the connections that need to be made in their minds. You are right that "Christ" is a title and not a name per se, but theological it becomes a name. NPOV must prevail, though, so as Cassius said to Brutus in Julius Caesar IV.iii.222: "Then, with your will go on ..."--Drboisclair 19:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Slim, if the sourced material comes from you, it is a different matter

Hi, Slim, if you add this sourced material it is a different matter than if someone else does. You edit with grounding in WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. I respect your edits. --Drboisclair 19:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that we need to point out that this is the opinion of Richard Steigmann-Gall in the quote. Please leave the "Christ" there or respond to the issues we have raised above. Luther and most readers look upon Jesus Christ to be his common name.--Drboisclair 19:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Drb, we're not writing from the point of view of Christianity or Luther. "Christ" is not a name. Similarly, some Muslim editors have had to be asked not to write "praise be upon him" whenever they write Muhammad. We have to write from a completey neutral point of view. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There does not seem to be a problem here, but I would hope that editors would use some restraint and sensitivity. I will not revert, because the changes made here seem clear and not awkward. Christians think that "Christ" is a name, and it isn't Hebrew, so what difference, but NPOV has to have the influence here. --Drboisclair 19:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, unlike others Luther maintained the doctrine of Real Presence. To point out that Luther thought God to be present in the Eucharist, in the context of the Eucharist we should use the word "Christ" to make the point clear. Alternatives would be words like "God" or "divine presence". Dr Zak 19:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Zak, your changing the text to reflect this would be helpful. I think that the phrase about rejecting Transubstantiation should be toned down. Luther did not have a real problem with Transubstantiation, although he believed that it went too far in defining the Real Presence, he had a problem with the Eucharistic Sacrifice being a good work done by man rather than by Christ. Is there some way that we can convey that Luther believed in the divine presence of Jesus in the Eucharist?--Drboisclair 20:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't helpful to change it. We can't call Jesus "Christ."

What do you suppose the difference (apart from the POV issue) is between using "Jesus" and using "Christ" in the following? "Rejecting the Roman Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation, he nevertheless maintained the Real Presence of the body and blood of Jesus under the sacramental bread and wine. He stood by the simple, literal meaning of the Words of Institution ("This is my body," "This is my blood")."

If he stood by the "simple, literal meaning," then he believed it was the body and blood of Jesus. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

What Luther believed was that the Eucharist was the blood and body of God. That explains his (and Paul's) indignance at those that partake of it irreverently - such people are committing blasphemy in their opinion. Actually, IMO referring to "Christ" when discussing Christian belief is not expressing a point of view at all. Christian belief in a nutshell is the belief that Jesus was the Christ, the redeemer of mankind, through his sacrifice on the cross. Since we are discussing Luther's view of the Eucharist it is correct in that context to refer to "Christ" since that echoes Luther's belief. On the other hand, when we are not discussing Luther's beliefs we can't call Jesus the Christ, that would be endorsing Christian theology. Dr Zak 20:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Zak has a good point here. Perhaps we could avoid this by simply supplying direct quotes from Luther where he calls it "Body of Christ" and "Blood of Christ." It's a new world, Golda, where "Christ" is taken out of the name of the Son of God.--Drboisclair 20:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Quoting would certainly be better. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If you have a source showing that Luther believed it was the blood and body of God, we should say so in the article. My (admittedly scant) understanding is that God has no blood or body, but Jesus did. The eucharist is the blood and body of Jesus, known to Christians as Christ or Jesus Christ. If the idea is that it's the blood and body of God qua Jesus, or of Jesus qua God, we should say that too (with a source). My point is that, as it stands, it's POV, not to mention unclear. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Luther believed with catholic Christianity that Jesus Christ is God and Man in one Person, his mother is the Mother of God, his blood is the blood of God. The designation "Christ" designates especially the hypostatic union by which He is God and Man in one Person. The blood of Christ is the blood of God, God the Son, we might further specify. God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are not incarnate, so they have no blood. This is POV, and I would guess that we need to explain this better with proper sourcing. I guess I will work on that. --Drboisclair 20:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If I were to rewrite here would I be violating 3RR? Why don't we leave it like it is until tomorrow when we will not be in danger of a 3RR vio.--Drboisclair 20:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Like any other Christian, Luther subscribed to the doctrine of the Trinity. Anyway, I don't see where the sentences "[Luther] nevertheless maintained the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ" and "Luther taught that everyone who eats and drinks in the Eucharist eats and drinks the true body and blood of Christ" are endorsing a point of view. It merely expresses Luther's view on the Eucharist. Dr Zak 21:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Because it's like writing that Hitler believed Germany could be cleansed by killing all the kikes. If we want to use a word that is POV because the author used it, we have to make that clear with each use, preferably by quoting. Otherwise, we use standard English, neutral terms so that we don't appear to be endorsing the POV. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that the offending bits above have been backed up with citations from Luther's own works we can live with the present version. It helps to be aware of the underlying theological issues, namely that Luther thought that the Divinity was present in the Eucharist. That, thankfully, is cleared up now. One should also be aware that sometimes Jewish and Christian concepts (while superficially similar) are in fact quite distinct, like the Jewish idea of Moshiach and the Christian Messiah/Christ. And we shouldn't get too hung up on linguistic issues. I didn't appreciate being told further up to be thinking that "Christ" was Jesus' last name, simply because in English "Christ" is used without the definite article. To come back to your example, it's out of place because "kike" is a still a "vulgarly offensive name for a Jew", not a special concept in the Painter's worldview. Dr Zak 18:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Caps

There are a lot of unnecessary caps in this article e.g. "Consubstantiation." I can go through and remove them, but someone else might prefer to do it in case there are any that need to be capitalized. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I would not be adverse to changing to lower case here, but "Consubstantiation" is a proper name, and it is the title of the article linked here. It is the proper name of a philosophico-theological concept. I agree with the removal of caps where common nouns are involved.--Drboisclair 19:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a proper noun. It should be lower case. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Dictionary.com supports you in this. They give the wrong def, though, "consubstantiation" was not Luther's theory of the Christian Eucharist.--Drboisclair 20:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Jesus, Christ

As it turns out, the particular phrase that started this debate is unnecessary, since the quotation from Luther's Small Catechism the follows immediately uses it. I assume that it's OK for Luther to use the term Christ, if it is fully cited.

As far as the debate itself, here's how I see it:

I can understand Slim's desire not to have Wikipedia appear to be calling Jesus the Christ. It is fine by me if we work hard to find language that cannot be seen as doing this. In fact, I know an editor who is a professed agnostic or atheist (can't remember which) I'd be willing to invite to read for such.

Drboisclair and Dr. Zak are right, however. For Luther, Jesus = Christ = God = the Angel of the Lord. For Luther, they are inseparable. I think the quotes already in this article demonstrate this. He uses the terms interchangably and together constantly. That being said, I do not recall him using the phrase: "blood of Jesus" or "body of Jesus." He says either "body of Christ" or "body of our Lord Jesus Christ." It is Jesus as the Christ that stands at the center of Luther's theology. For Luther, Christ is the message of the Scripture; the cross the heart and center of the gospel. In fact, one of the slogans of the Reformation is "Sola Christus."

The challenge ahead of us is finding a way to say all of this without the article seeming to endorse any of it and it not being said in the stilted language we all hate. May I suggest the next phrase to tackle is in the first paragraph. Anyone have an idea how we can manage to explain Luther's sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura, sola christus in a way that satisfies all these concerns? --CTSWyneken 23:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Humbly, I offer the emendation that the slogan is Solus Christus being a little better with my Latin than my Hebrew. I imagine that we have to stick to direct quotations. I think that what you have posted is 100% accurate. I wish that we could progress on to other things, and that there might be a little more congeniality.--Drboisclair 01:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You are likely correct as to the grammar, David. I'm typing from memory, not a source at the moment. --CTSWyneken 01:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason why the theological POV of Wikipedia should be elevated above the theological POV of the man Luther? I could understand this concern in a generic article about Religion or Theology. But, why here? --El guero 03:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The concern is that Wikipedia not been seen as advocating the theological position of Christians. --CTS Wyneken 11:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have a theological position, El guero, and can't appear to have adopted one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

NPA

I've taken the liberty of removing some posts that were provocative. I see a few more still on the page from various people so I may remove those too. I know that feelings have run high. There are two alternatives: either we continue to address each other in a provocative manner; or we don't. I suggest the latter. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I vote (oops! there's that nasty word... 8-) ) for the latter too. Let's work together. --CTS Wyneken 15:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I am glad that there is good oversight being done here to allow what is best to be seen.--Drboisclair 15:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Jesus, Christ issue solved in the Eucharist section of this article

The non-quoted text has been relieved of stating "body of Christ," "blood of Christ" by the addition of a Luther quotation. I hope this satisfies WP guidelines.--Drboisclair 16:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

NEW TOC

Allright everyone, I have made a new TOC so that all that white space isn't showing, and I also made sure that it didn't cramp things up. If you don't like it, please comment here with your reason why.Shalom--Thetruthbelow 16:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is great! I wish all the articles could have this. This white space in articles is a persistent problem.--Drboisclair 16:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you drboisclair, I really worked hard on it. Shalom--Thetruthbelow 16:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to revert it but did you consider what happens if someone prints out the article? When considering formatting on a page it is also important to consider the hard copy version. i do think that the TOC will be great for talk pages. In fact, i just added it to the human talk page. David D. (Talk) 17:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't even think about that. The thing with the talk pages is a great idea though. We should make that design for the TOC more accesible to everyone. Shalom--Thetruthbelow 17:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

To Do List

Thanks for adding this! It is very helpful. Let's go through the FA commentary and see if we wish to add to it. --CTS Wyneken 20:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Franklin Quote

I have removed the Franklin quote for several reasons:

1 -- It is incorrectly ascribed. Franklin is volume editor, not a co-editor for the whole series. See On the Jews and Their Lies for proper attribution.

2 -- This is supposed to be a summary. One critique in our recent FA nom was the lack of summary style and the suggestion we take material to subarticles. Since this quote is already in one sub-article, we do not need at length here, too.

3 -- The content of Franklin's observation is taken up in this section already. If a shorter portion of this quote is viewed by several other editors as especially good, then it should be used to replace other material.

This is, as far as I know, also the opinion of DRBoisclair, who removed this quote earlier and corrected the attribution at On the Jews and Their Lies. --CTS Wyneken 00:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Flag raised again by Doright

This flag was removed by DRBoisclair as necessary and reinstated by Doright. I retained it to allow for discussion. Does anyone else feel the flag merited at this state of the article? --CTS Wyneken 00:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to get the Jesus/Christ issue sorted. That would help toward NPOV. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It seems to be hurting the article. Matt B."aka" Thetruthbelow 01:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

As I've said above, I'm willing to work at that. Could I ask that we return the state of these quotes to the way they were six hours or so ago and talk through them one at a time? Since this is an emotional issue to all sides, be bold editing is likely to set off a series of back and forth, as we have just seen. --CTS Wyneken 01:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The POV flag was put up with no explanation offered. Finally, after many requests for an explanation, one was offered which borders on the truly irrational. The POV issue that has everyone continually worked up, Luther and the Jews, is more than adequately covered. It is mentioned in the introduction, receives more than adequate coverage in the article and refers to two additional articles elsewhere on Wikipedia. The POV flag is nothing but harassment creating a hostile environment by a particular editor who seems to want nothing more than to attack people and cause fights. Time for it to come down. Ptmccain 01:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

While I understand your frustration with this, Paul, could we just focus on the facts and not characterize this user or his motives? I don't think it helps to provoke him. --CTS Wyneken 01:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Diet of Worms -- translation or source check please?

Ptmccain changed "Here I stand. I can do no other" to "Here I stand. I can do otherwise." This seems to reverse the meaning. Is this a correction from Bainton, a correction of Bainton, or something else? --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 01:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a simple typo. No problems. Ptmccain 01:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Paul, David, could you put the German original here for neatness sake? I'd try to do it from memory, but... --CTS Wyneken 01:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders. Gott hilfe mir. Amen.Ptmccain 01:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! What do you know? I would've have been right. A number of ways to translate this, as you can see, JP. --CTS Wyneken 01:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure. (I'm pretty good with German.) My actual concern -- I figured it was a typo, anyway -- had to do with the Bainton reference following the quote. The way I would interpret the citation is that the translated quote is deliberately from the cited text. At any rate, I'm not too happy with the version that's there now -- "Here I stand. I can do no other" doesn't strike me as good idiomatic English. "I can do nothing else" would strike me as best... --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 01:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I am with you on that one, but every version I come up with sounds funny. The Bainton one is the traditional translation. I normally chicken out and say, well, Luther probably didn't say it anyway! 8-) --CTS Wyneken^(talk) 02:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

And that goes back to my original question. Since we're citing Bainton, is the Bainton translation the one in the text? --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 03:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for being willing to talk about it, Slim. I don't especially like the look of it in wrap mode, while I do not know that I'd call it ugly. I'd term it funny, but that's personal taste. Anyway, I really hate the normal white space to the right version. Is there some other solution that would work for you? Maybe a list of articles related to Luther? an image? Something else? --CTS Wyneken 01:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks just fine Slim. And it makes for a very well done printed version as well. Please stop removing this. Anyone who knows about page layout knows that all the blank white space is horribly ugly. If you are truly interested in beautifying the page, then stop putting that ugly title page from Luther's works up on the page. Find a nicer image. Please stop trying to force your will on this page in a matter of little consequence, but one that numerous editors want. Just because you don't doesn't give you any right to keep reverting it. Please stop.Ptmccain 01:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Paul, could we try a little less confrontational tone? --CTS Wyneken 01:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Bob, has this actually accomplished anything at all? Slim demonstrates nothing but hostility. Note how her revert wiped away over 15 edits I made to the page, in her zeal to accuse me of putting Christ back in the article everywhere. I would like her to explain herself and justify her actions, which is nothing short of vandalizing the page. And didn't she also just violate the 3RR policy?Ptmccain 01:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Paul, I went back and checked. No, there isn't even remotely a 3RR problem here. In fact, I have to commend Slim for a revert contrary to her interest. (diff) She put the TOC back the way we prefer, although she finds it ugly. --CTS Wyneken 11:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, we really haven't tried that very much (including myself, mea culpa) I'll leave it to each to characterize their own attempts/ --CTS Wyneken 02:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Guys, I have tried multiple versions on this page, first with placement, then with the side scrolling bar. I would not do this, thereby taking up my time, if I did not think that it helped the article. Try to keep that in mind. Matt B."aka" Thetruthbelow 02:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Matt, you've done very fine work and it has been hard getting it to look good. I have no idea what Slim's problem is. Maybe it is her computer? The formatting makes the page look very nice on my two Macs, and my three PCs. It is a shame somebody feels they have the right to revert what has been worked on so long and hard and has improved the appearance of the article. It also makes the article look very nice when it is printed out. The continuing reverting that Slim does to the TOC is, to me, now nothing more than page vandalism.Ptmccain 02:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Paul. Maybe it is a problem on her computer. If so Slim, let me know so I can fix it. Slim, I know you aren't criticizing my work as much as trying to make the page the best it can be, so help me to help you. Again, Paul thank you for your kind words to me. Matt B."aka" Thetruthbelow 02:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Christ vs. Jesus in first paragraph

We have a dilemma in the first paragraph, fellow editors. As a number of us have said, for Luther, Jesus and Christ cannot be separated. For him, Jesus is the Christ. As you can see from the several quotations in this article, he almost always says, "Jesus Christ" or "Christ Jesus." It is a matter of confession for him and it is distorting not to render it that way here. For Luther, the death of Jesus on the cross is the central teaching of our faith and that cross has no meaning apart from Jesus' role as the Christ. It's not a perfect analogy, but the closest I can come to is how a Rabbi might feel about the use of the divine name in an article about the Torah.

