I am convinced that the original German pronunciation of his name is [ma:ɐtɪn lut(e)ɐ] as the English pronunciation has a [θ] sound, lacking in German. Can anyone give me advice on it aso I can assuredly add it on the page? RJL 15:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Several people here have indicated why they believe the sub-article on Luther and the Jews is/was too long. They change it. Along come some other Wikipedia editors and without any discusssion or participation in this discussion they lengthen it back again. I'm still waiting for anyone of these defenders of the length of the sub-article to offer a coherent and detailed explanation of why they think this too-long subsection should not be reduced and why two other lengthy articles that are clearly referenced in the text are not more than adequate for giving this issue plenty of coverage? It would appear there is a POV motivating this defense of what clearly is an indefensibly too long sub-article. The sub-article needs to be kept short and brief, not allowed to become an article within an article. Reasons for keeping it as long as it was need to be offered here. Others have rightly noted it is too long. My feeling is that we keep it short and continue to change it back to something shorter when others want to make it too long. Justas Jonas 23:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear, this thread was started by User:Justas Jonas. The voting thing that follows was started by User:Keesiewonder. Thanks!
May we try getting a feel for who is weighing in here in a list format? I'll be bold and organize the format. I really don't know for sure who is where because I have not been watching this talk page as long as most of you.
Support Long Version of Luther and the Jews/Anti-Semitism/Anti-Judaism in the Martin Luther article
Support Short Version of Luther and the Jews/Anti-Semitism/Anti-Judaism in the Martin Luther article
Procedural Comment/Question - I wish I'd said 'support A long' and 'support A short' version above since at least I had no particular version in mind, nor how long even a 'short' version would be. We can define what 'long' and 'short mean later.
-There is no mention of the references of anti-semitism in the bible and how thoughts of anti-semetism were common at the time.. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.215.235.187 (
talk •
contribs) 23:03,
February 5,
2007
(
Keesiewonder
talk
00:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC) added time/date for unsigned comment)
Suggestion - votes in the above unofficial poll from IP addresses, editors who per username have never made an edit on the ML article or talk, and editors with creation dates on or after January 6, 2007 may (will) not carry much influence.
Question - Can someone please just put the article and its talk page on semi-protected status indefinitely? Keesiewonder 10:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
As I've said above, my major concern with the article is its length. Currently, with the large Luther and the Jews section, the article is at 78 kb. The section itself is 12.8 kb currently. By comparison, the lead section is 4.5 kb, Early Life, 1.98 kb, Monastic Life, 1.8 KB, 95 Theses, 1.33 KB, Papal response, 3.16 kb, Widening Breach, 3.81 KB, Worms 5.38 KB, Luther exile, 4.42 KB, return from exile, 4.42 KB, Luther Bible 955 bytes, Peasants War 1.69 KB, Liturgy 5.11 KB (This one also needs summary style attention), Eucharist 4.09 KB (also needs summary style attention) Augsburg Confession 1013 bytes, Family life, 2.56 Bytes, Luther and Witches, 1.98 kb and final years, 6.33 KB.
The Abstract of the Summary style guideline says:
"When articles grow too long, longer sections should be spun off into their own articles and a several paragraph summary should be left in its place. Such sections are linked to the detailed article with a
or comparable template under the section title. To help preserve links to the edit history of the text being moved, it is essential that the edit summary for the creation of the new article that you write links back to the original article."
Wikipedia:Article size#Readability issues says:
Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose. Thus the 32 KB recommendation is considered to have stylistic value in many cases; if an article is significantly longer than that, then it probably should be summarized with detail moved to other articles (see Wikipedia:Summary style). For most long pages, division into sections is natural anyway; even if there is no "natural" way to split a long list or table, many editors believe that it should be done anyway, to allow section editing. Articles longer than 12 to 15 printed pages (more than 30 to 35 KB of readable text) take longer to read than the upper limit of the average adult's attention span — 20 minutes.
I'll continue this analysis later. Others, of course, are welcome to add. -- CTSWyneken (talk) 11:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
MSN Encarta. s.v. " Martin Luther" by George Forell. Article length: 12 kb. Space devoted to Luther and the Jews issue: 461 Bytes.-- CTSWyneken (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Britannica Online. s.v. " Luther, Martin." by E. Gordon Rupp. Article lengh: 61 kb. Space devoted to the Luther and the Jews issue: 3 words. -- CTSWyneken (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I think a fundamental problem with this whole dispute is that the dispute between versions of the anti-semitism section, which is somewhat based on length, is more a dispute over the content in the versions. But I don't think much attention seems to of been given of writing the section in a way that uses as few words as possible without losing any of the content. For instance, in the first paragraph, you have a long line of direct quotes when a summary of what Luther said would do, especially because its, you know, supposed to be in summary style, and you'd think most of the content of the treatise would be in the actual article concerning the treatise. For example, instead of the long list of quotes that are there now, it could read:
No content has really been removed in the creation of this paragraph based on the first one, yet it has 54 fewer words, and it looks like several of the other paragraphs in the section look like they could be worded in a much shorter way without removing any content at all. I think that if everything in this section was condensed by simple wording changes and simplifications first rather than removing or adding content, then at the end of the day, much less content would have to be removed, if any at all. While I admit the above version of the first paragraph loses the distinct flavor of Luther's particular wording, by describing what he wrote more succinctly, a reader gets the picture much faster, and if the whole section was condensed by wording and meaning alone rather than content, then it would be much closer to summary style in the end. Homestarmy 19:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Here's some more of it:
That saves about 47 words, but this one was harder, particularily because Luther's beliefs aren't explicitly inline cited here and i'm not about to summarize something too heavily that may have no business being summarized at all. Homestarmy 00:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Why has the Diet of Worms and Excommunication section been cut? I know there's another article about it, but we did have a good little section on it here, in my opinion. qp10qp 21:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Luther was born as Luder, just as his father and mother. He changed it to Luther, because the meaning of the word "Luder" in the german language is quite negative, it's still used today to refer to somebody who is hormic and raw in his nature. See the german article or profound scholastic literature about him. < info re: unsigned comment retrieved by Keesiewonder 10:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)>
A single sentence or a footnote regarding this point is the most I'd be interested in seeing on this. If you have a favorite resource for this material, maybe we can simply add a footnote number to the main body in the 'best' spot, and have a short footnote and book or journal reference for more info. Just a thought. Thanks for the topic. Believe me, I completely empathize with the tribulations of having a German surname that rarely anyone seems to understand or get right ... (Who am I addressing by the way? Is that an unsigned comment I see above?) Keesiewonder 10:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Whoa ... it's going a little too fast for me right now, Justas Jonas. But, I'll just watch and try to talk since I'm too tired to be really constructive right now. I've been watching your edit summaries. One that I see is this ("further trimming to avoid giving impression that "minority viewpoint" is equal to majority viewpoint"). Please articulate just what you find the "majority" viewpoint to be so I can better follow your thoughts. Thanks! Keesiewonder 01:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
The present version makes it look as if the significance of the Theses was that he complained about indulgences. But this was nothing new: many reformers had complained about indulgences before, including Luther himself. What was new was that he challenged the authority of the pope to make decisions about salvation. To show the importance of the Theses in the development of Luther's position, we need to connect them to the theory that acts of piety and penance (in which Luther would go on to include pilgrimage, monasticism, celibacy etc.) are irrelevant to faith because God alone decides on your faith and salvation. From that seed everything else grew, in my opinion.
If a cut-down version of this section is required, I'd suggest the following, which keeps essential details (Tetzel's name is almost as intrinsic a part of the tradition as the door posting) and theological points:
On 31 October 1517, Luther wrote to Albert, Archbishop of Mainz and Magdeburg, protesting the sale of indulgences in his episcopal territories and inviting him to a disputation on the matter. He enclosed the 95 Theses, a copy of which, according to tradition, he posted the same day on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg.
