Talk:Martin Luther/Archive 7

message: Quote:
::Throughout his life Luther was known to suffer from bad health, including severe constipation. 
No, it's not vandalism. I checked this and it stands up.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.198.183.78 (talk • contribs) 
::: Dear Friend: 
::: Welcome and thank you for your contribution. I hope your introduction to this page wasn't too -- abrupt. Please do come back and work with us.
::: Indeed, there is much discussion about Luther's health and how it fed into his personality and actions. I have no objections to including something about it, but if you wish to include only one sentence on the matter, please insert it into an existing section. If you would like to expand on it to more than a paragraph in length, go ahead and insert it as a section. Please fully cite it, however, since we've been attempting to bring this article up to the highest standards.
::: I also have two requests for you. Please register as a user, sign in each time and sign your talk page posts. ABove the edit box is a row of buttons. The third from the right attaches a "signature" -- your username, date and time. It is an important part of building community. We get to know you at least virtually and can build a working relationship when you do this. The second request is: please put new sections of the talk page at the bottom of the page. It makes new comments easier to find.--CTSWyneken(talk) 10:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure Luther's health deserves a separate section, but I've plugged in more data from Brecht to give a more complete picture. Ptmccain 14:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's not vandalism then it is trivia that does not belong in the article.--Mantanmoreland 14:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  For the record, this is a major theme in Luther studies. For those who are interested, I'd be happy to suggest some readings on the topic. --CTSWyneken(talk) 15:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Health

message: The Luther and Antisemitism section is not merely about what Luther wrote.  It's also about what Luther did.  For example, 
"Luther was not content with verbal abuse. Even before he wrote his anti-Semitic pamphlet, he got the Jews expelled from Saxony in 1537, and in the 1540's he drove them from many German towns; he tried unsuccessfully to get the elector to expel them form Brandenburg in 1543. His followers continued to agitate against the Jews there: they sacked the Berlin synagogue in 1572 and the following year finally got their way, the Jews being banned from the entire country."
Also see [this] regarding the taboo title of the section that most editors believe is more accurate despite its troublesome effect on certain sensitivities.
  
IMO, User:SlimVirgin is among the best writers editing on Wikipedia and a sharp detailed oriented thinker.  She is certainly among the most experienced.  She previously demonstrated a willingness to do the hard work of integrating relevant citations into beautifully flowing prose, before taking a well-deserved vacation.  Perhaps if the editors that repeatedly attack her will demonstrate a modicum of restraint, she may be persuaded to assist.  I'll ask. --Doright 19:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point re actions as well as writings. The cited paragraph in itals should definitely be in this article, however sharply trimmed it may be.--Mantanmoreland 21:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that user:Doright makes a good point above about this section not only being about what Luther wrote but what he did as well. It is for this reason it should be "Luther and the Jews": that would cover comprehensively what the subsection deals with. It would also not be POV as "Luther and Antisemitism" would be. That would have Wikipedia making a judgment. As you can see from the present text: that is a matter of debate. Let the reader make the judgment.--Drboisclair 15:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As has been pointed out to you literally over a dozen times (most recently twice in my paragraphs above), '"no one of any note denies Luther's [anti-Semitism]," when the term is used according to its ordinary meaning, i.e.,  hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group.  There is absolutely nothing POV or controversial about this. --Doright 16:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Doright need not scold me here. He should cease his personal attacks as per WP:CIVIL.--Drboisclair 18:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Removed Personal attack by Drboisclair from this location--Doright 18:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Drboisclair, please provide citations to scholars that deny Luther's [anti-Semitism]," when the term is used according to its ordinary meaning, i.e.,  hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group. --Doright 18:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the kind remarks, Doright. :-) I'll try to find time to take another look. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Luther and Antisemitism section  

message: User:Doright removes my response to his personal attacks, and then reverts to put his personal attack back in. His attack needs to be removed. I deny his accusation of vandalizing this page.--Drboisclair 18:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Drboisclair, no need for histrionics, just provide the requested citations, please. --Doright 18:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:Doright, Stop personal attacks 