On the other hand, we do not want to leave the impression that our article endorses the Christian doctrine of Jesus as the Messiah.

So, can we find language that does both? --CTS Wyneken 02:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

And why must the article therefore leave the impression that it endorses the view that he is *not* the Messiah? You see, this POV obsession on this point cuts both ways. Comparing "Christ" to PBOH in Islam betrays an appalling level of ignorance of basic facts. PBOH is not a name, or a title. Mohammed's name is not "Mohammed PBOH"... however "Christ" is a word recognized worldwide by any intelligent or educated person as the name for... Jesus Christ. You don't have to be Christian to understand this point. This is much ado about nothing and reveals nothing to me more than the ridiculous lengths to which a select few self-appointed "experts" on Wikipedia want to take this politically correct silliness. Bob, let's continue with your good comparison. What's to stop us from sprinkling "Yahweh" or "YHWH" through all the orthodox Jewish articles? If we don't do this, aren't we "allowing" this religious point of view to hold sway, that one should not use letters on the page of the Old Testament? But why would we want to do this? Why can't we respect the fact of what Jesus Christ means for people like Martin Luther? Even as we would not rudely offend orthodox Jews? Ptmccain 02:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that saying "Christ" is another name for Jesus isn't helpful. Maybe it's helpful to contemplate the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Catechism states (§ 436) that "It [Christ] became the name proper to Jesus only because he accomplished perfectly the divine mission that "Christ" signifies." To say "God's grace through Christ" carries the idea of divine redemption, whereas saying "God's grace through Jesus" loses that important connotation - at least to Christian readers. Dr Zak 02:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you Zak, but on the other hand, trying to push for "Christ" because of what it means to Christianity seems ultimately fruitless. If you can't appeal to more intelligent reasons for using it, which appears to be an exercise in futility with Wikipedia, then at the bare minimum a common sense approach to the fact that worldwide "Christ" is immediately recognized by countless people of whatever their religion as a name for Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus Christ. That's my point, though I certainly entirely concur with your desire to use the word Christ for its meaning to Christianity. Ptmccain 02:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

While I can't speak for my religion, being Jewish myself I am not offended by the first paragraph. I do not feel that it is endorsing Jesus as the son of God, but rather stating Luther's belief that he was. Again, this is myself speaking for myself, not my entire religion, but I think it is fine as it is. If we dilute it so much just to be politicaly correct, it will no longer have any substance. Matt B."aka" Thetruthbelow 02:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I empathize with all here, but I can understand the WP:NPOV issues here. I have remedied the matter in the "Eucharist" section by simply quoting Luther. So, quote Luther, and you avoid the problem of having Wikipedia saying that Jesus is the Christ.--Drboisclair 04:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Franklin Quote Restored by User Doright

Fellow editors:

Doright has restored the text deleted by several editors for the reasons stated above. He has copied this version from the one at On the Jews and Their Lies, which has a correct attribution. This satisfies the first reason I gave for deleting the material but does not address the others.

Please take a look at the section above and express your opinion about the text. --CTS Wyneken 19:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

There should be concern on the part of all editors about the style, and we have good rhetoricians on this website. The course seems to be to prosecute Luther on the part of this fledgling editor.--Drboisclair 20:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It is an interesting quote. I went to read the original (it's available on Google Books), and found the discussion following the quote to be even more interesting, and to qualify the statements quoted (where he indicates that he finds in Luther the Nazi Program through Kristallnacht, etc.). I think it is worthwhile to preserve a substantial amount of the quote and the discussion essentially showing that there was a progression in the anti-semitism reflected in Luther's works to the vitriol found in his later days. It may be that some of the lengthier elements of the quote or discussion can be put in footnotes, so the points are made but the space used in the article minimized. Sam 13:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

POV Flag is back

Doright has again set the POV flag. Does anyone else think it is needed? --CTS Wyneken^(talk) 23:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No, and I have removed it. Matt B."aka" Thetruthbelow 05:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Doright's Revert with charge

Dear Doright:

Please explain why you have reverted a shorter text and why you feel it was improper for Ptmccain to be bold? --CTS Wyneken^(talk) 23:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

TOC revisited

The TOC looks really awful where it is, especially with the other images crowding around it. I suggest we either use the regular TOC or Truth's sliding one. I don't see that it matters what it looks like when printed. This is an online encyclopedia. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course this is an online encyclopedia, but that's no excuse to force your personal sense of web page design on the rest of us, nor to dismiss the value of a nice page layout when people chose to print these articles out. If printing the page out was no concern to Wikipedia, why bother to offer that as an option? Perhaps you need to take up your attitude about what these pages look like printed out up with WP "higher ups." Stop imposing your POV on this TOC issue. Ptmccain 19:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I like TTB's slider, but from my view, it looks funny. Same thing with the white space. What about using the white space, but putting something in it? A list of related articles maybe? --CTS Wyneken ^(talk) 17:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If we can put something in it, that would be fine by me, but I don't think the TOC can stay as it is. It's really frowned upon in WP to do this when the result is as ugly as it is here (because of the other images).

Slim, stop changing the TOC. It is just fine the way it is. Is there a problem with your computer display? It looks just fine on my two PCs and three Macs. You have no right to assert your personal opinion about how the page looks and keep changing a page people have worked hard on. The white space is what looks "ugly." It is frowned upon in WP to keep trying to force your opinion on others, as you have constantly reminded us. Please stop.Ptmccain 19:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Slim, please provide documentation that Wikipedia has given you authority to command a certain style TOC on the Martin Luther page. Otherwise, your "it can't stay" comment on the history page strikes me as quite an overstatement on your part. You claim it is "ugly" but you offer no evidence whatsoever from any page layout source that throwing up a ton of white space is acceptable, while flowing text around a sidebar like this is "ugly." Please document your assertion that this is "ugly" from any standard web page style book, etc.Ptmccain 19:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Slimvirgin, what particular aspect of the page is ugly? It looks fine on my computer screen. I think you'll have to show us a screen capture from your own browser and explain why you think it is ugly. For reference here are sveral screen shots from my computer. I have even used a browser size that would be compatible with a cramped layout. Even in that case, the text is as wide or wider than the average newspaper or scientific paper column. From my perspective, this page is not harder to read with an embedded TOC. Also, comparing the white space version to embedded toc version, I find the latter more aesthetically pleasing. So again, what are your criteria for uglyness? David D. (Talk) 21:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Screen shot with embedded TOC (browser 1050px wide). The text between the toc and image represents 46% of the browser width.	Screen shot with regular TOC and excess white space (browser 1050px wide).	Screen shot with embedded TOC and for the minimal browser window (~800 px). The text between the toc and image represents 27% of the browser width.
Printout version with embedded TOC. The text between the toc and image represents 46% of the paper width when using US letter size.	Printout version with regular TOC and excess white space.

I realized why Slim believes the TOC is so "ugly" when it has text flowing around it, like any good sidebar does....have you looked at this person's user page? [[6]]. If this page is indicative of what SlimVirgin believes is an attractive layout, it is no wonder she keeps reverting the layout here. This is beginning to make a whole lot more sense now. Ptmccain 21:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Since her page has no text at all, I'm not quite sure of the point you are trying to make? Or are you referring to the colour scheme? Regardless, it is a fact that using different browsers will result in different formats. Thus, the only way to discuss this issue sensibly is to refer to screen shots. It is possible SlimVirgin is seeing something completley different on her page. David D. (Talk) 21:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Mccain routinely insults people who disagree with him. He rarely means anything of substance. David, here is some information about floating TOCs, which can cause a number of problems. [7] This page wouldn't look so bad if there weren't other images crowding in, but as it is, it looks chaotic. Although the white space isn't good, I see it as preferable to the floater. Better still was the sliding TOC. Or there are compact TOCs, but I've never used one and don't know how to set them up. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to change the TOC from what was well worked out. Just because Slim doesn't like it is no reason not to do it. She if trying to force her POV on this page and that is inappropriate, is it not? And persisting in personal attacks also seems to me to be less than proper behavior from one who is an admin? Or am I wrong? Are Wiki admins exempt from Wiki policy?Ptmccain 22:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with SV. The TOC looks too cluttered embedded in the text, and squashing it in like that in order to have "no whitespace" is inconsistent with the style of other WP pages. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Slimvirgin, I looked through the guidelines and the recommendation is to not have text be less than 30% of the browser width. I'm not sure what the minimal width (in pixels) is the standard with regard to these guidelines? Specfically the two important style points are these:

"Floating a wide TOC will produce a narrow column of readable text for users with low resolutions. If the TOC's width exceeds 30% of the user's visible screen (about twice the size of the Wikipedia navigation bar to the left), then it is not suitable for floating. (Percentages assume a typical user setup.) If text is trapped between a floating TOC and an image, floating can be cancelled at a certain text point, see Forcing a break."

Narrow column should not be less than 300px. This browser window shows the narrow text at exactly 300px. The browser width at this size is 920px

I just read this guideline again and the recommendation is quite specific, although not spelled out. The navigation bar is set at 150 px, therefore the recommended minimum width for text is 300 px since the guideline states:

"TOC's width exceeds 30% of the user's visible screen (about twice the size of the Wikipedia navigation bar to the left), then it is not suitable for floating".

Thus, the "users visible screen" is standardised as being 'about' 1000 px (since 30% ~ 300px). For my browser, when the narrow text reaches 300px, it has a width of 920 px (see screen shoot to the right). Thus, the browser window can readily fit inside the 1000 px that represents the "users visible screen". In summary, the narrow text on the Martin Luther page, between the floating TOC and the picture, is within the limits of the guidelines. What next? Change the guidelines? Ignore the guidelines? David D. (Talk) 23:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"If the TOC is placed in the general vicinity of other floated images or boxes, it can be floated as long as the flowing text column does not become narrower than 30% of the average user's visible screen width."

Certainly on my computer the width of the text is approximately 46% of my browser (above top left with browser at about 1050 px). Assuming a minimum browser size of 800px, the width of the text is approximately 27% (above right), just under the recommended minimum of 30%. For the printed version the bounded text represents 46% of the page width (above bottom left). From my perspective this seems to be in the spirit of the guidelines. What other parts of the guideline are you referrring too specifically? Nothing other than the 30% rule seemed to jump out.

MPerel, i have seen other pages where editors have struggled with the white space. The fact that the white space is normal does not mean people like it. Generally it is due to the fact that there are not many easy ways to get rid of it when you have no clue how to write good wiki markup. Specifically, one the page I have in mind is enzymes where the white space was viewed to be undesirable. It remains due to ignorance of other options. David D. (Talk) 23:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

A lot of pages have templates or maybe a picture to the right that help reduce the white space, that may be another route. But jamming it in with text and pictures to make the article look more like a newspaper with no white space is definitely not pretty, and it makes for difficulty reading. Enzymes looks pretty cluttered now too, and I see it is you who just changed it a couple days ago to be like this. I understand your personal preference, but I don't imagine that article will stay that way either, as editors run across it, they'll have the same reaction to its clutteredness. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I also understand your point. To date, i have been working with what i thought was an appropriate format. I had already forgotten i changed the enzyme page. When I referenced it, I thought it still had the huge white space. We had played with putting images in the white space on enzyme, but it did not work well. One problem with such filler material is that it often looks out of place. However, if something suitable could be placed in the white space it would definitely be preferable to the floating TOC, but what could be placed there?