Luther objected to a saying attributed to Johann Tetzel, a papal commissioner for indulgences: "As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs"; [1] and he insisted that since pardons were God's alone to grant, those who claimed indulgences absolved buyers from all punishments and granted them salvation were in error. [2] Christians, he said, must not slacken in following Christ on account of such false assurances. [3] In challenging the pope's authority in this way, Luther took, perhaps unintentionally, a step towards the break with Rome.
The 95 Theses were quickly translated into German, printed, and widely copied, making the controversy one of the first in history to be fanned by the printing press. [4] Within two weeks, the theses had spread throughout Germany; within two months throughout Europe. In contrast, the response of the papacy was painstakingly slow.
I now see more sections chopped at in a similar way. The result is less coherence, in my opinion. For example, since we start "Return to Wittenberg" with "Around Christmas 1521 Anabaptists from Zwickau added to the anarchy", the reader now might ask "what anarchy?" Luther's stay at the Wartburg is important for the development of his thought in the context of the radical reforms that convulsed Wittenberg while he was away. Transitional information is needed.
Similarly, a section has been cut from "Response of the Papacy" which traced the incremental enlargement of Luther's doctrinal revolt in reaction to a series of attempts to rein him in. It showed how the more he was pushed, the greater became his defiance, and the more extreme his theological opposition to the papacy. By cutting this material out en bloc, we end up with a jumpy story that no longer addresses how one thing led to another.
This article does need to be reduced, but it should be done through the subtle process of editing rather than the blunt one of taking a meat cleaver to it, in my opinion.
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." Albert Einstein.
qp10qp 02:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I see some merit in Justas's approach, if applied uniformly and fairly. He does have a point about summary style and this article being about the weather (everybody talking and not doing) and also about the POVs. However, this is not an endorsement of all his cuts by any means. I would like to see more imput from other editors from both sides, fer instance, on the always contentious Jewish stuff.-- Mantanmoreland 22:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I guess I wasn't needed after all then, nobodies challenged it. Homestarmy 22:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think/feel this is true, Homestarmy. Some of us want to discuss, reach a bit of compromise and consensus and then change the article. Others want to come from out of the blue (new user, strong POV) and just edit the article. The latter is not my style unless it is something that is unlikely to cause discontent. Unfortunately I'm too busy in real life this week to spend much time in the article. Keesiewonder 11:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Relying on quotes and not writing our own material could be considered the easy way out. i.e. we aren't able to write in our own words, so we quote someone else. Any academic writing class I've taken has emphasized this and provided guidelines for the the appropriate amount of material that should/could be quoted. Keesiewonder 23:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Justas Jonas, I would appreciate you answering, directly and publicly, my question. You've wanted this from others on this talk page. But, you don't really answer other people's questions. I'm looking for a content answer. I don't need to hear about the existence of sub-articles and I don't need to hear about the length of the current article and I don't need to hear about how many times "we" have talked about this before. (My WP usage is senior to yours, according to the Justas Jonas username usage trail. So, WE have not talked about this before.) What majority viewpoint? Viewpoint on what topic/aspect/theory/thought? Are you sure you're speaking for the majority? Thanks for the forthcoming clarification. Keesiewonder 11:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
One [edit of yours] that I see is this ("further trimming to avoid giving impression that "minority viewpoint" is equal to majority viewpoint"). Please articulate just what you find the "majority" viewpoint to be so I can better follow your thoughts.
Keesiewonder 11:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Please elaborate. Talk is a good place to do that. As I read what you are calling majority does not necessarily reflect majority. If you don't talk here, I am more inclined to revert your edits. I'd rather not do that, but if you don't help me understand your point, which I currently disagree with or don't understand, you don't leave me many options. If you have specific points in the edit history you want me to see, you could be helpful and direct me to them with links. i.e. "07:00, January 11, 2007 Justas Jonas (Talk | contribs) (Try reading the edit history more carefully) is not really useful - please write here what you are talking about. I do and have read the edit histories; thus my question to you, which, remains unanswered. Keesiewonder 12:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Nice example of collaboration: [2]
Would you like to try again? Keesiewonder 12:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
It has been said that Luther contributed to the rise of nationalism in Europe. Could this be mentioned in the article? Steve Dufour 18:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The way it's written, citation 9 in the article should be citing a scholar who calls ML's writing anti-semitic ... rather than citing ML's article itself.
Luther is also known for his writings about the Jews, the nature and consequences of which are the subject of much debate among scholars; in fact, many scholars characterize these writings as anti-Semitic[9] or anti-Judaic.[10]
Keesiewonder 01:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
No discussion on this? We need a non-self-referential source, i.e. Luther himself is an not adequate citation for 'many scholars characterize these writings as anti-Semitic.' I'm inclined to move the above # 9 to a {{fact}} ... Keesiewonder 22:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok; I think I've figured it (or at least something) out. I will store a previously used multiple reference here for safe keeping and then cite one to three sources in the # 9 spot mentioned above that was my original concern. The one I'm copying here for safe keeping seems to now be one that is not used, at least in the multiple format.
Keesiewonder 11:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Where in the EB article on Anti-Semitism (currently citation 11) do I see that it is written by Michael Berenbaum? I know it is APA and not CMS style, but if we were citing APA, EB itself suggests this for a citation which does not include a reference to Berenbaum. Just a thought.
Keesiewonder 01:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Nope, that's fine; I see it now on the bottom of page 6 in the online version. Thanks. Keesiewonder 02:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
How about a caption for the opening image indicating the date and painter of the representation, similar to what they do at the German page [4]? Stating birth and death dates and locations is redundant with the text. Keesiewonder 01:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I've updated the caption and entered a test of some additional information making use of standard biography infobox fields. (To see the changes, you may need to view previous versions since one user does not want it visible.) Keesiewonder 12:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Please stop being disruptive and trying to own the article. Several other Feature Articles include a content rich info box: Pope Pius XII, Charles Darwin, Mahatma Gandhi, Hurricane Katrina. We can use the infobox technique in the ML article too. You remove great portions of the article, and expect it to stay that way; someone else enhances a part of the article you hadn't touched yet, and you call it clutter, spam. There may be some users who are not you who would appreciate an infobox where at a glance they could click over to the link for ML's spouse, for instance, if that is who they really came to WP for. There is no good reason to not leave the longer infobox in for a few days so that other editors, besides you, have a chance to view it and, if need be, fix any formatting issues. Please read the policies on WP about how to work with others and how to be civil. If you need a page that looks only, always, exactly the way you want it, make it a sub-page to your user page. Keesiewonder 13:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The larger box displays fine in Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.1 for Windows. If you have trouble with another browser, reveal what it is - or fix it yourself without deleting other people's work. If you have display problems in Mozilla Firefox, then you need to adjust your computer settings. Keesiewonder 13:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I just tested IE 6 which also displays fine. Glad to hear someone else likes the alternate box. Keesiewonder 21:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Mantanmoreland, Try looking at an older version from the edit history such as [5] for what I tried to propose as an alternate infobox. All revert wars have involved the same illustration; the issue is apparently the size of it, who last edited its contents, and whether we use the bare minimum of the infobox or use it to its fuller potential. Keesiewonder 17:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
The current is what I proposed. Thanks for looking. Keesiewonder 02:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The last time this article was reviewed for FA, one item of feedback was to consider using an infobox. An excerpt from that process is
* There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.
Done --CTSWyneken 02:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
There is no good reason and no voice other than from one user, Justas Jonas, to not use the infobox that includes more information. If anyone doubts my perspective, review the other articles at FA status to see what they maintain in their article for an opening imagebox. I provided a sample list above.