message: A total of zero citations have been provided to scholars that deny Luther's anti-Semitism," when the term is used according to its ordinary meaning, i.e.,  hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group.  There is absolutely nothing POV or controversial about this.  
In the absence of such scholarly reference, claims to the contrary can only be understood as the views of the editors making the claim.  Do I really need to cite the WP policy that articles should reflect the views of reliable and notable sources and not those of the editors? --Doright 21:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I subscribe to Brecht's statement below. I think that Martin Brecht explains the matter the best that I have seen, and he does not deny that there is antisemitism.--Drboisclair 00:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but that is not a citation.  The count is still zero.
===Removal of Category:Anti-Semitic people Violates WP:NOR until you cite Scholars===
It is a violation of WP:NOR to remove :Category:Anti-Semitic people in the absence of citations in the above section titled: "Zero Scholars deny Luther's hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group."  Repeated violations may bring administrative action. --Doright 08:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zero Scholars deny Luther's hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group 

message: It is a violation of WP:NOR to remove :Category:Anti-Semitic people in the absence of citations in the above section titled: "Zero Scholars deny Luther's hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group."  Repeated violations may bring administrative action. --Doright 08:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Category:Anti-Semitic people Violates [[WP:NOR]] until you cite Scholars

message: Can anyone translate this passage?
There is a world of difference between his belief in salvation and racial ideology. Nevertheless, his misguided agitation had the evil result that Luther fatefully because one of the "church fathers" of anti-Semitism and thus provided material for the modern hatred of Jews, cloaking it with the authority of the Reformer."
If it can't be rendered into standard English, perhaps it should be removed.
Doremifasolatido 00:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a world of difference between his belief in salvation and a racial ideology. Nevertheless, his misguided agitation had the evil result that Luther fatefully became one of the "church fathers" of anti-Semitism and thus provided material for the modern hatred of the Jews, cloaking it with the authority of the Reformer.
This is from vol. 3 of Martin Brecht's Luther, p. 351. I will correct it. There should be an "a" before "racial," "because" should be "became," and a "the" should be inserted before "Jews."--Drboisclair 00:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sense Anyone? 

message: Reverting this article to a shorter more streamlined version seems to make sense to me. But if folks want to keep it longer, then let's include the full story of the repudiation of those remarks by Lutheran Churches. I've put that in here, in chronological order, beginning with the first statement, made in 1983, by The LCMS, followed, over ten years later, by a statement from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's Church Council. I'm not aware if the ELCA, like The LCMS, has actually adopted a formal resolution at a church convention or not, etc.
My feeling is that it is time to move on now. No point in continuing to argue back and forth over the Luther and Antisemitism thing. The section is long enough. I recommend using the separate pages to carry on more detailed discussion of the issues.Ptmccain 10:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luther and Antisemitism 