Standard science paper format with colomns

I wrote a note above before I saw your reply here. I pointed out that 300 px is the minimum recommended width and that this page seems to fall with in the guidelines. I think i am seeing a philosophical difference of opinion growing here. For me, a newspaper column style does not detract from the reading the article. In fact, that is how all scientific articles are layed out too (see thumnal to the right). On the other hand, others prefer to see a layout more similar to a book. Is our main difference of opinion coming from the fact we are used to reading material in the respective formats we support? David D. (Talk) 00:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think it's just you and me and our personal preferences, though I'm sure we both have our preferences. Mainly its just that in general, WP is not styled after newspaper formats, but a more bookish style. We're not slaves to consistency at WP, but there should be a compelling reason to buck the standard, imo, and I'm not sure there's any special case here to warrant being novel. I think the best remedy would be adding a template of some sort, just a suggestion. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Quote from the church

We should use the quote that is more representative of the church, which I'm assuming is Mantan's. Anyway, it makes the church look better. The previous quote made them sound mealy-mouthed, as though they were hedging their bets. Mantan's makes them sound gracious and decent. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The quote is documented. It is a public statement by The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, the second largest Lutheran chuch body in the world to repudiate Luther's comments about the Jews, as such it is a legitimate statement to be placed in the article. What's wrong with letting people read what precisely Lutheran churches have said to repudiate Luther's statements? Keep it in.Ptmccain 19:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It struck me as odd that you were using the Missouri statement when the national body had a statement that, as SlimVirgin points out, simply sounds better. The other one was testy in a kind of "don't mess with Luther" way, and struck me as not suitable for a section on "repudiation" when it was defensive and churlish.--Mantanmoreland 19:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

We already have one, so why do we need two, especially when the second sounds, as Mantan says, churlish and unpleasant, and the other we're using is from the most representative church. Also, don't keep doing that with the toc. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Slim, the fact that you do not like what The LCMS has said gives you no right to remove it. The LCMS is one of the world's largest Lutheran church bodies to have specifically repudiated Luther's statement. Would you prefer this quote instead? This is from the resolution adopted by the church:

while, on the one hand, we are deeply indebted to Luther for his rediscovery and enunciation of the Gospel, on the other hand, we deplore and disassociate ourselves from Luther's negative statements about the Jewish people, and, by the same token, we deplore the use today of such sentiments by Luther to incite ant-Christian and/or anti-Lutheran sentiment

Finally, Slim, I'm trying to understand how it is possible for a person not to perceive your objection to the quote as pushing your own POV on this issue.Ptmccain 19:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, the ELCA does not speak for the LCMS and that is what's germane here, IMHO. LCMS members are a bit sensitive on that score, since its views on varieity of issues are quite a bit different than the LCMS. LCMS pastors are often attacked for positions they do not hold because the ELCA is bigger and their positions get more play than that of the more conservative branch of the tradition. So, if we quote the official positions of one, we should quote the official position of others. --CTS Wyneken ^(talk) 19:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The views of the LCMS don't seem very different on this issue from those of the ELCA, although the LCMS did express itself in a way that makes it sound churlish, as we said above. So the question remains: why the need for two long quotes?

Does anyone have a source for this? "Luther believed that a person is saved by the merciful kindness of God through the merits of Jesus alone, received through trusting faith in Jesus, not by human efforts to earn God's favor." Did Luther actually use those words? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is the ELCA does not speak for the LCMS, nor the reverse. It is like saying George Bush speaks for the British. Their positions are similar, but, as you have pointed out, phrased differently. We should not be taking sides as an encyclopedia as to which sounds better or worse. That is why I'm for quoting both or summarizing the response as we originally did, citing both.

Internal church politics is of no concern to Wikipedia. One quote, the one representing the larger constituency, will suffice. I couldn't care less if the Missouri or Alaska or Pago-Pago sub-organization dissents. It is a minority opinion and it has no place in this article, except to push the "Luther's Not an Anti-Semite" POV.--Mantanmoreland 23:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not "internal church politics." The LCMS and the ELCA are completely separate church bodies. They have never shared a church, a pastor, a territory or a liturgy even. If you would like some measure of calm discussion, it would help if you would stop saying things that will provoke hostle reaction. Why not just condense both statements into a summary, as it was before the exchange began, and footnote both statements? We should not go out of our way to irritate people's religious views. --CTS Wyneken ^(talk) 23:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't care what the structure of the Lutheran church is. That is an internal Lutheran matter. The article is too long and too biased as it is, and one viewpoint, the more on-point quote from the broader organization, is more than sufficient. Don't cherry-pick quotes tailored to your POV and don't make manipulative accusations directed at other editors personally, of which there is a pattern here. Focus on the edits, not the editor. If you don't like vigorous back and forth, edit something to which you are not so passionately devoted personally and professionally.--Mantanmoreland 23:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The words you have quoted are a summary of what Luther said many times -- except he preferred the term Christ -- which of course we cannot use in the summary, lest we give the impression that wikipedia is advocating that Luther's theology is its own. The quote which follows from the Small Catechism is but one example illustrating this. If you would like more quotations, we can cite quite a few. --CTS Wyneken ^(talk) 21:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

How about you respond to the issue under discussion here Slim? You can create a new topic if you want to discuss this. Ptmccain 21:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

How about not directing remarks to other editors. There is a pattern of that here, and it should stop. --Mantanmoreland 23:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You are correct about Paul's behavior. Please do not be lured into similar rhetoric. --CTS Wyneken ^(talk) 01:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

CTS, the problem is the article, its hagiographic tone and slanted content, not the behavior of individual editors. --Mantanmoreland 01:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The ELCA and LCMS are indeed separate parallel organizations, and as the two largest Lutheran denominations both should probably be quoted. The larger one (ELCA, twice as big) should be quoted first. If possible, the quotes should be reduced a bit. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Luther's Doctrine of Salvation by Grace

Doright, exactly what kind of citation do you wish, since the one that follows supports it, as do citations to the same concept later in the article?

Do you seriously question that Luther taught salvation by grace alone? --CTS Wyneken ^(talk) 21:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, we can play Slim and Doright's little ^{[citation needed]} game. It is a shame Doright, in his zeal, failed actually to read any of the citatons or sections referred to, for there is plenty of documentation, such as congregational singing and Luther's Bible translation. This is nothing but page vandalism.Ptmccain 21:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

CTS, it needs to be written so it doesn't sound so religious, if it's coming from Wikipedia.

Which of the words in the sentence are quotations, if any? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlimVirgin (talk • contribs)

I'm at a loss as to how you describe a religious tenet without sounding religious. All of the words and phrases can be documented. We could insert the whole Small Catechism on the Apostles' Creed, but I assume we really don't want to do that. Please excuse the exasperated tone, but we teach our children to memorize these concepts. It's like asking an article on Judaism to document that the Torah contains commandments. --CTS Wyneken ^(talk) 23:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

As for Mccain, you've engaged in a WP:POINT again. You will be put on probation or banned indefinitely for this behavior one day. What puzzles me is why you're not ashamed of yourself. You're a grown man and yet your behavior is very juvenile. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC) [[

I learned long ago that people always tend to accuse others their own personal failings Slim. I found your remark revealing, from that standpoint, also from standpoint of the fact that a Wiki admin is in clear violation of Wiki's policy on personal attacks. Is it true that Wiki admin's are not held to Wiki policy?Ptmccain 21:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Beams, motes, mosquito-sieving! Dr Zak 22:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

SV, Doright what are the excessively religious bits that you have difficulties with. "Salvation", "grace", "Christ", the "law" and the "gospel" are all well-defined terms with a fixed meaning in Christian theology. We can't just drop them. Dr Zak 22:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. This article overall does not have a neutral tone and is far too reverential and hagiographic. This is just one example. It seems to escape some editors here that this is not a religious journal. --Mantanmoreland 00:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not attack the motives of other editors. Of course this is not a religious journal. But neither is Luther a soldier or a scientist. Who he is has everything to do with his theology. Presenting it in sufficient detail is important to understanding why he is considered a pivotal figure in western history. (See the Time Magazine article on the last Millennium) --CTS Wyneken ^(talk) 01:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop trying to silence other editors by making unfounded accusations of "personal attacks." This article is a mess, it reads in places like a religious tract, and I am not going to walk on eggshells because of the hypersensitivity of you and other editors. Such accusations are manipulative and in my opinion are not made in good faith. If you cannot withstand the give and take of vigorous discourse over editing, may I suggest that you edit subject matter in which you are less emotionally invested.--Mantanmoreland 01:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

On the various "citation needed" tags inserted, I often find these useful to put these in to mark citations I intend to chase, and I wouldn't presume they constitute a questioning of the underlying facts. But I don't know why a "citation needed" would be put next to an already existing citation, such as the citation to the Small Catechism for Luther's views on Grace. Similarly, the citation on the influence on the King James bible is to the discussion of Luther's translation below, where there is discussion of just that point. There are other citation tags here that do strike me as places where it would be useful to have an additional cite, though this is already a pretty heavily cited article. If no one explains further why a cite needed is put on "Grace" or the discussion of Luther's Bible, I'll go through later this evening or tomorrow morning and edit out those that don't seem relevant and try to chase a citation or two for others. Sam 22:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Citations for tags

Since I have reached my limit of edits here for today, here are entries for Doright's {{fact}} tags.

I didn't think more was really needed on Grace or Hymns; if there is a cite that puts either citation in question, let's have it. I moved the Hymn cite to the end of the sentence. One cite is plenty for these fairly basic points. I do think a cite would be in order for the discussion of the reintroduction of clerical marriage, as I don't see the point in the discussion of Luther's marriage. It also may be that this statement should be revised to focus on the reintroduction of clerical marriage in the areas previously under the dominion of the Roman Catholic Church - the "many traditions" language is kind of vague and meaningless. Was this just Luther and this one marriage that reintroduced clerical marriage, or was there a broader movement to reintroduce Clerical marriage? I also left the cite needed for the idea that Luther's Bible was, at it was produced, the German standard - I don't know the answer here, and whether there were any rival German translations either at the time or soon after (Zwingli? Calvin? Their followers? Earlier attempts?). I know Luther's Bible became the German language standard, but that is different. Finally, I left the cite needed for the statement regarding adding principles of translation, as I didn't see the discussion of what principles were added below - am I missing something? Sam 00:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

- For another discussion of clerical marriage at the same time, see Huldrych Zwingli#Marriage - from the Zwingli article alone (and that alone, I don't claim expertise in the period or subject), I would say crediting Luther's marriage with reintroducing clerical marriage is overstating it. Sam 00:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Salvation by Grace

-- The passage already cited

-- "If you have a true faith that Christ is your Savior, then at once you have a gracious God, for faith leads you in and opens up God's heart and will, that you should see pure grace and overflowing love. This it is to behold God in faith that you should look upon His fatherly, friendly heart, in which there is no anger nor ungraciousness." Luther as quoted in Bainton, 50.

-- This passage, which I cannot quote myself, since I am the translator.

Many more are available. --CTS Wyneken ^(talk) 23:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hymn Singing

"The last and greatest reform of all [in music] was in congregational song. In the Middle Ages the liturgy was almost entirely restricted to the celebrant and the choir. The congregation joined in a few responses in the vernacular. Luther so developed this element that he may be considered the father of congregational song." Bainton, 269.--CTS Wyneken ^(talk) 23:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I see this has been added, which is great, but does the move toward participatory music in the service deserve more discussion in the body of the article as well? Just an aside, but any idea when the Catholic Church followed the Lutheran lead and incorporated more music in their own mass? Was that a product of the Counter-Reformation or did it happen later? Sam 14:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll look for that as I go back through the literature again. There are still some holes, like this one, in the article. The periodic controversies have delayed in filling them in. The larger question is whether, as suggested in the FA nom, we spin off much of the detail into subarticles, as we did with Martin Luther and the Jews and the 95 Theses or expand here. --CTS Wyneken ^(talk) 14:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I found a little more discussion of Luther and liturgical music at hymns and Christian Music, and it's also possible to expand those and cross-reference. But it's a topic worthy of an article if anyone has the energy and knowledge for it, and a little more here would be useful, since the theme is introduced. Sam 14:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Marriage of Clergy

Summarizing argument from Prelude on the Babylonian Captivity of the Church: "The clergy should be permitted to marry" Bainton, 199-120.

If he could not reform all Christendom,at any rate he could and did establsh the protestant parsonage." Bainton, 223.--CTS Wyneken ^(talk) 00:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

When I've got a bit of free time, I may need to look up Bainton. The cite supports the idea that he established the clerical marriage, but I found the discussion in Zwingli more interesting, suggesting as it did that a form of "common law" clerical marriage was already widespread. Does Bainton address this issue? (Zwingli, of course, didn't bother to cite their discussion - harrumph!). Sam 14:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Tag Wars

It seems like there is a bit of tag warring going on over the following:

His contributions to Western civilization include his translation of the Bible, which provided a standard version ^{[citation needed]}of the German language and added several principles to the art ^{[citation needed]}of translation. His translation significantly influenced the English King James Bible.^{[citation needed]} (See Luther's Bible translation below.)

I think the key here is what in the statement is supported or not supported by the section on Luther's Bible translation. If this selection is changed as follows, it would be fully supported and no additional citation would be needed:

His contributions to Western civilization include his translation of the Bible into the German language. This translation significantly influenced later translations, including the English King James Bible. (See Luther's German Bible, below.)

I think a better approach would be to add discussion below on the principles Luther added to the art of translation and on the process by which and the extent to which Luther's translation became the standard (e.g., how many other translations were there, what numbers were they published in, how broadly were they disseminated, which Churches adopted them as in any way official, etc.). I myself would be interested in such a discussion. Sam 14:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Tone issues - opening paragraph

I see someone just pulled the religious sounding summary from the opening to opt for a more abstract and academic sounding intro. I thought what was there before rambled a bit, but really don't mind seeing Luther's own words used for one of his most important positions. However, if the article goes with sola fide alone without explanation I think it is just too jargonish. Some plain, clear explanation of the Latin is needed, and in this case the Latin, after all, is just shorthand in any case. Sam 00:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I welcome any tweaking, expanding on it a bit. I just wanted to initiate some sort of improvement, it could use more. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Btw, I do think sole fide should be explictly mentioned as it was one of the central themes Martin Luther is known for. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

MP, I'm glad to see you here. But, how do we talk about Luther's theology without explaining or talking about his theology? --CTS Wyneken ^(talk) 00:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi CTSW, do please take a whack at it. I'm sure there's a happy medium. And what is the self-imposed daily editing limit you mentioned somewhere above? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

None of this is aimed at you, MP. When I find myself getting angry, and have reverted at least twice, I back off, lest I violate 3RR. I really should go away every from here tonight, because I find it incredible to have the most basic facts of Luther's life challenged and removed from an article about him, and at least one editor not sensitive to the fact that I and members of my denomination might not like being told another denomination speaks for us. Having said that, I must say good night. --CTS Wyneken ^(talk) 01:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Quotations from Encyclopedias of Luther's Theology

"He came to believe that Christian are saved not through their own efforts, but by the gift of God's grace, which they accept in faith." Luther, Martin. Funk and Wagnalls New Encyclopedia (Funk and Wagnalls, 1983), 16:262.--CTS Wyneken ^(talk) 01:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"This became for him the nerve of the gospel, that salvation is to be thought of primarily in terms of grace, and of a divine gift; that God's free, forgiving mercy is displayed in Jesus Christ; that the conscience, forgiven and cleansed, may be at peace, and that the soul, free from the burden of guilt, may serve God with a joyful, spontaneous, creative obedience. In his translation of the Bible Luther came to add “alone” after the word “faith” (sola fide) in the verse “For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law” (Rom. 3:28) because he felt it was demanded by the German language. The word alone or only was retained by the Reformers after him because it seemed to safeguard this important doctrine against such perversions as might seem to make salvation dependent on human achievement or a reward for human merit." Encyclopædia Britannica Online, s.v. "Martin Luther" (by Ernst Gordon Rupp), http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-59117 (Accessed 6 July 2006). --CTS Wyneken ^(talk) 14:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

A Great Summary of the Problems with Wikipedia

Just found this terrifically well done summary of the problems with Wikipedia, problems very much demonstrated on these discussion pages where people with no expertise whatsoever or real knowledge of the subject matter they are talking about attempt to thwart well founded statements. Check it out: [[8]]Ptmccain 01:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Quote from the article: Criticism of the project from within the inner sanctum has been very rare so far, although fellow co-founder Larry Sanger, who is no longer associated with the project, pleaded with the management to improve its content by befriending, and not alienating, established sources of expertise. (i.e., people who know what they're talking about.)