I would welcome discussion on this from editors who have not yet weighed in. Keesiewonder 11:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I made some changes, which were quickly reverted, to this sentence in the opening:
I agree with the reverter 100% (I could not agree more with him or her!) that everything in this sentence is true!!! However because it is the second sentence I would prefer it to say:
The facts mentioned in the original sentence are all covered in the article. The doctrines and culture of the Lutheran and Protestant traditions are a part of Western civilization so if they are not mentioned just yet nothing is lost. I also have a feeling that words like "teachings", "doctrines", and "traditions" (while perfectly fine words!) tend to sound a little like religious jargon to a non church-going person. I would like people who don't know much about Luther and maybe who are not Lutherans, Protestants, or even Christians to want to read this article. In my opinion a shorter, punchier sentence would be more likely to inspire them to keep reading.
Thanks for your indulgence to my, perhaps a bit eccentric, opinions. Steve Dufour 05:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Justus Jonas, please stop making massive changes without discussion. Most of this detail belongs in a general article on Luther. Deleting it is such a way lessens the quality of the article and puts at risk the attempt to raise it to FA standards. I have chosen not to consider it blanking. -- CTSWyneken (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, only Justus Jonas opposes using the current portrait in info box. As far as I can tell, his argument is about size. The info box is one of the more common graphics in wikipedia. I favor keeping it. Does anyone else oppose it? -- CTSWyneken (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, we are back to the old, Justas Jonas style info box without any discussion. I wonder if this was an editing oversight by SlimVirgin since she did not participate in our discussion about this at all. From her edit summary, it appears she was focused on text and not on the imagebox. Other than JJ, every other editor seems to like the infobox I proposed. Slim, what is your take on this? Keesiewonder talk 01:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
We are now safely tucked away within the acceptable size range of an article according to FA standards -- between 30kb and 50kb. The next task, I think, is to ask if any subjects are missing. We can afford several more subjects, especially if we go to more summary style throughout the article. Once we've covered all the important subjects, we can work on writing style and smaller items. I'm getting the impression we're close to FA standard. -- CTSWyneken (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
If the text is reasonably stable, I can go through the article and untangle the mess. This is the result of folks getting too clever and using <ref name=""> It really gums things up when you move, alter or delete lots of text -- like we have been doing. It appears that the ol' fashioned sequential notes are not all that bad after all! I'm loathe to do that, however, if much work is left here.
Right now, I'm concerned to be sure we've fully covered Luther's life and work. If we have, then we can make a language and style pass through the aricle, fixing notes, etc. Maybe a pass through the old peer review and FA nom files would help? -- CTSWyneken (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Sam! Some very good thoughts. It would be good to go with much of what you suggest. How do the FA voters typically feel about file size? The problem with providing fuller context would be that we would likely go over the 50 kb size somewhat, perhaps by a great deal. -- CTSWyneken (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Two references here have lost their text - #35 and #46 currently. Also, given the two articles on list of books linked from this article, some here may be interested in this AfD discussion, where a number of editors consider a bibliography list not "encyclopedic". See also archive9. Gimmetrow 17:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Notes #34 and #45 are still missing. Gimmetrow 01:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
So true; we can hold CTSW to his promise, somewhere, I think, that once the article is stable, he will retrieve the currently null citations. Unless one of the others of us accomplishes this task before he gets to it. I think if we look in much older versions present in the edit history, we should be able to extract the needed info even if we don't have the book on our own desk. I took care of some graphics sizing issues this morning, so many of the sub-sections should sit better now. We'll get to FA yet! Don't you think? Keesiewonder talk 02:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that the Martin Luther Timeline graphic (found in the articles for "Martin Luther" and "Martin Luther and the Jews") incorrectly shows Martin Luther's "On the Jews and Their Lies" as "On the Jews". Is there a reason for this? Repentance 21:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, CTSW! It is helpful for those among us who are not clergy or holding graduate degrees in theology, yet who still enjoy working with this material. I don't have strong feelings about the timeline other than it should remain near the beginning of the article, and that I like it occupying the empty zone next to the TOC. Considering who our target audience is, it may make things clearer and cleaner if we polish our graphic a bit, as may have been implied by this thread's opening. Keesiewonder 01:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The "real" appears to include that you (JJ) revise my words to try to make your point. I said "basic question." You've altered that to "innocent question." I have read all of Repentance's posts, before today (and including today's) ... and yes, I know s/he and I probably don't agree on everything. But, the question at hand does not necessarily mean realms of POV. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. I still found it to be a question worth consideration. Even if Repentance and I have a difference of opinion on things, it is possible that for different reasons, we both may appreciate a graphic that includes "On the Jews and Their Lies" as an alternative to "On the Jews." Keesiewonder 01:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the admin boards, I followed the procedures as outlined. If you, JJ, do not agree with the process in place, i.e. there is no requirement for the user with the request to directly inform the user in question, please raise your issue with those that discuss and adjust the policy. If I have inappropriately accessed the admin boards, I will listen to feedback from them. Keesiewonder 03:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the replies. Repentance 16:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
My teacher tells me that on his deathbed, Martin Luther turned back to Catholicism. From what I have read in several biographies, this is untrue. Has anyone else heard of Luther turning back to Catholicism? Gotmesomepants 18:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
What's up with this? Change is not better. Thanks for trying though, but it's better the way it was. We did discuss this, and everyone but one user expressed liking Homestarmy's edits. Keesiewonder talk 01:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
No problem, Slim. Thanks for the clarification. I will re-incorporate the infobox we all have agreed on.
It is clear from your edits that the paragraph rewrite
here was not
your focus. So, again, everyone participating (except one user) agrees with new text for
this section.
Keesiewonder
talk
10:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I restored the following missing refs. I dislike the 'ref name =' style for many reasons, but might I suggest that when it is used, the full form be used each time, rather than the abbreviated form. The reason is that if the master ref is cut, the abbreviated versions are left empty, whereas if all the tags are full, there's no problem—and what's more, editors can easily see which book is being quoted without having to scan for the master reference further up the page. (By the way, filled references don't need to be lengthy, provided the book is fully listed in the bibliography—for example, the first one below could be:<ref name = "Hillerbrand463">Hillerbrand, 2:463.</ref>)
<ref name = "Hillerbrand463"><cite>Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation</cite>, ed. Hans J. Hillerbrand, s.v. "Luther, Martin," (by Martin Brecht, tr. Wolfgang Katenz) New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 2:463.</ref>
<ref name = "Herzog74"><cite>Schaff-Herzog</cite>, [http://www.ccel.org/php/disp.php?authorID=schaff&bookID=encyc07&page=74&view= "Luther, Martin"], 74.</ref>
For my sins, I often have to check other people's references, and then I find the 'ref name =' format a pain in the neck. It makes it impossible to combine references, leading to more tags; it is unhelpful, as the note tag simply takes the reader down to a series of letters which don't necessarily pinpoint the reference; the letters may confuse you as to which one to click to return to your place in the text; the abbreviated tags are a menace after cuts; and their mono-form is confusing amidst massed citation templates.
Oh, but don't get me started on citation templates! Trying to edit round those blighters is like negotiating a London bus jam on a push bike. Is it so difficult to write out 'author, book, publisher, date, ISBN, page no' by hand? OK, rant over; time for breakfast. qp10qp 09:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I was looking for the reference that substatiates Response of the papacy
Cardinal Albert of Hohenzollern, Archbishop of Mainz and Magdeburg, with the consent of Pope Leo X, was using part of the indulgence income to pay his bribery debts,[26]
ref 26 has nothing to do with the claim that Pope Leo X knew of the Archbishops sale of indulgences. something I have heard disptued by some theologians. the ref only goes to a definition of indulgences. Someone should find a proper refrence. or remove the statement as unsubstatiated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.49.40.232 ( talk) 20:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC).