message: This section is unbalanced in many ways, some of them outlined in above discussions. I do not think it can be fixed in the current climate. Please leave it in place until all editors interested in this issue can be here to discuss it.
May I suggest that we simply all agree to put the section aside for a week or two and come back later, hopefully with a disinterested party to help sort things out? --CTSWyneken(talk) 16:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a disruptive tag pushing your POV. If anything this is the only section that even approaches neutrality. The rest of the article reads like a pamphlet and much of it makes no pretense to neutral POV. But I am not going to slap on NPOV tags to make a point as you have done here.--Mantanmoreland 16:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CTSW, would you please show your good faith and either withdraw from this article for a few days to give everyone, and yourself, a breather, or else help to decide what should be done with the other sections first? Either way, the focus on the section about the Jews is inappropriate, and somewhat worrying given what it has just attracted to the page. Also, please stop reverting and slapping POV tages on anything you don't like. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SlimVirgin, did you not want discussion of this when you submitted it?  As I noted above, I've done considerable work on the other sections, but think this is the section that really needs discussion, and this is the section where a dramatic change has just been made.  I've raised a number of points above.  Could I ask you to take a look at them and give me your thoughts? (I do thank you for the work on shortening, which was certainly responsive to the comments, including CTSW's).  Sam 17:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There indeed has been a discussion, quite an extensive one. It is a typical discussion on this page replete with foot-stomping, a new participant drawn here from Holocaust-denial-land, and WP:POINT tags to disrupt things generally. --Mantanmoreland 18:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sam, I'd appreciate it if we could discuss one of the other sections first, and then go back to this one. This section, in all its various forms (long and short) has been under sustained attack by the same two or three users for many months. They will only be happy when it is as short, unobtrusive, and uncritical of Luther as they can get away with; and were it up to them, I don't think the section would exist at all. Therefore, as a sign of good faith, it would be good to see some of the other sections being placed under the same scrutiny, if only for a few days. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I stated before, I've worked on those, and have requested input when working on them, receiving it only from CTSW.  You've proposed some language, let's look at it. If you do not want to defend it, then CTSW is perfectly right to post a sticker on it.  I'd suggest we hold off on that until you and others have a chance to speak to the substantive issues.  Sam 19:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CTSW is not perfectly right to stick a tag on it, because it's what he's been doing for months. Until it stops, together with the incessant complaints and reverting, there will be no harmony on this page, and no progress. I repeat: please begin with one of the other sections. There are several that are too long, and all have too reverential a tone about them. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  This is not a one way street. If everyone will agree to stay away from the subject, I will. If it is going to be discussed, I will also. But I'm not going to sit by so that editors can add the points of view they like and delete the ones they don't, show disrepect to me and others. So, how about it? A moratorium? --CTSWyneken(talk) 20:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Only problem is that this article cannot be edited harmoniously, and turned into something other than a church pamphlet, because of your constant disruptions and frivolous complaints, and because of the relentless and determined POV pushing by yourself and a couple of other editors. See, that's the problem CTS. It is not a two way street.--Mantanmoreland 21:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this; why doesn't everyone who is a paid employee of the Lutheran church stop editing, and then we'll see if we can whip this article into some sort of neutral shape? Jayjg (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree. This situation has gone on for too long and has been very disruptive. It would be very much appreciated if those editors could step back, even if only for a few days, to allow other editors to discuss how to proceed with these articles. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I have nothing to do with the Lutheran Church, but can't get any discussion of points I have raised, except from the Lutheran clergy editors, so I really have doubts such a course will be useful. Likewise, today there seems to be great interest in editing other sections, yet none of you has had any interest in the discussion of indulgences, the writings on Freedom of a Christian, or the redraft I did of the intro, all of which have been active over the last two weeks - why the sudden animated interest in discussing anything but the writing you have just added? Sam 21:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason you have difficulty raising interest from others is because of the high burn-out rate of editors on these pages, this and the other two related ones. People try to deal with it for a couple of weeks and then have to retreat, and as a direct result of the behavior of the editors connected to the Lutheran Church. Offhand, I can think of six people who have had to withdraw. This is why the very best solution would be for anyone who is employed by the Lutheran Church, but particularly CTSW, to step back for a period to allow the rest of us to work out how to deal with these articles: content, length, and which material should go where, because Mantan is right: some of them do read like articles the Lutheran Church might have published. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must say, I have found CTSW responsive, even if of strong opinions, when approached civily. I have also found him willing to make his positions clear and discuss them. Likewise, I have found drboisclair willing to pick up and read a book originally cited by Doright after some reasonable discussion of it.  While I have run into some cases where there was some stubbornness about editing from one of the Lutheran clergy editing, both CTSW and drboisclair have been clear about their reasons for preferring language and ready to discuss those reasons.  I have run into far more subbornness from others here, and I have had enormmous difficulty getting others to provide sufficient specificity to aid in editing, despite repeated requests. I also note that CTSW has suggested alternative ways to resolve disputes which have been rejected. While I cannot talk of the history before I arrived here a couple weeks ago, I can speak tomy own reception, and can say any burnout being experienced is not as a result of their activities. Sam 22:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sam, with respect, it isn't possible to judge what these pages have been like after only two weeks of it. It has been going on for the best part of a year. I'll take a look to find out how long exactly. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, not quite a year; eight months, since November 2005, and there may have been stuff before that that I'm not aware of. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever the reason, and without making any assumptions about what has gone on in the past, we are at a point when I believe they are willing to engage in a sensible discussion, and the question which you should answer is whether you are also at that point as well or not. Because, ultimately, this will only be resolved through that discussion. I expect it will not be easy, in particular I have heard references to personal email attacks that undoubtedly created their own wounds that need to heal, and I expect that may make it difficult as well.  However, as a friend of mine, a man who once headed up the local anti-Defamation League, once said: It is important to speak out, but after a few years it's also pretty easy.  It's more important, and more difficult, to speak with. (No tape recorder present, so no cites or sources other than me).  Sam 23:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the invitation to respond to your remark. It is a violation of WP:NPA and WP:GF for editors here to label you as anything, but ... given your edit history and your involvement on pages previously mentioned, I do appreciate you make no claim here to be a Christian. We Christians, and Jews, value the commandment that we are not bear false witness and so anyone attempting to deny the Nazi campaign to exterminate the Jews in my opinion guilty of a grave sin indeed, not to mention utterly incomprehensible stupidity on a titanic scale indeed.Ptmccain 00:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Flag and "Jews" section morotorium 