Click here to find out more! Meanwhile, criticism from outside the Wikipedia camp has been rebuffed with a ferocious blend of irrationality and vigor that's almost unprecedented in our experience: if you thought Apple, Amiga, Mozilla or OS/2 fans were er, ... passionate, you haven't met a wiki-fiddler. For them, it's a religious crusade.Ptmccain 01:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what bearing this has on Martin Luther; perhaps you could elaborate? --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 02:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Repudiation by Lutheran churches

I think that we should remove this subsection altogether. It is covered in the Martin Luther and the Jews article. I think that the Luther and the Jews section should be pruned again, and readers directed to the Martin Luther and the Jews article. I also want to register a protest to the lumping of the LCMS and the ELCA together as one church. I also do not appreciate editors being "talked down to" with respect to this by editors who are uninformed at best. If I may engage in a little chiding I would refer appropriate editors to WP:CIVIL, thank you.--Drboisclair 01:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks and I appreciate your kind words, but I am used to being "talked down to" by certain editors and I pay it no mind. Let's focus on the content not the editors -- and believe me, the content can use some attention. As for your suggestion: no, I think that removing one of the few non-hagiographic sections of the article would push the POV of this article off the charts. This article is already a mess. Why make it worse?--Mantanmoreland 01:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that it would be appropriate for the repudiation subsection to be summarized. Mantan, you are a good summarizer. Why not summarize and link here? Please remember, though, that the LCMS (Missouri Synod) and the ELCA are two separate denominations even though they have themselves known as "Lutheran." It is not one big church.

Perhaps you could give instances of quick fixes in places that you think are hagiographical. The trouble with this threshold of making something non hagiographical is that you would have to go to all articles on religion. I don't think that it would do to simply "pick on" the Luther article.--Drboisclair 01:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem with this article is pervasive and that it requires a top-to-bottom rewrite. I must say, incidentally, that I raised this very same issue concerning a vanity article by a Jewish rabbi, and was not rewarded for my trouble by stalking and vandalism. Be advised that such harassment has not changed my opinion concerning this article.--Mantanmoreland 02:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It might be helpful to take us along with you in your suggestions. I would ask that you not embark on this project alone. We try to be as NPOV as we are able. Cordially, --Drboisclair 02:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I was not planning at the moment to embark on a "project." However, refreshed and invigorated by an evening of deleting personal attacks, vandalism and miscellaneous juvenile craziness by a regular editor of this section, I intend to focus my attention on this article with greater vigor. Thanks for your kind solicitude, as always.--Mantanmoreland 02:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

intro

For flow, I think the paragraph on writing on Jews should be the last one, i.e., here's the positive things he's known for, and he's also known for this negative thing. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the principal problem is one of tone. The tone at present, throughout, is not neutral and in places is hagiographic. Placing the Jewish controversy summary paragraph further up in the summary improves the tone somewhat. Going directly into a paragraph on his wonderful hymns somehow doesn't feel right for a Wikipedia article on this person. --Mantanmoreland 04:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you about the overall hagiography problem, but it just doesn't flow right with the Jewish writings blurb sort of stuck in the middle of the intro. The back and forth positive-negative-positive sounds pieced together, that's my opinion anyway. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, to Drboisclair, thank you for this edit, I was struggling with the wording of that one. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

MPerel, thank you for your work here. I agree with you about the paragraph on the anti-Jewish writings. It should be returned to the end of the introduction.--Drboisclair 04:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the priority should be to remove hagiographic elements and neutralize the tone wherever possible. That is more important than the flow of the writing, which can be improved by tweaking. Right now, the writing in the opening section is treacly, except for the paragraph describing that he wrote anti-Semitic tracts. --Mantanmoreland 04:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I hear lots of talk about a hagiographic tone, but do not see anyone listing such elements or discussing them before changing them. It would help greatly if such a discussion would take place before editing is done. Perhaps it would help to compare passages in Luther articles from encyclopedias. Note the example from Funk and Wagnalls above. Is this a hagiographic presentation?

--CTS Wyneken ^(talk) 10:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't find the tone overly hagiographic myself (and am Roman Catholic myself, so I don't view myself as looking at it from a biased perspective). I do find the tone of the discussion, especially the little barbs stuck in the edit summaries, off-putting. Sam 14:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Sam, it isn't. It is the view of those who have a strong POV against Luther and Lutherans. One editor has posted that the Lutheran doctrine of the orders of creation is "Lutheran racism" here: [9] at the bottom: "Lutheran doctrines of the orders of creation."--Drboisclair 14:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Statements like charging people with "strong POV against Luther and the Lutherans" are the kind of personalization that poisons the discussion, however. Again, I think the article has a lot of good stuff in it, but the tone of the discussion just stinks, and thanking me while throwing more fuel on the fire isn't what I was hoping to encourage. Everyone should step back and try to just focus on the article. And if someone starts throwing around charges about POV, turn the other cheek instead of escalating. Sam 15:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I think the bias problem, such as there is one, is that the article is edited by editors with a personal and professional stake in the subject matter. While perhaps permitted by Wikipedia rules, that does subject the article to bias, sometimes overtly and sometimes not. I really wish Drboisclair would not throw around accusations of "anti-Lutheran" bias. Since he insists on raising the issue, what I can say is that based on the private emails I have received, and the edit summaries of another editor, I do feel that anti-Semtism definitely is an issue that needs to be confronted in the hearts of some of the editors here. Even though I am a Catholic, statements that there is a "Jewish cabal" of editors, and other such comments even worse made to me privately reflecting on the supposed ethnic background of certain administrators, I find deeply offensive. --Mantanmoreland 15:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"However," using a word to be avoided. Jewish POV is acceptable, Lutheran POV is not. That is what is going on here. Look at the Encarta article: nothing is mentioned about Luther's anti-Jewish writings. This is overemphasized to push a POV. You are bringing up this "cabal" business. Well, I thought we were over that. The Christians were accused of being a "cabal" as well. What a mess.--Drboisclair 15:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Your comments underline my concerns still further, needless to say. Yes, I too had thought we were "over that" cabal business but then I saw one of your fellow pro-Luther editors last night is clearly not "over that." "Editor has joined the Wiki cabal of POV warriers on Jewish issues". Yes, what a mess. What a mess when an editor says in a private email that certain "Jewish administrators" are inserting anti-Luther materials in an article. Such a bigot should not be editing articles that come within 1000 miles of a Jewish-related subject, including anything related to Luther. Yes, a mess. Look to your heart, Drboisclair, before you accuse other editors of "prejudice."--Mantanmoreland 15:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing any editors of prejudice. There is bias, but generally there is no prejudice. Of course, calling Lutheran doctrine racism is prejudice, so that disclaimer needs to be inserted.--Drboisclair 15:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Oh, and by the way, your comments above about an editor being a bigot is a violation of WP:CIVIL.--Drboisclair 15:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

An editor privately made bigoted comments to me. Please don't try to silence editors who receive bigoted comments from disseminating that fact, when germane to a discussion -- one you initiated -- of bias among editors.

Let's get back to the issue at hand, which is this article. In my view, and the view of other editors, the tone of the article is hagiographic in some places, and generally is excessively reverential. If you want to get into the motives of the editors involved in either opposing or supporting the article as it currently stands, feel free to do so but in my view you will only weaken your case.

However, since you aggressively raise the point, I think that editors who are involved in Lutheran and Luther-related entities have a conflict of interest and should recuse themselves. Certainly having such a professional or personal tie should not, in and of itself, merit such a recusal. However, I see here a pattern of efforts, in the editing, to be protective of Luther and hypersensitive to any criticism. That is reflected in this and other articles. The fact that one editor, a mature man and executive, goes on a vandalism and personal attack rampage spurred by his rage over the Luther article, underlines my point. --Mantanmoreland 15:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the problem with Wikipedia: experts on the issue are browbeaten away. I will not recuse myself because I have studied Luther, and I have done the research. If you are going to simply nidpick this article because in your opinion it is "hagiographic," then, perhaps, a scrutiny of other articles might be in order that do not satisfy your feelings that they are too "hagiographic." This is needless singling out of an article when someone's time would be better spent on needed editing of other articles.--Drboisclair 16:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You should recuse yourself for reasons that I have mentioned to you privately. I urge you to do so. Other editors who have a professional or passionate personal stake in this should recuse themselves, for the same reason that a lobbyist should not be a principal editor of an article on their industry. While such a person may have more information than the average layperson, the neutrality of the article will be affected. --Mantanmoreland 16:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland, this is you making policy here. I will not recuse myself. That is enough on this matter. Please stop the personal attacks and refer to WP:CIVIL.--Drboisclair 17:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Suit yourself, but please stop making meritless "personal attack" allegations. Asking you to recuse yourself for reasons of which you are well aware is not a "personal attack." Stop that nonsense.--Mantanmoreland 17:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware that it is not a personal attack. You are attacking an editor, although it is not direct. Perhaps, since it is not naming any names, it technically is not a personal attack. I think that you are too emotionally involved here as much as any other editor.--Drboisclair 17:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

How is it a "personal attack" to cite the words a person writes to me? Those are his words. It is not an attack to quote somebody. Please explain.--Mantanmoreland 01:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No one should recuse themselves from this article, it is not about current affairs but history. A representative of all POV's should be present to negotiate towards a stable article. David D. (Talk) 17:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

But don't you think it is a conflict of interest if my career involves either supporting or opposing the reputation of a historical figure whose article I am editing?--Mantanmoreland 01:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why? This happens all the time in academia. The major point is the discussion that leads to a final product, why would we want to exclude a knowledgable voice just because they have a POV? Now if that POV, and that POV alone, was the end product then it would be a problem. This is why any group trying to reach a compromise should have the philosophy of the more the merrier. To be honest, i don't see how a wikipedia page could be viewed as so important for anyones career, these pages and a good starting point for a research project nothing more. most colleges don't even accept wikipedia as a primary source. And there is a very good reason for that, nevertheless, wikipedia still plays an important role as being an access point for contextual information (see separating the wheat from the chaff in the template below). David D. (Talk) 01:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI {{UWAYOR}}

Because these are knowledgeable people who not only have a POV, but have a massive emotional stake that affects the tone and substance of the article. Let me give you an example of what I mean. Take a look at my user page. See the Barnstar? I got that from an eminent Luther scholar who just loved my contributions to On the Jews and Their Lies, to which I was brought in by the "Jewish" side as a third eye. Then I started editing in a way this gent I didn't like, and I was subjected to a barrage of abuse and vandalism. I had no choice but to drop a dime on him and he was blocked today for a week. So yes, sure, it happens all the time in academia and all that (I know more than a thing or two about academia, unfortunately, though soon that will change!). But in this instance, I think that there is simply too much of an emotional investment on the part of some editors and it hurts the article by skewing the POV and tamping down edits perceived as "anti-Luther."--Mantanmoreland 02:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Clearly religious and political topics are always going to be highly charged debates. I have no working knowledge of Luther, certainly not enough to recognise the POV's being discussed on this article. Nevertheless, i don't see it being stable in the long term without everyones input. Unfortunately strong POV contributions from either side make these debates very long and hard (and not fun). There are options such as mediation, RfC and Arbcom if there is no possible resolution to the edti warring, but the time invested in those solutions is much better spenting trying to reach a compromise in the first place. This is just my experience of seeing how contentitous article work here. David D. (Talk) 02:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I came toOn the Jews and Their Lies with that objective, and for a short while (maybe two days) both sides were satisfied with my drastic cutting of that article. Then the "anti" side came in and added stuff, and then "pro" side came in and added stuff -- in my view, too much. So I started trimming back and all of a sudden I am the villain and "one of the Jewish cabal," to quote a memorable edit summary of a now-blocked editor. (My very Catholic mother would be surprised to hear that.) So the multiple POV view model doesn't work so well when you have those kinds of emotions. --Mantanmoreland 02:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that is why there are so many religions. Certainly your experience on the other page does not sound like a good working collaboration. I'm not sure what you can do if all hell breaks loose, other than be patient. David D. (Talk) 02:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The difficult thing is that ultimately I think the two "sides" here need to actually work through it and see some of other peoples' perspectives. I suspect there is a high level of expertise on each side, probably higher than mine in the specific subject, but in one case it is expertise in Luther and Lutheranism and in the other case it is expertise in anti-semiticism and its history. Sam 02:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hagiographic