Someone added a philosophy tag to this talk page; we mention that L was nick-named "the philosopher" by the time he entered university. We don't really discuss Luther's philosophy, or do we? philosophy ?= theology ... (not always, IMO) Thanks ... Keesiewonder talk 00:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed this from the beginning of the Justification by Faith section
I also just fixed a situation very much like this in another article.
Per WP:CITE, my understanding is we should convert this over to something more readable/useful. Thoughts? Keesiewonder talk 09:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, this is a section with no point. This has no real bearing on a consideration of Luther's life, and that makes it trivia per W guidelines on trivia. If anyone can incorporate this into another section in a legit way it should be; otherwise it should be deleted. Darentig 21:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Note: This discussion is concluded in #Witchcraft section. -- Kevinkor2 21:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
someone sabotaged the article... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Catherine the Great does not deserve her title ( talk • contribs) 03:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
Why is the section titled the diet of worms and not the edict of worms? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aceofspades1217 ( talk • contribs) 14:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
This article has been added to that category. I don't know of a St. (Martin) Luther (1483-1546) ... Keesiewonder talk 22:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
NumberedMan's comment makes it clear that the addition of this article to the "saint" category was meant as a political/polemical statement related to the Luther's anti-semitic writings rather than as a statement of fact appropriate for this encyclopedia. I will remove that category. -- Apostlemep12 00:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
May we discuss the addition of a suitable graphic for the Luther and anti-Semitism section? The article currently has 17 graphics:
Noticably absent is a graphic for the Luther and anti-Semitism section. I propose the addition of
Any comments or suggestions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GraphicPatrol ( talk • contribs) 22:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
Jayjg, consider the following sentence: "There is little doubt among historians that Luther's rhetoric may have contributed …" I suggest to you that it is meaningless and nonsensical to say that there is little doubt that something may have happened. The sentence needs to be fixed. Apparently you consider it inaccurate to say that "a number of historians" set forth the assertion. What exactly is offensive about that particular phrasing?
You have no citation on the page indicating which is the majority and which is the minority position (nor will you find any). You simply make the claim blindly. Furthermore, I would like to point out that the so-called minority position is held by so many independent sources that they could not all be placed in individual footnotes but were grouped together in a single footnote. The self-titled majority position has all of its sources (two of which are identical—Berger p. 28, and Berger p. 28) in individual footnotes in order to make it appear as though it is heavily supported. If you wish to call your position the majority position, I suggest that you find a greater number of sources than the wimpy minority position. Your current deficit is seven sources.
Regarding your removal of the supposed "original research," I have consequently removed the remaining section portions that quoted Luther directly. (Actually, I have never seen a Wikipedia policy stating that the subject of the biography should never be quoted. Who could be more qualified to tell us about Luther than Luther himself? Nevertheless, I will play by your rules for now.)— Emote Talk Page 04:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Sam, thanks for adding your comments here. I appreciate your thoughtful response. I agree that the majority and minority positions cannot be determined based on the number of sources cited. I wouldn't normally suggest such a criterion, but other editors had reverted my edits twice on the basis that I had compromised the majority position. Because the assertion of a majority position was not supported by any references, I resorted to the quantity of sources as a mild indicator of what the majority position might be. Just for the sake of clarification, I would like to say that I was not the author of the original research paragraph. It was submitted anonymously, and I, not realizing that it was original research, made several edits to it and attempted to incorporate it into the article. My apologies to Jayjg and anyone else who may have taken offence at my unduly brusque comments above. My edits had already been reverted once prior to that, and I perceived the lack of explanation on the talk page after the secondary revert as simply throwing away good-faith edits as though they were trash. I also misunderstood the point about original research. I mistook it as an excuse to delete content based on personal disagreement with it. That indeed was a breach of good-faith assumption on my part. Again, I apologize for the disruption.— Emote Talk Page 04:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed the following addition and restored the original text:
My reasons are as follows:
There is no shortage of discussion or citations that note Luther’s significance to the category of antisemitism. Therefore, I trust adding this article to Cat:Antisemitism will not be controversial. Doright 04:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Is Luther's suggestion that Jews be treated well so that they become Christians really "positive"? or is it just a cynical attempt to win them over or save them from damnation. More favorable than his later remarks to be sure but still seeing a need that they give up their religion.
I see how a section on Luther and witchcraft has been added, removed, and reinserted. The argument seems to be about whether the content is "extraneous" to the article. For what little it might be worth to the rest of you, I personally think that, at best, the bulk of this content should be spun off into a separate article. Witchcraft is not a particularly significant subject in the life of Luther, and the inclusion of this data would seem to give it more attention than it might be seen as deserving. John Carter 18:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
[outdent] I have implemented John Carter's suggestion. The witchcraft section is now part of Christian views on witchcraft. Because the first sentence says, "Martin Luther shared some of the views about witchcraft that were common in his time", his documented views on witchcraft are relevant to historical Christian views on witchcraft, which is well within the scope of that article. -- Kevinkor2
Was he the first Christian to stand up against the Catholics? -- Arigato1 23:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
From at least two prep schools. Time to semiprotect?-- Mantanmoreland 18:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
A new wikiproject has been formed, focusing on articles relating to Lutheranism. Come by and check it out, and sign up to help improve articles about Lutheranism on Wikipedia. WikiProject Lutheranism. -- Pastordavid 20:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
We should not have so many categories that it is hard to find ones that are truly useful. I have trimmed out tangental ones. -- CTSWyneken (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
This phrase is totally unnecessary and uses the word "sects," which is considered a pejoritive in Lutheran theological circles. It is thus both redundant and POV. I have removed it. -- CTSWyneken (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe that Martin Luther never heard of Jan Hus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.78.91 ( talk)
The article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.78.91 ( talk • contribs)
Yes, that is the point. There is nothing about Hus, absolutely nothing! Even though the Czech lands had been out of control of Rome for 100 years, that many crusades had been organized, even though Hus had objected to indulgences, and the Hussites and Utraquists introduced receiving both the consecrated bread and wine, even though Hus translated the Bible to Czech long time before Luther translated it to German, even though the borders of Bohemia are not too far from Wittenberg, there is nothing. All we are told is that Luther came to the conclusion that salvation is a gift of God's grace. The article does a poor job putting Luther in the historical context.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.78.91 ( talk • contribs)
Also, please take a moment to register as a user (it's free) and sign your talk page comments. It helps to know something about editors when we're working with him or her. -- CTSWyneken (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The article about Hus is not about Wycliffe, yet Wycliffe is mentioned 13-times.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.78.91 ( talk • contribs)
This is absurd! The following had happened in the Czech lands in the 100 years before Luther:
1) Repudiation of the indulgences
2) Emancipation from Rome (won on the battlefield)
3) Receiving both the consecrated bread and wine
4) Translation of the Bible in the native tongue
Luther never heard of any of these?—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.83.78.91 (
talk •
contribs)
>> Hus was a key contributor to the Protestant movement whose teachings had a strong influence on the states of Europe and on Martin Luther himself. The Hussite Wars resulted in the Basel Compacts which allowed for a reformed church in the Kingdom of Bohemia - almost a century before such developments would take place in the Lutheran Reformation. << This is from the entry "Hus" in this very same encyclopedia. Please look at the four point above. Are you saying that a) you are not aware of them b) Luther never heard of any of those c) Luther did hear that but he completely filtered it out and reinvented the entire wheel by himself Excuse me for being sarcastic but that is the appropriate format here. Without Hus there would be no Luther, no Protestantism, and no America as we know it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.78.91 ( talk • contribs)
I am convinced that the original German pronunciation of his name is [ma:ɐtɪn lut(e)ɐ] as the English pronunciation has a [θ] sound, lacking in German. Can anyone give me advice on it aso I can assuredly add it on the page? RJL 15:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Several people here have indicated why they believe the sub-article on Luther and the Jews is/was too long. They change it. Along come some other Wikipedia editors and without any discusssion or participation in this discussion they lengthen it back again. I'm still waiting for anyone of these defenders of the length of the sub-article to offer a coherent and detailed explanation of why they think this too-long subsection should not be reduced and why two other lengthy articles that are clearly referenced in the text are not more than adequate for giving this issue plenty of coverage? It would appear there is a POV motivating this defense of what clearly is an indefensibly too long sub-article. The sub-article needs to be kept short and brief, not allowed to become an article within an article. Reasons for keeping it as long as it was need to be offered here. Others have rightly noted it is too long. My feeling is that we keep it short and continue to change it back to something shorter when others want to make it too long. Justas Jonas 23:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear, this thread was started by User:Justas Jonas. The voting thing that follows was started by User:Keesiewonder. Thanks!