message: I had previously mentioned Moses. Another would be Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits), who was beatified -- but you wouldn't know it by the neutral tone of this article. This is the kind of tone that Martin Luther should have.
The non-hagiographic, neutral, dispassionate tone of these article is the norm on Wiki. Martin Luther is an exception. Reading some of the comments here, you'd thing it was ht other way around.--Mantanmoreland 12:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I read the Ignatius article, I learn that he was beatified in the opening paragraph; also that he was a gifted spiritual director and a famous compiler.  I doubt none of these things, but do not see a markedly different tone. You've been asked for specifics repeatedly, and also rejected an offer to have an agreeable third party review and work on the edits.  Please note, some specifics would still be welcome - perhaps you'd like to choose a short section, as I have now done for Freedom of a Christian, Indulgences, and the Intro, and go through it with care to show what you would do to change the tone? Sam 15:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't see any dramatic and visible difference in tone I'm not going to waste any effort trying to convince you.--Mantanmoreland 16:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: LOL!! SlimVirgin (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another example of a neutral POV article on a major religious figure

message: OK, I believe that we are at a point on this article where all of the editors whom many view here as having resisted a fully blown discussion of anti-semitism are listening, paying attention, and ready to consider some of these points with care.  To those advocating this section, I ask, can you identify one point, one issue, maybe two or three sentances on which you'd like to hold a civil discussion, where you can put forth and defend your sources and explain why your points are important, in as civil a manner as possible?  I'm leaving the space below for you to propose and define a discussion of your choice. If you'd like to discuss the pros or cons or responding to this suggestion, or if you want to tell me you have no interest in this, I ask that you post your comments in the Section Identified Below. Sam 17:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think we have a golden opportunity to 86 the sections that were glommed off a religious encyclopedia, and to write them -- in a much boiled down fashion, by no means not necessarily with the same structure and sections, and with the objective, neutral tone that Slim used in Luther and Anti-Semitism. Let's focus on the bad stuff, not the one good section.--Mantanmoreland 20:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure we will all be interested in reading the specifics of what you would propose to accomplish your goal Mantanmoreland. If you can provide that here on the discussion page, that would be helpful. I'm not so sure the term "glommed off" a "religious encyclopedia" is necessarily a correct or objective evaluation. The history on the page indicates that there was an explicit mention that some of the article was based on the Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia, which does not in my opinion rule it out as a valid source, anymore than commentary provided from a Roman Catholic or Jewish Encyclopedia would be ruled out. The SH Encyclopedia, by the way, is not a "Lutheran" encyclopedia. That notation about this reference was inaverdently removed by an editor, Rekleov, some time back and it was a simple accident on his part, so the accusation that there is Plagiarism on this page is incorrect. The citation can easily be restored. I would also like to ask you, Mantanmoreland, if you would care to comment on the fact that an article you referred to as a good example of an article on a religious figure, Ignatius Loyala, is lacking in any sources or citations. It seems to me that the Martin Luther article is rather carefully sourced and cited. So, again, if you have specifics to offer by way of examples of how you believe the article could be improved, I'm sure we would all like to read them here. Perhaps you can contribute to Sam's question below? Ptmccain 20:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Sam, I've been asked to stay out of this topic for awhile and will do so if all parties remain civil, discussing content and not other editors. Please discuss away, but realize I will not likely respond on this topic for a week or so. I would hope that the admins among us will be quick to point out when someone switches the topic to editors or slams a source or scholar. That being said, have fun! I'll see if I can find something on "Freedom of a Christian" short and sweet enough to help with a rewrite of our description of it. --CTSWyneken(talk) 18:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No, not prepared "as per the discussion on this page." Prepared as per your blatant POV pushing and deliberate misinterpretations of comments made on this page.--Mantanmoreland 12:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Golden Opportunity