Can we get to the article? What, specifically do people see as "hagiographic?" By the same standards, are the Encyclopedia passages quoted above #Quotations from Encyclopedias of Luther's Theology hagiographic? --CTS Wyneken ^(talk) 16:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not really concerned with those other Encylopedias, but more with what can be done to focus on the article. So, for those calling this "hagiographic", please, identify a few discrete places to work on, perhaps leaving aside the section on Luther and the Jews for now as a separate problem to be dealt with after discussing issues elsewhere. Sam 17:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you on the request for specifics. To be honest, I'm trying to understand how language that matches that of mainstream encyclopedias is considered such. They found it necessary to talk this way; Why shouldn't we? --CTS Wyneken ^(talk) 19:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. Is it that there are other publications on the planet Earth that do not have a neutral POV, so therefore Wikipedia should not have a neutral POV when the subject is Martin Luther? That appears to be what you are saying.--Mantanmoreland 19:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. What I am saying is such language, in my opinion, is neither hagiographic or POV in Wikipedian terms. To understand a theologian, you need to understand his or her material principle or central teaching. When an encyclopedia says, Luther believed... It is declaring that the summary or quotation that follows is Luther's POV. That both satisfies the requirements of WP:NPOV and lets the reader know something about Luther. That is the point of an article, isn't it? --CTS Wyneken ^(talk) 19:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

With some historical figures it is impossible to speak of them without sounding "hagiographical" as you consider it. I think that it should be stated that none of us here wants to make the case for Luther being canonized as a saint by the Roman Catholic Church, which is the meaning of "Hagiography." Sometimes with all the protestations of POV/NPOV the material becomes non NPOV. As MPerel has stated in archived comment: we do not want to whitewash Luther nor bash him. The article is not "hagiographical" as you claim.--Drboisclair 19:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the point is to find some worthwhile things to work on to improve the article. As an example, I've suggested some language up above that would replace the language on Luther's Bible being the standard until there is detail added that discusses why it is the standard and comparing it to other German language Bibles; that was language I could identify as being overbroad in its claims given what is in the article. Can you suggest other specifics? I parsed through about 1/2 the article quickly, and nothing jumped up - and I wrote none of this. So, can you or others suggest some specifics that would let people drill down and fix the tone? Sam 19:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That is only if one thinks there is too much of such an alleged "tone" here. I agree with you about the Luther Bible. The Luther Bible is to the Germans what the King James Version was to the English. However, sourcing and objectivity should rule.--Drboisclair 19:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I would object vehemently though if anyone called the King James Bible in English today the standard - I certainly don't use it for worship. I wouldn't object if someone notes the King James version as important, influential, or well-written. Which is why I thought the Luther Bible was an area where more discussion would be helpful. But regardless of what one thinks of the tone overall, if there is a specific issue, like the question of how to discuss the Luther Bible, it is easier to discuss and deal with, rather than fighting over the abstracts. Sam 19:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I would welcome talking about specifics. Please realize, however, it does take time to find citations for all of the flags. After all, Doright raised a half-dozen of these at once yesterday. If you'd like to help with that part, I'd be happy to recommend a few Luther biographies that you can search through. --CTS Wyneken ^(talk) 19:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Happy to help; let's not think of a citation flag as a challenge to the statement but just noting some work to be done. I find Google Books and Google Scholar helpful on citations, though it always helps to know the books well enough to know where to look. Sam 20:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The best little one volume bio of Luther is still Roland H. Bainton's Here I Stand On the opposite end is Martin Brecht's Martin Luther 3 vols. Most libraries of any size should have the Bainton. There even was a Penguin edition the last I checked. --CTS Wyneken ^(talk) 20:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I also think that a hard look needs to be taken at the sources cited here, so that obscure, questionable or fringe voices not be put on a par with recognized historians. For example, the distinguished author William Shirer, author of the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, is given about as much weight as the author of an obscure screed called The Fabricated Luther: The Rise and Fall of the Shirer Myth. I wonder if perhaps a lot of the sources cited in the article do not meet the requirements of WP:RS, and/or are given undue weight. It is more than a question of fixing the tone, I think.--Mantanmoreland 20:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

But above you did say that the principal problem was one of tone, which you characterized as "not neutral" and "hagiographic" in places. It is fair enough to ask you and others to identify places where these problems exist so they can be worked on; I'd prefer to set aside the Luther and the Jews Section at the moment, and see if it is possible to work productively together on a less provocative part of this article. Sam 20:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is. However, I suspect that questionable sources are contributing factor to the hagiographic slant of the article, with eminent historians like Shirer unfairly balanced out by obscure hacks such as the author of The Fabricated Luther: The Rise and Fall of the Shirer Myth. His CV says his "vocation" as "journalist and editorial consultant". --Mantanmoreland 00:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think if this remains a battle over Luther and Jews instead of refocusing on other parts of the article, little progress will be made, tempers will flare, and those caught up will get dragged down in what is clearly a fight in the mud. But, if you are intent on going there, remember, Shirer himself was a journalist who was a good enough writer and observer to knock out a best-seller, and I'd suggest a quick look at some journal reviews like these[10][11] before either sainting Shirer or dismissing Siemon-Netto]. Has anyone cited to Heiko Oberman? In a bit of time spent on Google Scholar, he looks interesting on the subject and like a potentially "better" (in the sense of "more established academic historian") source than either of the others? But, look, you're dragging me into the fight that seem to make everyone crazy. Can you just find some hagiographic or other slant elsewhere in the article that we can do a little work on and so we can do something other than fighting? Sam 01:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Here, I'll go first. There's an entire section ("Freedom of a Christian") given over just to the following:

In like manner, the full development of Luther's doctrine of salvation and the Christian life is seen in his On the Freedom of a Christian (published November 20, 1520). Here he required complete union with Christ by means of the Word through faith, entire freedom of the Christian as a priest and king set above all outward things, and perfect love of one's neighbor. The three works may be considered among the chief writings of Luther on the Reformation.

I have no idea what this means, but it seems to be favorable. Certainly capitalizing "Word" without explanation doesn't help me as the unitiated, and "the Christian as a priest and king set above all outward things" is difficult to parse and understand. I think I can get "perfect love of one's neighbor" without too much trouble. Is there a way of rephrasing this in clear, simple English, and perhaps merging it with another section so the table of contents can have one less entry? I don't know if this is what you are refering to as hagiographic, but it is a paragraph that could use improvement. Sam 21:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The language sure can be updated. This was cop

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rather unsurpisingly, the name of this section was effectively changed by User:Sam Spade last November, when he moved the sub-article from "Martin Luther and anti-Semitism" to "Martin Luther and the Jews": [12]. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Professor Shmuel Almog of the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem states, "it is currently established procedure to use 'antisemitism' for all types of Jew-hatred." Antisemitism is "applied not just to the modern brand of Jew-hatred but ... to all kinds of enmity toward Jews, past and present." Thus we now say 'antisemitism', even when we talk about remote periods in the past."[[13]] On the basis of the facts presented and discussed above, I plan on restoring the original name. Doright 06:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems I neglected to make the above change. Does anyone know how to do it? --Doright 05:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Clarification – How do we change [this article] back to its original title, Martin Luther and Antisemitism, so that it does not create an infinite self reference to the current euphemistic titled redirection? --Doright 16:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Help:Moving a page lays out the method and principles. Sam 16:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam, thank you. I'll give it a try a little later, since as I said on May 12, to which there was no objection, "On the basis of the facts presented and discussed above, I plan on restoring the original name." I'll wait a bit to see if a cogent objection is proferred. --Doright 19:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The Way Forward

I'd like to propose we return the Martin Luther and the Jews section to its last reasonably stable point, which I think was this one. We then move on to other areas of the article. If there then, after a month or so, folks who would like to modify it, we ask that they discuss things here. Considering that I am often party to the ... discussions ... about this section, if there's general agreement, would one of the newly arrived editors do the honor of making it so?

If we go this way, I'll work mostly on documentation and explaination and limit my involvement in direct edits to punctuation, formatting of footnotes, images, etc. If everyone will seek consensus before major changes, then, I will stay in this mode. If we all stick to content issues, I think we can go a long way to improving this article. --CTS Wyneken ^(talk) 11:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No thanks. That is an honor I would rather not have, to tell you the truth. I think a much better idea would be that the article be improved and not reverted to a more "stable" version, whatever that means.

The first priority is to change the tone to make it neutral, to remove hagiographic elements, and make it read less like a lengthy tribute to Martin Luther, written from a his point of view, and more like a Wiki article. Then the sources have to be carefully examined to remove ones that are not permitted under WP:RS. --Mantanmoreland 13:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but I think it's necessary to see all the people who have been "edit warring"

on board. I think it is necessary that the plan include ultimately tackling the "Luther and the Jews" section. Sam

The problem is, I do not think we will get everyone on board. Witness the comment above yours. In addition, user Doright is using the moment to add one quotation after another to the section, lengthening it well beyond the summary of a sub-article it should be. Since I and others, I suspect, feel this is an attempt to swing the section in favor of his point of view and bury that of others, if we do not move on, we are in danger of getting nothing else done here for weeks. As you can see from Mantmoreland's recent comments, we're in for attacks on the qualifications of scholars, questioning of every word to describe their work, and although I hope not, questioning of the integrity of editors. And that's with one of the most aggressive members of this exchange on the sidelines for a week for repeated 3RR violations.

Frankly, I'd like a rest from this for a few weeks. Maybe then, with the exchanges here much cooler, with progress made by editors working together and with the assistance of you and other newly arrived editors, we can get somewhere. --CTS Wyneken ^(talk) 16:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Without everyone's agreement, there is no way to impose a solution, short of bringing it to arbitration. I'm happy to chip in with views here and there (and did so above on the question of scholarly credentials), but one section I'm not going to touch myself is the Luther and the Jews section. The answer has to be seeing folks reach out across the chasm that has been created and listening hard to each other's views. I imagine you can use a rest; this page is exhausting! Sam 16:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, especially since we have several times reached across this chasm, achieved a solition, only to have it reopened again and again. So, I guess, I won't discuss it. Let's move on. Hopefully better spirits will prevail and see the wisdom in leaving it alone for awhile. --CTS Wyneken ^(talk) 17:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

CTS, I've said this many times before I became the focus of your attention -- in the days when Doright was your main focus -- but I am going to ask you for perhaps the dozenth time to please not make gratuitous personal remarks concerning other editors. (As in "As you can see from Mantmoreland's recent comments, we're in for attacks" yada yada.)

I was brought in to this discussion as a third set of eyes on On the Jews and Their Lies. I quickly changed from being a fair-haired boy getting a Barnstar from Rev. McCain, to being a subject of constant villification and smears from yourself and other editors. So yes, I think a break from this page would be beneficial for you, if you cannot desist from making ad hominem remarks concerning other editors. --Mantanmoreland 19:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Impending Move of NPOV Tag to NPOV-Section

I want to note that I have been looking for specifics on what constitutes "Hagiographic" tone or what other problems there may be outside of the Luther and the Jews Section, a section we all know is controversial. I have highlighted my own issues, which have been discussed and solutions proposed. In the absence of anyone clearly stating where there is an issue with specific language or a specific citation outside of the Luther and the Jews Section, I intend to change the NPOV tag to an NPOV - Section tag, tagging only the Luther and the Jews Section, and will make the changes to the other sections of the article that have been suggested (that is, to rewrite the paragraph with citation needed tags to eliminate those needs and to change the language from the 19th Century Encyclopedia. Please, if you have issues with this move, and think anything else is in question, provide specifics below. You can then all fight over the Luther and the Jews Section with the note that any outcome is going to have POV issues in someone's mind, and will be tagged as such. Thank you. Sam 19:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with the tone of the entire article, so yes I would not be in favor of changing the NPOV tag.--Mantanmoreland 19:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I intend to make the change unless you give me actionable specifics. What sentances are you talking about? I have read through the article with this charge in mind and not found changes to make to address it. Merely saying the "tone" is not actionable.

If you need a day to put together a good set of comments, just indicate so. Otherwise, when you get the comments together and have actionable problems to highlight, we can move the tag back. Sam 19:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I support this change. I'd also recommend we archive all but the active discussions on this page, give each subject its own heading and work at the issues, one on one. Hopefully, other editors will join us in this endeavor. --CTS Wyneken ^(talk) 19:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's start with the beginning of the article, which I attempted to make more neutral but my changes were, as usual, reverted. They provide only a brief reference at the very end to Luther's attitude toward the Jews, which is a good deal more significant than his impact on hymns. This should be moved up and expanded. I think that would add greatly to improve the tone and objectivity of the article.