May we try getting a feel for who is weighing in here in a list format? I'll be bold and organize the format. I really don't know for sure who is where because I have not been watching this talk page as long as most of you.
Support Long Version of Luther and the Jews/Anti-Semitism/Anti-Judaism in the Martin Luther article
Support Short Version of Luther and the Jews/Anti-Semitism/Anti-Judaism in the Martin Luther article
Procedural Comment/Question - I wish I'd said 'support A long' and 'support A short' version above since at least I had no particular version in mind, nor how long even a 'short' version would be. We can define what 'long' and 'short mean later.
-There is no mention of the references of anti-semitism in the bible and how thoughts of anti-semetism were common at the time.. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.215.235.187 (
talk •
contribs) 23:03,
February 5,
2007
(
Keesiewonder
talk
00:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC) added time/date for unsigned comment)
Suggestion - votes in the above unofficial poll from IP addresses, editors who per username have never made an edit on the ML article or talk, and editors with creation dates on or after January 6, 2007 may (will) not carry much influence.
Question - Can someone please just put the article and its talk page on semi-protected status indefinitely? Keesiewonder 10:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
As I've said above, my major concern with the article is its length. Currently, with the large Luther and the Jews section, the article is at 78 kb. The section itself is 12.8 kb currently. By comparison, the lead section is 4.5 kb, Early Life, 1.98 kb, Monastic Life, 1.8 KB, 95 Theses, 1.33 KB, Papal response, 3.16 kb, Widening Breach, 3.81 KB, Worms 5.38 KB, Luther exile, 4.42 KB, return from exile, 4.42 KB, Luther Bible 955 bytes, Peasants War 1.69 KB, Liturgy 5.11 KB (This one also needs summary style attention), Eucharist 4.09 KB (also needs summary style attention) Augsburg Confession 1013 bytes, Family life, 2.56 Bytes, Luther and Witches, 1.98 kb and final years, 6.33 KB.
The Abstract of the Summary style guideline says:
"When articles grow too long, longer sections should be spun off into their own articles and a several paragraph summary should be left in its place. Such sections are linked to the detailed article with a
or comparable template under the section title. To help preserve links to the edit history of the text being moved, it is essential that the edit summary for the creation of the new article that you write links back to the original article."
Wikipedia:Article size#Readability issues says:
Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose. Thus the 32 KB recommendation is considered to have stylistic value in many cases; if an article is significantly longer than that, then it probably should be summarized with detail moved to other articles (see Wikipedia:Summary style). For most long pages, division into sections is natural anyway; even if there is no "natural" way to split a long list or table, many editors believe that it should be done anyway, to allow section editing. Articles longer than 12 to 15 printed pages (more than 30 to 35 KB of readable text) take longer to read than the upper limit of the average adult's attention span — 20 minutes.
I'll continue this analysis later. Others, of course, are welcome to add. -- CTSWyneken (talk) 11:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
MSN Encarta. s.v. " Martin Luther" by George Forell. Article length: 12 kb. Space devoted to Luther and the Jews issue: 461 Bytes.-- CTSWyneken (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Britannica Online. s.v. " Luther, Martin." by E. Gordon Rupp. Article lengh: 61 kb. Space devoted to the Luther and the Jews issue: 3 words. -- CTSWyneken (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I think a fundamental problem with this whole dispute is that the dispute between versions of the anti-semitism section, which is somewhat based on length, is more a dispute over the content in the versions. But I don't think much attention seems to of been given of writing the section in a way that uses as few words as possible without losing any of the content. For instance, in the first paragraph, you have a long line of direct quotes when a summary of what Luther said would do, especially because its, you know, supposed to be in summary style, and you'd think most of the content of the treatise would be in the actual article concerning the treatise. For example, instead of the long list of quotes that are there now, it could read:
No content has really been removed in the creation of this paragraph based on the first one, yet it has 54 fewer words, and it looks like several of the other paragraphs in the section look like they could be worded in a much shorter way without removing any content at all. I think that if everything in this section was condensed by simple wording changes and simplifications first rather than removing or adding content, then at the end of the day, much less content would have to be removed, if any at all. While I admit the above version of the first paragraph loses the distinct flavor of Luther's particular wording, by describing what he wrote more succinctly, a reader gets the picture much faster, and if the whole section was condensed by wording and meaning alone rather than content, then it would be much closer to summary style in the end. Homestarmy 19:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Here's some more of it:
That saves about 47 words, but this one was harder, particularily because Luther's beliefs aren't explicitly inline cited here and i'm not about to summarize something too heavily that may have no business being summarized at all. Homestarmy 00:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Why has the Diet of Worms and Excommunication section been cut? I know there's another article about it, but we did have a good little section on it here, in my opinion. qp10qp 21:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Luther was born as Luder, just as his father and mother. He changed it to Luther, because the meaning of the word "Luder" in the german language is quite negative, it's still used today to refer to somebody who is hormic and raw in his nature. See the german article or profound scholastic literature about him. < info re: unsigned comment retrieved by Keesiewonder 10:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)>
A single sentence or a footnote regarding this point is the most I'd be interested in seeing on this. If you have a favorite resource for this material, maybe we can simply add a footnote number to the main body in the 'best' spot, and have a short footnote and book or journal reference for more info. Just a thought. Thanks for the topic. Believe me, I completely empathize with the tribulations of having a German surname that rarely anyone seems to understand or get right ... (Who am I addressing by the way? Is that an unsigned comment I see above?) Keesiewonder 10:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Whoa ... it's going a little too fast for me right now, Justas Jonas. But, I'll just watch and try to talk since I'm too tired to be really constructive right now. I've been watching your edit summaries. One that I see is this ("further trimming to avoid giving impression that "minority viewpoint" is equal to majority viewpoint"). Please articulate just what you find the "majority" viewpoint to be so I can better follow your thoughts. Thanks! Keesiewonder 01:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
The present version makes it look as if the significance of the Theses was that he complained about indulgences. But this was nothing new: many reformers had complained about indulgences before, including Luther himself. What was new was that he challenged the authority of the pope to make decisions about salvation. To show the importance of the Theses in the development of Luther's position, we need to connect them to the theory that acts of piety and penance (in which Luther would go on to include pilgrimage, monasticism, celibacy etc.) are irrelevant to faith because God alone decides on your faith and salvation. From that seed everything else grew, in my opinion.
If a cut-down version of this section is required, I'd suggest the following, which keeps essential details (Tetzel's name is almost as intrinsic a part of the tradition as the door posting) and theological points:
On 31 October 1517, Luther wrote to Albert, Archbishop of Mainz and Magdeburg, protesting the sale of indulgences in his episcopal territories and inviting him to a disputation on the matter. He enclosed the 95 Theses, a copy of which, according to tradition, he posted the same day on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg.