message: Here is the revision to "Luther and Antisemitism" prepared per the discussion on this page:
::No, not prepared "as per the discussion on this page." Prepared as per your blatant POV pushing and deliberate misinterpretations of comments made on this page.--Mantanmoreland 12:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luther and Antisemitism Revision 

message: The instructions for the use of source templates states that the template should be placed in "Articles
near bottom." I placed the template there, only to have an editor move it to the top, claiming I was attempting to bury it. Which should it be: follow the instructions in Wikipedia namespace, or move it to the top. Placement makes no difference to me, since I hope to go through and formally cite each paragraph of the copied sections. --CTSWyneken(talk) 13:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CTSW, you're on a break from this page. Please stick to it. If placement makes no difference to you, there's no need to comment on it. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please note I'm on a break from the "On the Jews" subject. Also note, I was asked to clarify this issue. I did. Then, I was reverted and my motives attacked. I hoped that you, perhaps, might ask others not to provoke others by attacking their motives, but I have seen no evidence of it. So, if you don't mind, I will explain myself and let it drop. Thank you. --CTSWyneken(talk) 13:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understood you had agreed to take a break from the page. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please note my statement under Talk:Martin Luther#A Golden Opportunity. As you recall, I also asked that admins would hold people to civil rhetoric, which I have yet to see evidence of. I also do not have an interest in engaging in arguments here. However, if I am asked directly to respond to an issue, such as you did above, or if my motives are questioned, I intend to set the record straight. This I have done. Now, with your permission, may we drop this subject? --CTSWyneken(talk) 14:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Question to you Slim. Should CTS comply with Wiki policy instructions in the placement of the template re. the source? Are editors free to deviate from Wiki policy instructions on a case-by-case basis? What's your input as a Wiki admin? Thanks. I'll also pop this over to your user talk page so you don't miss it.Ptmccain 14:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: CTS, I propose that you stick with Wiki policy. There has been a very high level of expectation on this page that Wiki policy be complied with as strictly and closely as possibly, so I think that you should put the template where Wiki indicates it should be placed. Thanks for your efforts on the page CTS. Editors who wish to do something contrary to Wiki policy in regard to the template can take up their variance from Wiki policy with Wikipedia. I respectfully urge all editors participating on this page to be mindful of WP:CIVIL and WP:GF. I urge editors to heed Wiki's advice: # Do not answer offensive comments. Forget about them. Forgive the editor. Do not escalate the conflict. (an individual approach) Ptmccain 14:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I was referring to the instructions on this page  which indicate that the source template is to be placed at the bottom of the article. Are those instructions to be followed on Wikipedia, or may they be disregarded? I'm trying to understand how this kind of thing works on Wikipedia. As for your other remark, if you have specific constructive remarks to offer about WP:NPOV please offer them in the appropriate place where I've asked for feedback and reaction. For instance, I welcome your specific reaction to my revision of your edit on the Luther and Antisemitism article. I respectfully again would urge you to exercise due diligence in complying with WP:GF and WP:CIVIL. I'm making every effort to do so, and I respectfully encourage you to do the same.Ptmccain 14:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Asked and answered.--Mantanmoreland 14:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you, too, would like to review Rev. McCain's proposal above.  Sam 14:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read my comments. Let's move on to the rest of the article, starting with the parts cribbed from a 90-year-old POV encyclopedia. The fillibustering is wearing out yet another generation of editors and frankly Sam you are contributing to it. It serves no useful purpose to enshrine one of this editor's many POV edits as some kind of "proposal" worthy of "careful review" or whatever. Please stop playing moderator. --Mantanmoreland 14:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a completely disinterested browser, Mantamoreland, I'd like to note that I can't find your last useful, or even non-abrasive, contribution to this talk page. Icewolf34 19:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a completely interested Wikipedian, Icewolf34, I'd like to note that after a grand total of 4 days of Wikipedia contributions, your first contribution to this page is to attack an editor.  Your inability to find anything useful might be remedied by, and indeed your ability to produce something useful yourself might be enhanced by, reading the talk page and article edit histories otherwise your "note" might be misunderstood as [trolling].  Just out of curiosity, with over 1 million Wikipedia articles, how does a "completely disinterested browser" wind up on this page?  After all, compared to the lifetime odds of being killed by lightning (1:56,000), the chances of a  "completely disinterested browser" coming to this page seems kinda small.  --Doright 20:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To both editors, kindly observe WP:CIVIL and WP:GF.Ptmccain 21:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Icewolf, my apologies, but you have now received a very similar Luther page welcome to my own, just a couple of short weeks ago.  Please note that this page is far more contentious than most, and usually people Don't bite the newcomers on Wikipedia. Sam 20:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sam, I think you were treated very courteously. You have, however, shown blatant partisanship that does not go over well. Your response above being one example. --Mantanmoreland 22:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sam, the sanctimonious tone is not helpful.  And, a member since 2004 can hardly be considered a "newcomer." Furthermore, personal attacks, including your own, are not to be encouraged.  I note that you, like this editor, first came to my attention by engaging in a personal attack.  Please focus on the article and not on the editors. --Doright 22:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I respectfully remind the the two editors above to be careful to adhere to WP:CIVIL, WP:GF, and WP:NPA.Ptmccain 23:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Placement of Source Template 