Let's address that first, and then go section by section. --Mantanmoreland 19:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have checked the Luther articles in several encyclopedias. Few mention Luther's attitude towards the Jews at all. None list the issue in their introductions. I would like to see a citation from a scholarly source that says the issue is more important than other aspects of Luther's life before we move it up higher in the intro. --CTS Wyneken ^(talk) 19:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I rather agree. It seems to me that what's generally considered most important about Luther does not include his attitude toward Jews; perhaps it should include his attitude toward Jews, but in the absence of support for the relative importance of this vis-a-vis his other contributions, it would be highly POV for us to overemphasize his feelings and writings toward Jews just because we think it's important and should be empasized more. (And in case anyone's interested, I think he was grossly anti-Semitic, and that his writings had pernicious effects in the previous century; but my opinion, of course, is irrelevant.) --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 20:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I rather do not agree, except for your observation that your own "opinion, of course, is irrelevant." Your POV statement is clear. You say: "It seems to me that what's generally considered most important about Luther does not include his attitude toward Jews." However, among people interested in genocide, racism and other forms of intolerance it seems to me that what's generally considered most important about Luther does include his works on Jews. ("And in case anyone's interested," I'm not interested in your views . . . only your edits and arguments which are more often than not predictable.) Also, a reading of the comments in this article's nomination to feature status may prove fruitful.--Doright 20:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have my own thoughts on this paragraph, but would really like to get all the issues out on the table. I note that when I ask people to highlight issues other than the "Luther and the Jews" section, the only thing that has come up so far is the two sentences summarizing that section. I am more convinced than ever that this POV tag should be a POV-Section tag. I am going to switch it to the long-form POV tag to highlight the desire to have people participate in this dicussion. Sam 20:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam, I'd suggest, if you want a consensus of all views re this POV thing etc., that you await the views of others who have edited this article more extensively than I have. There apparently is a high burnout rate, damned if I know why, but they do drop in now and then. Doright is the one who has born the brunt in every sense of the word so you may want to drop him a note on his user page. In fact, I will.--Mantanmoreland 20:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

As for Jpgordon's point -- the Holocaust Museum had an entire exhibit on Martin Luther and the Jews, so I think they would differ with you on that. Most encyclopedias no doubt don't mention the subject, but they are so awful that I hope that they are not used as role models in anything but the tone of their writing, and perhaps not even that. I wouldn't be concerned about what encyclopedias have or don't have. I can't for the life of me recall the last time I found an encyclopedia to be of any use on any serious topic. We had a set when I was a kid, and even then I found inaccuracies.--Mantanmoreland 20:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course the Holocaust Museum would consider Luther's hatred of Jews as the most important aspect for them to emphasize -- other than that, they'd have no reason to consider Luther whatsoever. But what's the broader perspective? This is a place where NPOV becomes very tricky; the historical whitewashing of Luther's anti-Semitism does need to be corrected, and is being corrected. However, whose job is it to correct it? I don't think it's Wikipedia's job to try to drive the historical record one way or another. That's what the "neutral" part in NPOV means. No matter how much we think that Luther's attitudes toward Jews need more emphasis, we don't get to take the leading edge of that argument. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 22:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the last thing we have to worry about is that this article is going to be on the cutting edge of criticism of Luther. Hell will freeze over first. Trust me on that.--Mantanmoreland 22:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping him a note. Frankly, I'd be just as happy with getting actionable comments as a consensus on switching the tag. I don't care if the tag gets switched or not, but having the tag without actionable comments devalues the tag itself. And if the actionable comments are limited to Luther and the Jews, the tag should be, too. Sam 20:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I addressed that -- re the introductory paragraphs. The first few paragraphs need to say more about the Jewish issue and higher up.--Mantanmoreland 21:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

But you've also said you have other, as-yet-undisclosed issues. I'm not sure why this should be so hard, and if we're going to resolve any issues in here, we're going to need to identify them first. So let's get the issues on the table. Sam 21:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam, I'd like first things first. If this most obvious issue can't or won't be addressed, what is the point of going to a lot of trouble listing the rest? Also I'd like to see others chime in. Is there a rush?--Mantanmoreland 21:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I firmly believe that the only way to resolve disputes is to begin by defining them and what they are. If the dispute isn't identified, it's impossible to address. And addressing issues one at a time is a way to raise blood-pressure and burn people out. Why do you not want to put issues on the table? Sam 21:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I just did (see discussion above re introductory paragraphs), and all it did was raise my blood pressure. Absolutely nothing was accomplished. What is so wrong with waiting for others to chime in? I'm Martin Luther-ed out for the moment. If I find energy to withstand another barrage of "stop disrespecting our scholars," I'll list more POV and tone and source items but frankly my brief experience is that "putting issues on the table" in the Martin Luther-related talk pages resolves nothing. Let others spin their wheels for the moment. Oh, and I suspect that some of the interested parties on the other side of this issue may be observers of the Jewish sabbath, so there may be a 24 hr. wait. --Mantanmoreland 21:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not in a hurry, and happy to wait. But if this issue is just about the Luther and the Jews section, and the summary of it up above, let's say so and focus on those. I'll hold off switching the tag until at least Sunday, see what people have for comments, and see where to go next. Sam 22:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not just about the Luther and the Jews section. I've already expressed the opinion (re this tone thing) that essentially the entire article requires a top to bottom rewrite, such as the one I did for On the Jews and Their Lies when I was still an acceptable editor of the pro-Luther crowd, many hundreds of seconds ago. I trust that my embarking on such a unilateral project would be a waste of time so obviously I'm not going to do that. (P.S. I should mention that my top to bottom rewrite of On the Jews and their Lies was acceptable to all parties for approximately a day and a half.) I don't mean to be cynical or discouraging, but attempting to find a "consensus" on this and other Martin Luther articles is a wearying and fruitless process. Others have tried and failed. I tried in OTJATL and failed.--Mantanmoreland 22:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You have repeated the tone comment over and over, using words like "hagiographic." I keep asking for actionable comments. Come on! Give me examples of several sentences with that a tone you find excessive. Give me a section. Don't just keep throwing up your hands, saying, "it's all bad" and then getting frustrated when I keep saying, "how." Because I will keep saying "how." Sam 22:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Fer crying out loud, Sam, I did give a section -- the first section. I went into specifics. My suggestion that the order of paragraphs need to be changed and more added to the Jewish business was blown off. How many times to I have to repeat that? --Mantanmoreland 22:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Here -- I'll repeat what I posted three long hours ago:

Let's start with the beginning of the article, which I attempted to make more neutral but my changes were, as usual, reverted. They provide only a brief reference at the very end to Luther's attitude toward the Jews, which is a good deal more significant than his impact on hymns. This should be moved up and expanded. I think that would add greatly to improve the tone and objectivity of the article.

I got nowhere fast with that. Thanks but no thanks. Let someone else spin wheels and go up against the brick wall of editors opposed to changes unfavorable to Luther.--Mantanmoreland 22:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting. Yesterday, you said it was fair to ask the question of what is hagigographic, and pointed to the sources for the "Luther and the Jews" section only. Today, you point to language in the heading on Luther and the Jews. My question, repeated over and over, is "do you have any issues with other sections." I tell you what, I'll layout my thoughts on that intro, and what I think should be done with it, but I really want you to do me the favor of highlighting any issues you may have outside of the discussion of 'Luther and the Jews".

Here's my view on the intro. The first paragraph has not been made the subject to controversy and should be left alone. The second paragraph seems out of place in many ways. Going into hymns and marriage before discussing the translation of the Bible and his other writings strikes me as out of place. I would place second in this article a short sentance on his translation of the Bible; another short sentance on his influence on the structure of the Church (missing now); a third on his influence on the liturgy, which would include a reference to hymns. I am not convinced is marriage merits inclusion in the lead, but it would probably belong in this paragraph if it is put anywhere. Then, I would add a paragraph focusing on the broad influence of his writings, including his writings relating to the Jews. I would add to the current discussion a sentance noting that there has been a significant debate among historians of the level of influence and the extent of his influence on the development of anti-Semitism (I think the debate itself is notable and is not mentioned in the intro). I think dealing with anti-Semiticism as an integral part of his writing and influence is more useful than having an isolated paragraph as an aside. I would then conclude with the discussion of the size of the Lutheran and Protestant chruches today - I think that is a natural end.

OK, now, that's my view. I am happy to support it in subsequent discussion. I don't think the current order shows POV or justifies the tag; I do, however, think it flows more naturally and is more comprehensive as I have proposed. M, I do ask that you do me the favor of identifying other issues you have, and not keeping them in your back pocket to be dealt with one at a time. Sam 23:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Good plan for the intro... --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

We've been through this issue of the reference to the Jews in the intro a thousand times. We report what all reputable published sources say on the topic. Not only Lutheran church sources. Not only encyclopedia articles about Luther. Not only articles written by pro-Luther scholars, or specialists on Luther. We represent what ALL reliable sources who have written about Luther say. Those sources include Holocaust scholars and they all write about his alleged influence. Every single book on my shelves about the Holocaust or the Nazis talks about Martin Luther. This is absolutely central to his legacy, like it or not, and it is therefore mentioned in the introduction.

Yes, there is a high burnout rate on these pages, as Mantan says, and it's because of this endless going over and over the same points in an attempt to wear people down. Please stop it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The question at hand was whether or not the POV sticker should apply to the whole article or just one section; I asked what other areas there were complaints in, and this was the only one highlighted, so I did my best to respond to M's complaint about it. Are you of the view that the current intro should stay and is not POV? I am just trying to respond to the issue raised; from what I've seen so far, I've been the one being worn down because I can never get the simple question answered of "do we have complaints outside the issues relating to "Luther and the Jews." Sam 03:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "wear people down." I omitted those three words. The only thing that is keeping me contributing to the page is the vandalism and harassment and nasty emails, not to mention the constant stream of personal attacks (usually dropped casually into appeals for editing help) designed to drive me away. Otherwise this page could go to blazes.--Mantanmoreland 23:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I got the nasty e-mails too, including a threatening one that tried to "out" me. It's an eye-opener. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I should say that I do like Sam's version of the first paragraphs as described. But I don't think that I have quite gotten across the fact that, as has been indicated time and time agaim, that chewing over changes here in advance on Luther pages is a path only to acid reflux. Changes unfavorarble to Luther are never acceptable, or will be agreed to in principle and then chipped away and pecked to death, with intemittent foot-stomping and "you're attacking my reputation" thrown in for the bargain. --Mantanmoreland 23:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have heard that; luckily I keep the Tums around. I'm glad you are positive about this proposal; I don't view the changes to it as "negative to Luther", indeed, I think they flesh out some important areas that aren't in the current lead. I would like to get two things: feedback in principal from some of the other editors, and some idea from you as to what other issues you'd have outside the issues relating to the "Luther and the Jews" section and the lead describing it. Sam 03:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

As Slim has said, we've been over this time and again. We had a reasonable and balanced version of this section that we all could live with a few weeks ago. I suggest again we return to and move on. --CTS Wyneken ^(talk) 23:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you happy to keep the current version with the POV sticker permanently attached? I'm doing my best to find an alternative that first limits that sticker and focuses the issues as narrowly as possible. Sam 03:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

A few weeks ago you weren't into year 28 of the Thirty Year Editing War over this article? All was just a happy fairy land? Please. Let's be serious.--Mantanmoreland 23:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

timeline

Timeline for Martin Luther 1483-1546

I'm not sure if this is useful or not. i was thinking for the white space beside the TOC but it could be too big for that. Possibly you can rework this template to make it fit. The page is at template:Timeline Martin Luther. David D. (Talk) 01:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a great idea, David! Is there a way to enlarge the type and shrink the size of the thing to fit alongside our TOC? --CTS Wyneken ^(talk) 01:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Certainly the type can be enlarged but then there is a problem of fitting it all in. The size can definetley be reduced. I am not sure of the content. i put in as much of the important stuff as I could glean from the web. Someone here needs to go in and edit the template to clean it up (get rid of useless info and correct/copyedit the info i did add. You probably need to find a template expert to fine tune this thing. I am not one, for sure. David D. (Talk) 01:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've made a first pass at reducing the size of the timeline. Will take another crack at it later. There is some duplication yet in the table and an item or two yet not there. (1520 Treatises, Marriage, perhaps Bondage of the Will Does anyone see anything you think is missing?

Also, David,when you tested in on the page, how was the width? --CTS Wyneken ^(talk) 10:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It was too wide. My main idea originally was to have historic events that related to Luther on the right. Events that involved luther on the left. Now their is less need for tha so it might be possible to put all the events on the left, thus making the timeline much less wide. David D. (Talk) 17:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's go for it. I'm not quite sure how that works. Could you adjust it? --CTS Wyneken ^(talk) 19:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

OK I adjusted it some more and added it to the page. Obviously we can still discuss changing elements and fine tune. However, before embarking on that, let's see if it is well received in the main article. If not then there is no point fine tuning the wording, content and colours etc. David D. (Talk) 20:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I like it! Yes, some fine tuning will be in order if we keep it, but I'd like to do just that. What do the rest of you all think? --CTS Wyneken ^(talk) 21:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It's great! Very good idea. Thank you, David. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

PNG version of the timeline. This gives us the opportunity to do a final touch up, or make additions that cannot be done using wiki mark-up

Just so you all know, we are not restricted to the limited format available using the wiki markup. Once we are close to a finished product we can touch it up a bit in photoshop, as i have done here with the current version. David D. (Talk) 23:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You continue to amaze, David. I like this version even better. I'll ponder the events list and see if I have some suggestions sometime tomorrow. --CTS Wyneken ^(talk) 00:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

David the timeline is wonderful. Very nice job on that. : ) --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Working on Intro

If it's OK with everyone, let's discuss Sam's suggestions. COpied from above, they are:

Here's my view on the intro. The first paragraph has not been made the subject to controversy and should be left alone. The second paragraph seems out of place in many ways. Going into hymns and marriage before discussing the translation of the Bible and his other writings strikes me as out of place. I would place second in this article a short sentance on his translation of the Bible; another short sentance on his influence on the structure of the Church (missing now); a third on his influence on the liturgy, which would include a reference to hymns. I am not convinced is marriage merits inclusion in the lead, but it would probably belong in this paragraph if it is put anywhere. Then, I would add a paragraph focusing on the broad influence of his writings, including his writings relating to the Jews. I would add to the current discussion a sentance noting that there has been a significant debate among historians of the level of influence and the extent of his influence on the development of anti-Semitism (I think the debate itself is notable and is not mentioned in the intro). I think dealing with anti-Semiticism as an integral part of his writing and influence is more useful than having an isolated paragraph as an aside. I would then conclude with the discussion of the size of the Lutheran and Protestant chruches today - I think that is a natural end. Sam

My thoughts:

Except for the last sentence, I agree that the first paragraph is OK. I do not think it captures what the doctrine is and needs some rewording, perhaps a quote from Luther or one his biographers. We can set it aside for now. I'll come back with a proposal later that we can talk about, unless someone else wants to take a crack at it. --CTS Wyneken ^(talk) 13:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The second paragraph certainly could move down. I like the suggestion for a new second paragraph. Would you give us a draft, Sam? --CTS Wyneken ^(talk) 13:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Luther's marriage is important, since it is credited (as you can see with the citation provided) Again, the language can be adjusted. To that end, let's check a few sources and report here what they say about the importance of this event. Then we can adjust it as seems best. --CTS Wyneken ^(talk) 13:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The Luther and Jews paragraph here certainly can be adjusted, as you have described, but I would prefer to leave it alone, given the controversy it is likely to stir. The trick with this and with describing his writing's influnece is that it can easily grow too large. For example, we have Luther's involvement in the peasant's war, his support of the formation of state churches, the concepts of the priesthood of all believers, the distinction between ecclesiatical and secular powers (ironic that), principles of biblical interpretation, the sacraments, etc. You can see how it all can get out of hand. --CTS Wyneken ^(talk) 13:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

As we work our way though, we need to keep in mind the criticism in the FA nom that we should use summary style, consider spinning of subarticles and so on. In this context, I think we should aim at the intro summarizing the article, the article summarizing the subarticles, where the detail and any debates can be conducted fully. --CTS Wyneken ^(talk) 13:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I have set up a sandbox with a draft in it for review, comment, and mark-up. I agree on the first paragraph, and would like to have a clearer and more thorough summary of the doctrine of sola fide (or a concise summary of views on Grace, but I do not believe that discussion has POV implications and its just a matter of writing our most compelling and accurate prose there. Here is the Sandbox:

Talk:Martin Luther Sandbox

A few notes: I've left the marriage in but in abbreviated form; I note the article itself emphasizes that his writings on marriage were "more cautious" than others', so I have continuing doubts about the importance of his marriage itself. I have noted in writing this that there is remarkably little in the article that specifically addresses the development of services in the vernacular, something I've always assumed to be a key legacy of Luther, and have expanded the second paragraph to cover a number of areas not previously included. I tried to compress the language wherever possible. I was tempted to put in a statement that the religious wars that began during Luther's life reshaped Europe and many European countries, but there is no discussion of this in the article. I did note that Luther didn't just influence subsequent Protestant thinkers, but also the Counterreformation; I think it is important to note that he had not inconsiderable influence on Catholicism as well as Protestantism. I am not wed to this addition; anyone who disagrees should feel free to delete it. Please, I hope all who are more knowledgable than I will fix up any misstatements or inaccuracies I may have introduced. This is just a proposed first draft.