Luther objected to a saying attributed to Johann Tetzel, a papal commissioner for indulgences: "As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs"; [1] and he insisted that since pardons were God's alone to grant, those who claimed indulgences absolved buyers from all punishments and granted them salvation were in error. [2] Christians, he said, must not slacken in following Christ on account of such false assurances. [3] In challenging the pope's authority in this way, Luther took, perhaps unintentionally, a step towards the break with Rome.
The 95 Theses were quickly translated into German, printed, and widely copied, making the controversy one of the first in history to be fanned by the printing press. [4] Within two weeks, the theses had spread throughout Germany; within two months throughout Europe. In contrast, the response of the papacy was painstakingly slow.
I now see more sections chopped at in a similar way. The result is less coherence, in my opinion. For example, since we start "Return to Wittenberg" with "Around Christmas 1521 Anabaptists from Zwickau added to the anarchy", the reader now might ask "what anarchy?" Luther's stay at the Wartburg is important for the development of his thought in the context of the radical reforms that convulsed Wittenberg while he was away. Transitional information is needed.
Similarly, a section has been cut from "Response of the Papacy" which traced the incremental enlargement of Luther's doctrinal revolt in reaction to a series of attempts to rein him in. It showed how the more he was pushed, the greater became his defiance, and the more extreme his theological opposition to the papacy. By cutting this material out en bloc, we end up with a jumpy story that no longer addresses how one thing led to another.
This article does need to be reduced, but it should be done through the subtle process of editing rather than the blunt one of taking a meat cleaver to it, in my opinion.
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." Albert Einstein.
qp10qp 02:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I see some merit in Justas's approach, if applied uniformly and fairly. He does have a point about summary style and this article being about the weather (everybody talking and not doing) and also about the POVs. However, this is not an endorsement of all his cuts by any means. I would like to see more imput from other editors from both sides, fer instance, on the always contentious Jewish stuff.-- Mantanmoreland 22:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I guess I wasn't needed after all then, nobodies challenged it. Homestarmy 22:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think/feel this is true, Homestarmy. Some of us want to discuss, reach a bit of compromise and consensus and then change the article. Others want to come from out of the blue (new user, strong POV) and just edit the article. The latter is not my style unless it is something that is unlikely to cause discontent. Unfortunately I'm too busy in real life this week to spend much time in the article. Keesiewonder 11:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Relying on quotes and not writing our own material could be considered the easy way out. i.e. we aren't able to write in our own words, so we quote someone else. Any academic writing class I've taken has emphasized this and provided guidelines for the the appropriate amount of material that should/could be quoted. Keesiewonder 23:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Justas Jonas, I would appreciate you answering, directly and publicly, my question. You've wanted this from others on this talk page. But, you don't really answer other people's questions. I'm looking for a content answer. I don't need to hear about the existence of sub-articles and I don't need to hear about the length of the current article and I don't need to hear about how many times "we" have talked about this before. (My WP usage is senior to yours, according to the Justas Jonas username usage trail. So, WE have not talked about this before.) What majority viewpoint? Viewpoint on what topic/aspect/theory/thought? Are you sure you're speaking for the majority? Thanks for the forthcoming clarification. Keesiewonder 11:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
One [edit of yours] that I see is this ("further trimming to avoid giving impression that "minority viewpoint" is equal to majority viewpoint"). Please articulate just what you find the "majority" viewpoint to be so I can better follow your thoughts.
Keesiewonder 11:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Please elaborate. Talk is a good place to do that. As I read what you are calling majority does not necessarily reflect majority. If you don't talk here, I am more inclined to revert your edits. I'd rather not do that, but if you don't help me understand your point, which I currently disagree with or don't understand, you don't leave me many options. If you have specific points in the edit history you want me to see, you could be helpful and direct me to them with links. i.e. "07:00, January 11, 2007 Justas Jonas (Talk | contribs) (Try reading the edit history more carefully) is not really useful - please write here what you are talking about. I do and have read the edit histories; thus my question to you, which, remains unanswered. Keesiewonder 12:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Nice example of collaboration: [2]
Would you like to try again? Keesiewonder 12:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
It has been said that Luther contributed to the rise of nationalism in Europe. Could this be mentioned in the article? Steve Dufour 18:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The way it's written, citation 9 in the article should be citing a scholar who calls ML's writing anti-semitic ... rather than citing ML's article itself.
Luther is also known for his writings about the Jews, the nature and consequences of which are the subject of much debate among scholars; in fact, many scholars characterize these writings as anti-Semitic[9] or anti-Judaic.[10]
Keesiewonder 01:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
No discussion on this? We need a non-self-referential source, i.e. Luther himself is an not adequate citation for 'many scholars characterize these writings as anti-Semitic.' I'm inclined to move the above # 9 to a {{fact}} ... Keesiewonder 22:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok; I think I've figured it (or at least something) out. I will store a previously used multiple reference here for safe keeping and then cite one to three sources in the # 9 spot mentioned above that was my original concern. The one I'm copying here for safe keeping seems to now be one that is not used, at least in the multiple format.
Keesiewonder 11:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Where in the EB article on Anti-Semitism (currently citation 11) do I see that it is written by Michael Berenbaum? I know it is APA and not CMS style, but if we were citing APA, EB itself suggests this for a citation which does not include a reference to Berenbaum. Just a thought.
Keesiewonder 01:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Nope, that's fine; I see it now on the bottom of page 6 in the online version. Thanks. Keesiewonder 02:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
How about a caption for the opening image indicating the date and painter of the representation, similar to what they do at the German page [4]? Stating birth and death dates and locations is redundant with the text. Keesiewonder 01:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I've updated the caption and entered a test of some additional information making use of standard biography infobox fields. (To see the changes, you may need to view previous versions since one user does not want it visible.) Keesiewonder 12:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Please stop being disruptive and trying to own the article. Several other Feature Articles include a content rich info box: Pope Pius XII, Charles Darwin, Mahatma Gandhi, Hurricane Katrina. We can use the infobox technique in the ML article too. You remove great portions of the article, and expect it to stay that way; someone else enhances a part of the article you hadn't touched yet, and you call it clutter, spam. There may be some users who are not you who would appreciate an infobox where at a glance they could click over to the link for ML's spouse, for instance, if that is who they really came to WP for. There is no good reason to not leave the longer infobox in for a few days so that other editors, besides you, have a chance to view it and, if need be, fix any formatting issues. Please read the policies on WP about how to work with others and how to be civil. If you need a page that looks only, always, exactly the way you want it, make it a sub-page to your user page. Keesiewonder 13:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The larger box displays fine in Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.1 for Windows. If you have trouble with another browser, reveal what it is - or fix it yourself without deleting other people's work. If you have display problems in Mozilla Firefox, then you need to adjust your computer settings. Keesiewonder 13:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I just tested IE 6 which also displays fine. Glad to hear someone else likes the alternate box. Keesiewonder 21:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Mantanmoreland, Try looking at an older version from the edit history such as [5] for what I tried to propose as an alternate infobox. All revert wars have involved the same illustration; the issue is apparently the size of it, who last edited its contents, and whether we use the bare minimum of the infobox or use it to its fuller potential. Keesiewonder 17:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
The current is what I proposed. Thanks for looking. Keesiewonder 02:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The last time this article was reviewed for FA, one item of feedback was to consider using an infobox. An excerpt from that process is
* There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.
Done --CTSWyneken 02:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
There is no good reason and no voice other than from one user, Justas Jonas, to not use the infobox that includes more information. If anyone doubts my perspective, review the other articles at FA status to see what they maintain in their article for an opening imagebox. I provided a sample list above.