message: Does the use of an encyclopedia recognized as a legitimate source by Wikipedia constitute a POV when used in an article? And does its use provide a legitimate reason for the POV tag to be placed on the article? If so, shouldn't Wikipedia remove this as a recognized source on the encyclopedia page? I do not believe that using a standard reference work like SH in an article on a famous religous figure means that the entire article is somehow guilty of a POV. I believe that the user who placed the tag, should remove it. I welcome his response and explanation as to why he believes the use of the POV tag because SH is used is appropriate. Thanks.Ptmccain 19:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you mean. Wikipedia has no official legitimate sources list - it has a list of templates that editors have created because those sources are frequently cited. The editors of the article are to reach consensus on the language, citing sources and making sure that they are reliable and where assertions of fact are disputed the sources are to be identified and references provided. Regardless, we have the responsibility to neutrally present the information and identify the bias, if any. --Trödel 14:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Schaff-Herzog 

message: Sam, I've still not had luck in finding where folks are getting the jingle from. 
I am getting closer. Luther paraphrases it this way in his cover letter of the 95 theses, addressed to the Archbishop of Mainz, 31 October 1517: "They are likewise convinced that souls escape from purgatory as soon as they have placed a contribution into the chest." (Luther's Works, vol. 38, page 46)
And this way late in life, in his polemic Against Hanswurst: "Again, that if anyone put money in the box for a soul in purgatory, the soul would fly to heaven as soon as the coin clinked on the bottom." (Luther's Works, vol. 41, page 232)
As far as secondary sources, Bainton, Kittelson, and Koimann (ref available on request) quote the jingle as from Tetzel, Grisar quotes it and says it is not known whether or not Tetzel ever said it, but it is consistent with things Tetzel did say. A note in the American edition of Luther's Works says "who knows if he said it?"
I'll keep looking. --CTSWyneken(talk) 15:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It does help to have a library at your disposal some days. 8-) I'm still hoping to find out where the scholars who've commented get this thing from. --CTSWyneken(talk) 18:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tetzel's Jingle Report 

message: I'd prefer to have notes in normal, not small size, if no one minds. It's hard on my ancient eyes.--CTSWyneken(talk) 10:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and change it CTS, please. Thanks. Ptmccain 11:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note size 