I have rewritten somewhat in here the section we are referring to as "Luther and the Jews"; I found the reference to "full publicity" jargonish and replaced it with more straightforward language. Since I see this as the only section where POV is at issue, I view coming up with a resolution to it as the main reason for rewriting this. I have added a reference to the historical debate; I've been reading up on the debate and think it is an important subject in its own right. Sam 15:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is far better in terms of tone and more encyclopedic, and no longer absurdly deals with hymns quite so far high in the article. I think this is the right, nonpartisan summary style to use throughout the article. However, it does not deal with the anti-Semitism issue at all adequately or with proper emphasis. --Mantanmoreland 15:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Plese be specific. I believe the language is preferable to what was there before. In terms of emphasis, this is exactly what I'd proposed. Sam 16:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, much improved from the current intro. It addresses tone, flow, and gives due weight to pertinent topics. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 16:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, a significant improvement. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I see a few little problems with spelling and the like have been caught, but if anyone sees a way to further improve it, or wants to try out a somewhat different approach to address any issues, that's what the Sandbox is for. Please feel free to make changes to fix any shortcomings you see. (and I now note more substantive changes have been made - please check the differences to see how the proposal develops, and please let us know here what changes are being made). Sam 18:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Luther's anti-Catholic, anti-papal ravings

These too are not reflected in the article. Note the following:

Perhaps no one in history abhorred the Church and all she stands for more than Martin Luther. His diatribes against the papacy and the structure of the Church in general are well known. Popes, bishops, and cardinals are referred to as "Roman sodom." One of Luther's pamphlets is entitled "Against the Papacy Established by the Devil" (1545). He once blessed a group of followers, saying: "May the Lord fill you with His blessings and with hatred of the Pope." The Mass "stinks of oblation." Luther said of the Bull Exsurge Domine, which formally condemned forty-one of his propositions, the following: "As for me, the die is cast; I despise alike the favor and fury of Rome; I do not wish to be reconciled with her; or even to hold any communication with her. Let her condemn and burn my books; I, in turn, unless I can find no fire, will condemn and publicly burn the whole pontifical law, that swamp of heresies" (The Catholic Encyclopedia [1913], Vol. IX, art. "Luther").[14]

This omission needs to be rectified, and hopefully an editor with more knowledge of the Catholic view of this can step forward to assist. Unfortunately I have a deep engrained feeling of inferiority on Catholic subjects.--Mantanmoreland 15:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I've thought about this; I view myself as reasonably knowledgable about Catholic History, Catholic doctrine, and Catholicism. The article already notes that Luther referred to the Pope as the "Antichrist", and I'm not sure how much clearer you can be about his level of hostility. Considerable attention is given to disputes with the Catholic Church and the Pope; it is a defining theme of the article. I don't believe increased attention to the tone of the debate, however, would be either encylopedic or otherwise helpful, and it would certainly not be helpful if it just focuses on Luther. First of all, we'd need to discuss the tone of rhetoric on the other side, and we'd need to discuss the extent to which many of his criticisms were justified; the Pope is still issuing defensive statements about indulgences based on the sting of 500 year old criticism. You will find rhetoric that is just as strong from internal critics like Savonarola; a new book by Lauro Martines, Scourge and Fire: Savonarola and Renaissance Florence is a good read on these issues. (Though the Wikipedia article on Saonarola needs a rewrite and maybe a POV tag - excuse me for saying this, but it sounds like it was written by someone looking to make him into a Lutheran). Remember, too, that this is one of the strongest eras of the Inquisition, and, indeed, the Roman Inquisition was targetted at Luther's followers. For a good review of some of these issues by a well-balanced Catholic intellectual, I would suggest A Concise History of the Catholic Church by Thomas Bokenkotter, and I'm happy to add some limited discussion along these lines. However, I would strongly oppose anything more than a footnote quote or two, preferably balanced by similar treatment from the other side, and actually think the article did a pretty good job on these issues. Sam 16:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you take issue with what I've quoted? Is it inaccurate? I think this needs a mention and surely as more than a footnote quote or two. That said, I would like to hear other views on this. I don't want to be more Catholic than the Pope, if you'll pardon the expression.--Mantanmoreland 16:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I take issue with that first sentance in particular. With the Catholic Encyclopedia, you get the official version from Rome, which is in the uncomfortable position of having to defend one of the least glorius periods of Papal history in 2000 years. Luther certainly hated Leo X; does that mean he hated the whole Catholic Church, which he fought so hard to reform before he split? Sam 16:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

In his latter period he seems to have ratcheted up his views on the issue, much as he became a fiery Jew-hater.--Mantanmoreland 16:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could flesh out here what you'd like reflected: (1) That his tone was often harsh? Is that not currently reflected? Is it just the harshness you want reflected? (2) Or are you suggesting that he was "anti-Catholic" in the way he was "anti-Semitic"? Please explain this further if this is the case, and tell me how you think they are similar, and what made him "anti-Catholic". As always, specificity rather than broad-brush is appreciated. Sam 17:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Re-read my first comments on this topic. Simple enough.--Mantanmoreland 17:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not. Feel free to explain if you wish me to consider your point. Otherwise, I have addressed it. Sam 17:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Then, don't consider it. I've been as plain as can be. Something significant needs to be mentioned. I'm not going to repeat myself. As another editor correctly noted in a post responding to a similar one by you two days ago, "there is an endless going over and over of the same points in an effort to wear people down. Stop it." I suggest that you heed that recommendation. --Mantanmoreland 18:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to propose language to address your concern; as I have shown, I am happy to attempt to draft to address stated actionable concerns, or to express clear reasons why I disagree. Otherwise, fear not, I'm done with this topic until added clarity is forthcoming. Sam 18:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I tried to be clear, and I am not going to be drawn into repetitious discussion, which has plagued this talk page long before either of us arrived on Wiki. I find that when I "clarify" and then re-clarify and then re-re-re-clarify items on Luther-related talk pages, I am drawn into a maelstrom of useless, repetitive, frustration discussion. I'd like to get some fresh views on this subject, and have solicited same from people familiar with Catholic issues. These are total Wiki strangers and I haven't the foggiest idea if they will agree or disagree on this, in the small chance they decide to wade into this maelstrom. If no response in a reasonable period of time, I'll insert language to make up for this deficiency. --Mantanmoreland 18:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

In the interests of giving this a careful review for disagreements and potential POV issues in conflict with Roman Catholic teachings as I (an admittedly liberal layperson) understand them, I have started to look at different statements in the article, pulling some books from my shelf. I began with the discussion of indulgences.

I thought the discussion of indulgences was fairly good (the article gets the definintion of indulgences right, which I'd bet no more than half the secular historians do - it is drawn from the Catechism), with a few exceptions: the bit of poetry attributed to Tetzel "As soon as the gold in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs" seem to be regarded by many as a clever bit of satire put in his mouth, not words documented to be spoken by him; and there are some who argue that there was no actual "sale" of indulgences, merely of letters which were a precondition to the ultimate indulgence, which required as well an act of contrition. However, the Catholic sources I reviewed accept that there was widespread abuse of indulgences, by whatever name called. See both the Bokenkotter cited above and Schreck's Compact History of the Catholic Church (the two most read general histories of the Catholic Church). I have not found a "Catholic" discussion of the Elector's relics. If no one objects after a period, I will make the change to note the Tetzel poetry is satire and to add cites and a bit of clarity on indulgence abuse versus sale. I'll also cite the Catechism. I'll do this with other sections as I have a chance. (Also, I endorse personally the language Mantanmoreland added; it avoids the anti-Catholic statements and focuses on the diatriabes against the Pope, and uses the quote I thought was most historically relevant from the 1913 encyclopedia). Sam 01:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sam, and I just want to say that I regret if anything I've said in the Talk pages have inadvertently caused offensive to any of the editors here. Clearly I shoot off my mouth too much. Well, there will be an end to that! Henceforth I shall post only sparingly to the Talk pages and devote my energies to improving the articles.--Mantanmoreland 02:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. In the end, if we focus on producing a good article rather than winning an argument, I am convinced even the toughest issues will work themselves out. Eventually. Sam 02:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam, thanks for doing this spade work. As time permits, I'll do the same. One caution on the definition of indulgences. We need to watch for doctrinal development as we check such things. For example, I avoid the usual "five solas" description of Luther's theology, since only "sola fide" has been found in the mouth of Luther. He taught the doctrines involved, but he did not speak about them in that way. We need to check the Council of Trent for language from Luther's opponents.

I've not seen any source that challenges the Tetzel jingle, but several that quote it. To be honest, I've not looked into it, so I'm not sure what contemporary scholarship does with it. Do you have a source or two I can dig into? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 02:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Tell me if I get too technical or dontrinaire; it would undo the things that are good about this article. Last night, I carefully re-read Bokenkotter's chapter on Martin Luther, which I recommend to anyone interested in this article who wants a Roman Catholic perspective. It is remarkably on all fours with this article; issues, if any at all, will be nits, and any footnotes I add from that book will generally support current points and language. It may be a good place to look for guidance on more compelling prose in some places (for example, he is very good and more concise on the three seminal works of German Nobility, Babylonian Captivitiy, and Freedom of a Christian). I do not propose adding it, but he has a pretty colorful quote, which he sources to J. Todd, Martin Luther (Paulist Press, 1964), from communication by the Pope (likely written by another) to Luther, calling Luther a "leper and loathsome fellow ... a dog and the son of a bitch, born to bit and snap at the sky with his doggish mouth... having a brain of brass ... " (I do note that Bokenkotter, focusing on the history of the Roman Catholic Church, does not address Luther's attitudes towards Jews and Judaism; and, after all, he has enough trouble figuring out how to handle issues involving Rome's attitudes towards Jews and Judaism). Sam 14:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"Proper" distinction between Law and Gospel

I'll double check, but I think the word "proper" belongs to Luther. If so, I'd argue to put it back but rewrite in some way to show that it is Luther's view. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 02:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Just putting it in quotes would do the trick. I wasn't sure how important it was to the meaning, and am trying to be extremely sensitive to the charge that this article shows other biases, even if they are not being identified, as I review. Sam 14:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I've found reference to it and tried a little different way of putting it. This doctrine is very important in Luther's theology of grace. If you'd like, I could document further. The bottom line for Luther was he believed that Catholic, Reformed and Anabaptists claimed the law saves in some way, and that the Gospel was a new law. For Luther, confusing Law with Gospel led to works righteousness. Hence, it is central to his theology. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 17:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"Once the coin into the coffer clings..."

Dear Sam:

Both Kittelson (103-104) and Bainton (60) include this quotation, attributing it to Tetzel. They cite Walther Köhler, ed. Dokumente zum Ablassensstreit von 1517, 2nd. rev. ed. (Tübingen, 1934), 125, 127. as the source. I'll check further as time permits. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll find the book that made the point when I'm at home tonight; I saw other books that included cites like this, or to a paraphrase, so I'm not disputing that a number of scholars put the words in his mouth - but can we find the ultimate source, where the words come out of his mouth? The Catholic Encyclopedia, which, granted, is a 1913 partisan source, says the words are consistent with Tetzel's Frankfort Treatises; I look at it and think the rhyme in English is simply to good to be true (fyi, do either Kittelson or Bainton give us a Latin version of the couplet)? By the way, I think this is far too technical a point and far too widely used a quote to in any way constitue POV, it's just historical fly-specking. Sam 14:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Sam, but I am a librarian. 8-) I love this kind of thing. Do send me the cites and I'll go looking for it. I pull Grisar and see what he says. You'll be interested to know that the English varies between the two versions. The only thing in common is the "ings" and the end of both lines. I'll fetch the latin source. My Latin is passing, but I always have to have lexicon nearby to do much more than locate a quote.--CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

by the way, Grisar, a turn of the 20th Century catholic historian, says he sees no evidence that Tetzel used the jingle, but it would be in keeping with his misstatements of church ductrine on indulgences. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 00:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I have not had a chance to get back to this, but I will. I think indicating that the quote is "attributed to" Tetzel may be a way to be accurate, based on Grisar and the old Catholic Encylopedia, both sources a century closer to the event than we are, without losing the quote, which is undeniably viewed as very illustrative of the sentiments of the time by many historians. Sam 18:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll do it. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Title of section Luther and Antisemitism

There was an attempt last night to reopen discussion of the title of the section "Luther and the Jews", and I'm not sure where in the archive's the discussion is, but it's somewhere in there. The title has been bothering me, for two reasons: (1) generally, Wikistyle is to avoid repeating the name of the subject of an article in the subtitle; and (2) the discussion really seems to be focused not on broad relations between Luther and the Jewish community or Judaism, but on what Luther's attitudes towards Jewish people are. I'd propose renaming it something like "Attitudes toward Jews and Judaism" myself. Can someone provide the link to the archives? I sense I may be wading into a swamp where there is a long and difficult history, but since the issue was raised and since I've had trouble with the title myself, I thought I'd chime in. Sam 14:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The discussion is here in archive 4, here in archive 5. I'll keep looking for other places. The reason for the title being "Luther and the Jews" is that the subject is widely known by this title. Although your version of the title is fine, I would prefer to leave it as is to be consistent with the topic's description in the literature. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 15:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I object to the change of the section name proposed by Doright for these reasons:

The topic of the section is generally known in the literature by the title, "Luther and the Jews"

The section includes all of Luther's words and attitudes towards the Jews and not just those considered antisemitic.