I would welcome discussion on this from editors who have not yet weighed in. Keesiewonder 11:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I made some changes, which were quickly reverted, to this sentence in the opening:
I agree with the reverter 100% (I could not agree more with him or her!) that everything in this sentence is true!!! However because it is the second sentence I would prefer it to say:
The facts mentioned in the original sentence are all covered in the article. The doctrines and culture of the Lutheran and Protestant traditions are a part of Western civilization so if they are not mentioned just yet nothing is lost. I also have a feeling that words like "teachings", "doctrines", and "traditions" (while perfectly fine words!) tend to sound a little like religious jargon to a non church-going person. I would like people who don't know much about Luther and maybe who are not Lutherans, Protestants, or even Christians to want to read this article. In my opinion a shorter, punchier sentence would be more likely to inspire them to keep reading.
Thanks for your indulgence to my, perhaps a bit eccentric, opinions. Steve Dufour 05:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Justus Jonas, please stop making massive changes without discussion. Most of this detail belongs in a general article on Luther. Deleting it is such a way lessens the quality of the article and puts at risk the attempt to raise it to FA standards. I have chosen not to consider it blanking. -- CTSWyneken (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, only Justus Jonas opposes using the current portrait in info box. As far as I can tell, his argument is about size. The info box is one of the more common graphics in wikipedia. I favor keeping it. Does anyone else oppose it? -- CTSWyneken (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, we are back to the old, Justas Jonas style info box without any discussion. I wonder if this was an editing oversight by SlimVirgin since she did not participate in our discussion about this at all. From her edit summary, it appears she was focused on text and not on the imagebox. Other than JJ, every other editor seems to like the infobox I proposed. Slim, what is your take on this? Keesiewonder talk 01:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
We are now safely tucked away within the acceptable size range of an article according to FA standards -- between 30kb and 50kb. The next task, I think, is to ask if any subjects are missing. We can afford several more subjects, especially if we go to more summary style throughout the article. Once we've covered all the important subjects, we can work on writing style and smaller items. I'm getting the impression we're close to FA standard. -- CTSWyneken (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
If the text is reasonably stable, I can go through the article and untangle the mess. This is the result of folks getting too clever and using <ref name=""> It really gums things up when you move, alter or delete lots of text -- like we have been doing. It appears that the ol' fashioned sequential notes are not all that bad after all! I'm loathe to do that, however, if much work is left here.
Right now, I'm concerned to be sure we've fully covered Luther's life and work. If we have, then we can make a language and style pass through the aricle, fixing notes, etc. Maybe a pass through the old peer review and FA nom files would help? -- CTSWyneken (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Sam! Some very good thoughts. It would be good to go with much of what you suggest. How do the FA voters typically feel about file size? The problem with providing fuller context would be that we would likely go over the 50 kb size somewhat, perhaps by a great deal. -- CTSWyneken (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Two references here have lost their text - #35 and #46 currently. Also, given the two articles on list of books linked from this article, some here may be interested in this AfD discussion, where a number of editors consider a bibliography list not "encyclopedic". See also archive9. Gimmetrow 17:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Notes #34 and #45 are still missing. Gimmetrow 01:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
So true; we can hold CTSW to his promise, somewhere, I think, that once the article is stable, he will retrieve the currently null citations. Unless one of the others of us accomplishes this task before he gets to it. I think if we look in much older versions present in the edit history, we should be able to extract the needed info even if we don't have the book on our own desk. I took care of some graphics sizing issues this morning, so many of the sub-sections should sit better now. We'll get to FA yet! Don't you think? Keesiewonder talk 02:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that the Martin Luther Timeline graphic (found in the articles for "Martin Luther" and "Martin Luther and the Jews") incorrectly shows Martin Luther's "On the Jews and Their Lies" as "On the Jews". Is there a reason for this? Repentance 21:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, CTSW! It is helpful for those among us who are not clergy or holding graduate degrees in theology, yet who still enjoy working with this material. I don't have strong feelings about the timeline other than it should remain near the beginning of the article, and that I like it occupying the empty zone next to the TOC. Considering who our target audience is, it may make things clearer and cleaner if we polish our graphic a bit, as may have been implied by this thread's opening. Keesiewonder 01:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The "real" appears to include that you (JJ) revise my words to try to make your point. I said "basic question." You've altered that to "innocent question." I have read all of Repentance's posts, before today (and including today's) ... and yes, I know s/he and I probably don't agree on everything. But, the question at hand does not necessarily mean realms of POV. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. I still found it to be a question worth consideration. Even if Repentance and I have a difference of opinion on things, it is possible that for different reasons, we both may appreciate a graphic that includes "On the Jews and Their Lies" as an alternative to "On the Jews." Keesiewonder 01:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the admin boards, I followed the procedures as outlined. If you, JJ, do not agree with the process in place, i.e. there is no requirement for the user with the request to directly inform the user in question, please raise your issue with those that discuss and adjust the policy. If I have inappropriately accessed the admin boards, I will listen to feedback from them. Keesiewonder 03:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the replies. Repentance 16:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
My teacher tells me that on his deathbed, Martin Luther turned back to Catholicism. From what I have read in several biographies, this is untrue. Has anyone else heard of Luther turning back to Catholicism? Gotmesomepants 18:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
What's up with this? Change is not better. Thanks for trying though, but it's better the way it was. We did discuss this, and everyone but one user expressed liking Homestarmy's edits. Keesiewonder talk 01:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
No problem, Slim. Thanks for the clarification. I will re-incorporate the infobox we all have agreed on.
It is clear from your edits that the paragraph rewrite
here was not
your focus. So, again, everyone participating (except one user) agrees with new text for
this section.
Keesiewonder
talk
10:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I restored the following missing refs. I dislike the 'ref name =' style for many reasons, but might I suggest that when it is used, the full form be used each time, rather than the abbreviated form. The reason is that if the master ref is cut, the abbreviated versions are left empty, whereas if all the tags are full, there's no problem—and what's more, editors can easily see which book is being quoted without having to scan for the master reference further up the page. (By the way, filled references don't need to be lengthy, provided the book is fully listed in the bibliography—for example, the first one below could be:<ref name = "Hillerbrand463">Hillerbrand, 2:463.</ref>)
<ref name = "Hillerbrand463"><cite>Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation</cite>, ed. Hans J. Hillerbrand, s.v. "Luther, Martin," (by Martin Brecht, tr. Wolfgang Katenz) New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 2:463.</ref>
<ref name = "Herzog74"><cite>Schaff-Herzog</cite>, [http://www.ccel.org/php/disp.php?authorID=schaff&bookID=encyc07&page=74&view= "Luther, Martin"], 74.</ref>
For my sins, I often have to check other people's references, and then I find the 'ref name =' format a pain in the neck. It makes it impossible to combine references, leading to more tags; it is unhelpful, as the note tag simply takes the reader down to a series of letters which don't necessarily pinpoint the reference; the letters may confuse you as to which one to click to return to your place in the text; the abbreviated tags are a menace after cuts; and their mono-form is confusing amidst massed citation templates.
Oh, but don't get me started on citation templates! Trying to edit round those blighters is like negotiating a London bus jam on a push bike. Is it so difficult to write out 'author, book, publisher, date, ISBN, page no' by hand? OK, rant over; time for breakfast. qp10qp 09:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I was looking for the reference that substatiates Response of the papacy
Cardinal Albert of Hohenzollern, Archbishop of Mainz and Magdeburg, with the consent of Pope Leo X, was using part of the indulgence income to pay his bribery debts,[26]
ref 26 has nothing to do with the claim that Pope Leo X knew of the Archbishops sale of indulgences. something I have heard disptued by some theologians. the ref only goes to a definition of indulgences. Someone should find a proper refrence. or remove the statement as unsubstatiated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.49.40.232 ( talk) 20:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC).