message: We need citations for two Luther quotes in this section, for someone to check the online Catholic Encyclopedia and remove the "cited in" in the last note in the section and to look up and complete the information for other entries in this note. If someone can get to any of this before I do, you have my thanks for doing it. If not, I'll get there eventually. Thanks! --CTSWyneken(talk) 01:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Sam! That's a good start. We will, of course, want to work at removing the cited in, but its good enough for our purposes until we can lay our hands on the source. --CTSWyneken(talk) 10:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documentation work needed in [[Martin Luther#Luther's excommunication]] 

message: Both of these topics are major discussions in the study of Luther's life and thought. It belongs here. If anyone's interested, I can provide citations to help demonstrate this and provide some background reading on the subject. --CTSWyneken(talk) 15:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be helpful if the user who reverted documented work on the page and then described as "unencyclopedic" would provide more specific reasons why he described it that way. I don't think it is helpful to use this kind of description without specificity. Thanks.Ptmccain 16:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the second time today Mantanmoreland has removed properly sourced material and declared it, now twice, to be "unencyclopedic." He has yet to provide any specific evidence for his vague assertion. Assertions without proof are of little value. It would be far more helpful to provide specific evidence for assertions.Ptmccain 23:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luther's Understanding of God; Health 

message: :::I'm grateful that you took the time to offer very specific comments. We can't have it both ways. We can not selectively label people. A sociologist is a sociologist regardless of what he has written, a point made quite powerfully by some in regard to Netto. So I dropped Netto. I regret that you choose to rule this revision "from start to finish" the "usual whitewash." I respectfully urge you to work hard to abide by WP:CIVIL and WP:GF. I'm trying to do the same. I'll consider the issues you've raised and work on modifying it as a demonstration of WP:GF and ask for the same thing from you please. Thanks.Ptmccain
::::Some of the changes noted by Jay were in reaction to a comment I had made, which I reproduce below:
:::::Well, here's one comment for you. In the sentance: "The newspaper later described the pamphlet as the most radically anti-Semitic tract ever published, [2] a view that is shared by most contemporary scholars. [3][4][5]", I don't like the idea of quoting a Nazi newspaper for substance: I generally view Nazis as having very little credibility, and would suggest the quote, if to be used at all, is better used to show what Nazi's thought, and not quoted for the truth of the point. On the "view shared by most contemporary scholars" language, I can't find the support in the texts for the "most radically anti-Semitic tract every published." Steigmann-Gall, in the quoted language, calls it "one of the most" anti-Semitic (he is, among other things, leaving room at the top of the list for the Nazis themselves, of course), and that could be used. Carroll, in a different place in his book, refers to it as one of the most anti-Semitic works "of its time", and I can't find any statement of this sort in Poliakov. I myself would drop the Nazi newspaper quote, especially since it is second-hand via some class slides and not even a published book or article, and replace it with Steigmann-Gall, without any additional cites (the point is strong and clear without them, and for Carroll the Luther discussion is just an aside, since the focus of his book is Roman Catholic anti-semitism since he is, after all, a Catholic Priest). Sam 18:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sam, the point of quoting what the Nazis thought of it is precisely to show what they thought of it, which is part of the point of this section i.e. the degree to which they admired Luther and were influenced by him. It's therefore entirely appropriate to use it. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read it through with my point in mind and see what you think.  When the language indicates that others "agree" with the point, I think it moves to citing it for the truth of the statement (which is that "On the Jews and their Lies" is the most antisemitic tract written).  If you look at the changes I made yesterday (I'm sorry, I'm not adept at citing diffs, but it should be easy to pull out from the history), you will see what I would do.  I also note I found slightly different statements in Steigmann-Gall and Carroll (on a different page than the cited page in Carroll) and I didn't find the supporting statement in Poliakov (probably the result of summarizing other people's summaries), though Poliakov is an interesting read I'd recommend to everyone.  So, I would preserve the reference to the Nazi Newspaper but make it clear that it is showing that the Nazis invoked Luther to support their position.  I would then raise the Steigmann-Gall quote to the one being cited for the truth of the matter.  I think it makes both points in a way that is stronger and better supported.  Sam 23:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Subhead