Our main article goes under this title and the section should be a summary of it. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with these views. This was mulled over before. It should be left as it is.--Drboisclair 23:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Current title of section and article does not accurately reflects content, which is clearly and obvious about his anti-Semitism. Current title reflects minority POV re Luther and anti-Semitism. The history of this discussion indicates it was moved to the current title in error by user "Sam Spade." Easy enough decision -- change the title back to what it was. Slam dunk. Better late than never. --Mantanmoreland 11:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This may be, but the title should be broad enough: Luther and the Jews is the broader category, which would allow dealing with more issues. What about material in Luther's pro-Jewish work like "That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew" (1523)?--Drboisclair 16:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

All of these objections have already been previously made and addressed ad nauseam. --Doright 19:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the change. Please do not take unilateral action on a subject where emotions run high. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 19:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you're having difficulty with your emotions running high. However, the WP article content cannot be controlled by your emotions. Funny how actions you don't like are termed "unilateral," but your own actions are what? --Doright 20:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ with the editor here too. If one looks at the post in question one can see that CTS was speaking in a general way about emotions. He was saying nothing about his own emotions. I thought I would add that clarification.--Drboisclair 20:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I have to say that "Luther and the Jews" kinda has an unfortunate band name ring to it, and for some reason makes the song "B-B-B-Bennie and the Jets" start running repetitiously through my head.... Silliness aside, the section isn't really about Luther on the one hand and about "the Jews" on the other, so "Luther and the Jews" is a misnomer. The section is more precisely about Luther's ugly statements about Jews, which are arguably antisemitic. Maybe a compromise would be to call the section "Luther's writings against the Jews". --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

As MPerel says, this section really isn't about Luther and the Jews, but rather Luther's anti-Semitic statements and prescriptions. The title is inaccurate and misleading. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jayjg that "Luther and the Jews" is inaccurate and misleading. It's about Luther's anti-Semitic statements and prescriptions.

MPerel, I agree with you that Luther and the Jews is a misnomer. Also, it does play well to the tune BBB Bennie. lol, that's funny, seriously. However, we don't have many citations calling Luther's statements "ugly," but we do have many referring to him as an antisemite and his writings as antisemitic. That's what the section is all about plus the important role he has played in the propagation of antisemitism and its history. What do you think? Do you agree that the title "Luther and Antisemitism" is more accurate than "Luther and the Jews?" --Doright 23:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do think "Luther and Antisemitism" is more accurate than "Luther and the Jews", but I think "Luther's writings against the Jews" is also more accurate and less polemical and would be my first section title choice. I also think it's better to let quoted sources describe his antisemitism instead of having Wikipedia draw that conclusion for the reader. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

MPerel, I'm pleased that you agree "Luther and Antisemitism" is more accurate than "Luther and the Jews." I also agree that it is important to maintain a neutral tone and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions from the cited sources. However, I do not agree that "Luther and Antisemitism" is polemical. There is not a single source cited that denies Luther's writings express antisemitism, even though some editors have gone to great lengths in obscuring this simple fact. By antisemitism I mean [this.] If by "polemical" you mean argumentative, combative, contentious or disputatious, those descriptions certainly apply to how the title is received by certain editors. However, I don't think they should dictate that we violate NPOV. Is it not an NPOV violation to use a euphemism or whitewash what all but a fringe group accepts as true? Again, no one of any note denies Luther's [anti-Semitism]. If it is "polemical" to title this section "Luther and Antisemitism," then one might ask if it is "polemical" to categorize this article under the anti-Semitism category and then if such a category should exist. Is it polemical to call a spade a spade? Is anti-Semitism a taboo word that we dare not speak? And then one might also wonder if polemical is really what you meant or if I misunderstood you. Yet, I do not deny that there may be some advantages to your recommendation. I'm trusting you will accept my comments in the positive spirit of collegial inquire that I intend. --Doright 01:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, since you invoke MPerel, are you agreeing with MPerel that there should be a compromise name for the section? Or advocating the name proposed by Doright? Sam 22:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The section is -- or should be -- about more than just Luther's antisemitic comments later in his life. His earlier call for tolerance of the Jews also belongs here. Whether we like it or not, the title "Luther and the Jews" does both this and ties into the title used by many articles and books on the subject. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 00:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"Luther's Writings Against the Jews" strikes me as a good nonjudgmental compromise. That is the central focus of the section and of the separate article. Whether or not he said some things not hateful to Jews is beside the point. --Mantanmoreland 00:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, the reality is that Luther's views about Jews wouldn't have any notability at all if it weren't for his extreme negative writings against Jews. It's these negative writings that need to be given due weight, though the other stuff could be mentioned. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, whatever name it should be, "Luther and the Jews" isn't it, as many have pointed out. Also, please stop inserting peripheral material into the section in an attempt to sway the title name. Martin Luther's writings about the Jews are only notable because of their extreme vitriol; his other comments regarding them are unimportant. Furthermore, the attempts at whitewashing have again turned this section into nearly a full article; please recall that this is a summary of a complete article, and thus should be no more than 3 paragraphs or so. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Jay, would you support returning the article to its summary state of the last week or thereabouts in June?

I haven't looked into it in detail, but what I don't support is further whitewashing in the intro of Martin Luther and the Jews. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not whitewashing. If Wikipedia is to be NPOV, then the material is not whitewashing. There is a cart load of a lot of material that condemns Luther. We are told that this is the overwhelming consensus of scholars. Does that mean that other voices of scholars who have done the research are to be drowned out? That is POV.--Drboisclair 01:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate citation of Sherman in Luther and the Jews Section

I've checked the Sherman quote cited in this section. It is inaccurate. The first portion of the quote is from Carter Lindberg, whom Sherman himself is quoting. It also does not fully represent Lindberg's statement. Sherman summarizes Lindberg's view to include, among other things, that Luther's "anti-Judaism cannot be compared to modern antisemitism."

If someone else has the essay, please feel free to correct it. If not, I will fix it in a day or so. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 12:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Allegations and POV

The Sherman quote is perfectly accurate despite CTSWyneken's denial.

CTSWyneken claims: "The first portion of the quote is from Carter Lindberg," whom he claims "Sherman himself is quoting." However, Sherman does not use quotation marks. Yet, CTSWyneken claims Sherman is quoting Lindberg. Go figure.

CTSWyneken oddly claims: "It also does not fully represent Lindberg's statement." Yet, last time I check, we were citing Sherman, not Lindberg. Sherman does point out regarding the work that he does cite, "Tainted Greatness: Antisemitism and Cultural Heroes," "In fact, Luther (the only pre-twentieth-century figure to be included) is dealt with in the very first chapter . . . ." According to Sherman, the book "presents an expose of the covert or overt antisemitism of some of the most prominent intellectuals in modern culture." --Doright 19:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If there is POV on one side there is POV on the other side. The quotation needs to be quoted in context. If Carter Lindberg is being quoted by Sherman, then that needs to be pointed out. It is inaccurate to say the least to quote Sherman quoting Lindberg and stating simply that you are quoting Sherman. I think that it is important that quotations not be made to say what they do not.--Drboisclair 19:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not use inflamatory language. All I am pointing out is that the selection is inaccurate. Carter Lindberg's view is being quoted as if it were Sherman's. My point is that we are saying we are quoting Sherman when we are quoting Lindberg. Here is that paragraph from which it is taken (italics are from the text):

Lindberg is also somewhat sympathetic to another such denial by explanation: the contention that since Luther's antipathy towards the Jews was religious rather than racial in nature, his anti-Judaism cannot be compared to modern antisemitism. It woudl of course be an anachronism to apply the term "antisemitism" to Luther, since it was only invented in the nineteenth century. But neither can it be maintained that Luther's writings against the Jews are merely a set of cool, calm, collected theological judgments. His writings are full of rage, and indeed hatred, against an indentifiable human group, not just against that group that his action proposals are directed.

Here Sherman is summarizing Lindberg. What follows in our next quotation is Sherman's argument. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 19:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no interest in being drawn into yet another endless cycle of nonsense going nowhere. You have been rebutted. If you think it can be improved without pushing your POV beyond the limit, I suggest you make your changes on the talk page first. Then, after consensus is achieved, cut and paste it into the article. --Doright 20:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ with the editor. CTS has not been rebutted.--Drboisclair 20:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Siemon-Netto's status

The disparaging of Dr. Siemon-Netto is an action that is inconsistent with Wikipedia practice not to sit in judgment of sources. He has an earned doctorate. Please stop removing quotation from his work. To remove it slants the article.--Drboisclair 16:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Old territory (except for the alleged Wikipedia practice of not sitting in judgment of sources, which is a new one). See [15]--Mantanmoreland 16:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether or not one sees him as an historian. He is still a Ph.D., who has done his research in this field. This will never be resolved until Wikipedia principles are followed, i.e. not to sit in judgment of creditable sources. The only reason to oppose him is if one disagrees with him, which is to push a POV. I understand that one should evaluate sources, but if all checks out, it may be included. In this case it is necessary to balance the article in accordance with WP:NPOV.--Drboisclair 16:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Making use of the material

The quotations from Drs. Siemon-Netto and Brecht should remain, and editors should work with them to make the article NPOV. The Brecht quote is very critical of Luther. Brecht is acknowledged Luther scholar, who has cut the mustard.--Drboisclair 16:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The generality of Shirer's statement

With respect to the Shirer quotation that was just introduced: one can see that Mr. Shirer has not read Eisenmenger. To say that Luther's writings were "unequaled" ignores Eisenmenger. This comes from writing before one has all one's facts. Happily, Dr. Siemon-Netto has done the research as has Dr. Wallmann. Oh, and I forgot to mention that Mr. Shirer was a journalist, but he also was a top rate historian even though he did not have a degree in history.--Drboisclair 18:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Additional quote (more available) from Shirer added to make his statement more specific.--Mantanmoreland 18:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That is always helpful as quotations must never be taken out of context. They are still general, and some "Protestants" might demur to Luther being called the "founder of Protestantism." Is the journalist speaking or the historian?--Drboisclair 18:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That lengthy quote from Luther is interesting, but much too long and unencyclopedic. Why not trim it a bit? You can do that without falling into 3RR territory if you added it.--Mantanmoreland 20:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

True, but since we are expanding this section: it might do to leave it in extenso. --Drboisclair 20:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That's the problem. You see, then the opposing POV quotes will be lengthed, and there will be no end to it. A good quote, as I said, but it will convey the same meaning and if anything be stronger if edited down. What you have now is such a large block of text that it is self-defeating.--Mantanmoreland 20:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point.--Drboisclair 20:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

King James Bible

Removed from article per WP:Ver. Citation requested 1 week ago, none provided.

His translation significantly influenced the English King James Bible.^{[citation needed]}

--Doright 22:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Courtesy would dictate leaving the sentence in the article. I would appreciate it if the editor would stop vandalizing the article. As to the editor's accusations of violating WP:POINT they are groundless as are the editor's other charges. --Drboisclair 23:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the WP:POINT charge myself. What was the quote supposed to be demonstrating? This is why communicating via curt edit comments is much less useful than taking the time to spell out something on the talk pages. Sam 23:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam, Since you are keen on communication, what does WP:POINT have to do with King James Bible? --Doright 00:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Drboisclair, Courtesy and WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL and WP:FAITH would dictate that you stop claiming that editors are "vandalizing the article" when they make edit you don't like.--Doright 00:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I could request a simple, civil answer to my question? Sam 00:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I must have missed that one - feel free to point me to it. But, on your own edit summary, I'm curious what point you believe Dr.boisclair was making through the quote he added. As to edit summaries about "vandalizing", I put those in the same category as the other curt edit comments that seem to show up here all the time. Sam 00:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam, I'm having trouble keeping up with you. In your 00:28, 12 July comment you appear to be responding to your own prior comment and engaging yourself in dialog. You say, "I must have missed that one." I have no idea what you are referring to. Missed which one what? It's very confusing. So let's take it from the top and perhaps you can simply answer what all this has to do with Luther and the King James Bible? That would be a good start toward communication. I'm beginning to suspect the answer is: absolutely nothing. But, I'll keep an open mind to see if you can connect the dots for me. --Doright 04:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The only WPPOINT comment I saw was yours, in the edit summary relating to the deletion of a Martin Luther quote. That was the WPPOINT comment that drsboisclair was referring to, and the one that I am baffled by. I have no idea what WPPOINT comment has been made regarding the King James bible. I have not seen a WPPOINT comment made on the King James Bible, so I cannot answer your question. I asked why in your edit summary removing this quote you made this cryptic WPPOINT comment. Sam 10:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam, not answering the simplest of questions with a simple straightforward answer (e.g., what are you referring to when you said, "I must have missed that one," or what is the connection between your WP:Point question and the King James Bible), your disparaging request that a "civil answer to my question" be provided, the admonition regarding "curt edit comments" immediately following Drboisclair personal attack accusing me of vandalizing the article in concert with [this similar attack] against another user is reminiscent of the style demonstrated [here]. It strikes me that posting things like [this] without looking does not assume good faith and is part of the reason this entire page is simply painful to read . However, despite the mounting evidence to the contrary, I will continue to assume good faith, but not ignore bad behavior. That being said, the answer to your question that is obvious to other editors is stated [here] in the thread of the appropriately titled talk section. As absolutely none of this has anything whatsoever to do with the King James Bible, out of respect for other editors, I will not respond further to this off topic discussion in this section. If you require further information, I suggest you discuss it in the proper section. --Doright 17:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

For now, I do not mind the move of the KJV point here. In the flurry of activity here, I just haven't had the time to track down a cite for this one. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 00:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)