Someone added a philosophy tag to this talk page; we mention that L was nick-named "the philosopher" by the time he entered university. We don't really discuss Luther's philosophy, or do we? philosophy ?= theology ... (not always, IMO) Thanks ... Keesiewonder talk 00:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed this from the beginning of the Justification by Faith section
I also just fixed a situation very much like this in another article.
Per WP:CITE, my understanding is we should convert this over to something more readable/useful. Thoughts? Keesiewonder talk 09:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, this is a section with no point. This has no real bearing on a consideration of Luther's life, and that makes it trivia per W guidelines on trivia. If anyone can incorporate this into another section in a legit way it should be; otherwise it should be deleted. Darentig 21:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Note: This discussion is concluded in #Witchcraft section. -- Kevinkor2 21:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
someone sabotaged the article... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Catherine the Great does not deserve her title ( talk • contribs) 03:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
Why is the section titled the diet of worms and not the edict of worms? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aceofspades1217 ( talk • contribs) 14:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
This article has been added to that category. I don't know of a St. (Martin) Luther (1483-1546) ... Keesiewonder talk 22:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
NumberedMan's comment makes it clear that the addition of this article to the "saint" category was meant as a political/polemical statement related to the Luther's anti-semitic writings rather than as a statement of fact appropriate for this encyclopedia. I will remove that category. -- Apostlemep12 00:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
May we discuss the addition of a suitable graphic for the Luther and anti-Semitism section? The article currently has 17 graphics:
Noticably absent is a graphic for the Luther and anti-Semitism section. I propose the addition of
Any comments or suggestions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GraphicPatrol ( talk • contribs) 22:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
Jayjg, consider the following sentence: "There is little doubt among historians that Luther's rhetoric may have contributed …" I suggest to you that it is meaningless and nonsensical to say that there is little doubt that something may have happened. The sentence needs to be fixed. Apparently you consider it inaccurate to say that "a number of historians" set forth the assertion. What exactly is offensive about that particular phrasing?
You have no citation on the page indicating which is the majority and which is the minority position (nor will you find any). You simply make the claim blindly. Furthermore, I would like to point out that the so-called minority position is held by so many independent sources that they could not all be placed in individual footnotes but were grouped together in a single footnote. The self-titled majority position has all of its sources (two of which are identical—Berger p. 28, and Berger p. 28) in individual footnotes in order to make it appear as though it is heavily supported. If you wish to call your position the majority position, I suggest that you find a greater number of sources than the wimpy minority position. Your current deficit is seven sources.
Regarding your removal of the supposed "original research," I have consequently removed the remaining section portions that quoted Luther directly. (Actually, I have never seen a Wikipedia policy stating that the subject of the biography should never be quoted. Who could be more qualified to tell us about Luther than Luther himself? Nevertheless, I will play by your rules for now.)— Emote Talk Page 04:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Sam, thanks for adding your comments here. I appreciate your thoughtful response. I agree that the majority and minority positions cannot be determined based on the number of sources cited. I wouldn't normally suggest such a criterion, but other editors had reverted my edits twice on the basis that I had compromised the majority position. Because the assertion of a majority position was not supported by any references, I resorted to the quantity of sources as a mild indicator of what the majority position might be. Just for the sake of clarification, I would like to say that I was not the author of the original research paragraph. It was submitted anonymously, and I, not realizing that it was original research, made several edits to it and attempted to incorporate it into the article. My apologies to Jayjg and anyone else who may have taken offence at my unduly brusque comments above. My edits had already been reverted once prior to that, and I perceived the lack of explanation on the talk page after the secondary revert as simply throwing away good-faith edits as though they were trash. I also misunderstood the point about original research. I mistook it as an excuse to delete content based on personal disagreement with it. That indeed was a breach of good-faith assumption on my part. Again, I apologize for the disruption.— Emote Talk Page 04:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed the following addition and restored the original text:
My reasons are as follows:
There is no shortage of discussion or citations that note Luther’s significance to the category of antisemitism. Therefore, I trust adding this article to Cat:Antisemitism will not be controversial. Doright 04:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Is Luther's suggestion that Jews be treated well so that they become Christians really "positive"? or is it just a cynical attempt to win them over or save them from damnation. More favorable than his later remarks to be sure but still seeing a need that they give up their religion.
I see how a section on Luther and witchcraft has been added, removed, and reinserted. The argument seems to be about whether the content is "extraneous" to the article. For what little it might be worth to the rest of you, I personally think that, at best, the bulk of this content should be spun off into a separate article. Witchcraft is not a particularly significant subject in the life of Luther, and the inclusion of this data would seem to give it more attention than it might be seen as deserving. John Carter 18:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
[outdent] I have implemented John Carter's suggestion. The witchcraft section is now part of Christian views on witchcraft. Because the first sentence says, "Martin Luther shared some of the views about witchcraft that were common in his time", his documented views on witchcraft are relevant to historical Christian views on witchcraft, which is well within the scope of that article. -- Kevinkor2
Was he the first Christian to stand up against the Catholics? -- Arigato1 23:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
From at least two prep schools. Time to semiprotect?-- Mantanmoreland 18:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
A new wikiproject has been formed, focusing on articles relating to Lutheranism. Come by and check it out, and sign up to help improve articles about Lutheranism on Wikipedia. WikiProject Lutheranism. -- Pastordavid 20:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
We should not have so many categories that it is hard to find ones that are truly useful. I have trimmed out tangental ones. -- CTSWyneken (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
This phrase is totally unnecessary and uses the word "sects," which is considered a pejoritive in Lutheran theological circles. It is thus both redundant and POV. I have removed it. -- CTSWyneken (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe that Martin Luther never heard of Jan Hus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.78.91 ( talk)
The article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.78.91 ( talk • contribs)
Yes, that is the point. There is nothing about Hus, absolutely nothing! Even though the Czech lands had been out of control of Rome for 100 years, that many crusades had been organized, even though Hus had objected to indulgences, and the Hussites and Utraquists introduced receiving both the consecrated bread and wine, even though Hus translated the Bible to Czech long time before Luther translated it to German, even though the borders of Bohemia are not too far from Wittenberg, there is nothing. All we are told is that Luther came to the conclusion that salvation is a gift of God's grace. The article does a poor job putting Luther in the historical context.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.78.91 ( talk • contribs)
Also, please take a moment to register as a user (it's free) and sign your talk page comments. It helps to know something about editors when we're working with him or her. -- CTSWyneken (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The article about Hus is not about Wycliffe, yet Wycliffe is mentioned 13-times.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.78.91 ( talk • contribs)
This is absurd! The following had happened in the Czech lands in the 100 years before Luther:
1) Repudiation of the indulgences
2) Emancipation from Rome (won on the battlefield)
3) Receiving both the consecrated bread and wine
4) Translation of the Bible in the native tongue
Luther never heard of any of these?—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.83.78.91 (
talk •
contribs)
>> Hus was a key contributor to the Protestant movement whose teachings had a strong influence on the states of Europe and on Martin Luther himself. The Hussite Wars resulted in the Basel Compacts which allowed for a reformed church in the Kingdom of Bohemia - almost a century before such developments would take place in the Lutheran Reformation. << This is from the entry "Hus" in this very same encyclopedia. Please look at the four point above. Are you saying that a) you are not aware of them b) Luther never heard of any of those c) Luther did hear that but he completely filtered it out and reinvented the entire wheel by himself Excuse me for being sarcastic but that is the appropriate format here. Without Hus there would be no Luther, no Protestantism, and no America as we know it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.78.91 ( talk • contribs)