Talk:Martin Luther/Archive 10

message: In sympathy with RelHistBuff's methods, I took a scythe to the opening paragraph of the above section. I don't expect my whole cut to survive, but hopefully it won't just be reverted without thought.qp10qp 16:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why it should not survive. It is a good cut.--Mantanmoreland 17:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you were to read up on Luther you would see that it is not a good cut. It could be tweaked, but it should be kept in place.--Drboisclair 17:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You must tweak it, then; please do, that's the point: what one person gets wrong another can make good, but along the way some verbiage gets binned. I've just thinned out the section on Luther's Bible as well.qp10qp 17:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my concern with Manta's wholesale deletions I have not considered your helpful edits. I offer you my apology. --Drboisclair 19:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There were no "wholesale deletions." There were good edits by RealHistBuff that you reverted wholesale. This is why there is such a high burnout rate among editors, when they run into this kind of monolothic obstructionism. I think we need to revisit the whole issue of employees of the Lutheran Church editing this article. This kind of thing is intolerable and must stop.--Mantanmoreland 20:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are all anonymous here. You repeat the vicious attacks against a particular editor here. As a person who edits Roman Catholic articles on this website you do not share in the ecumenical attitude of the Roman Catholic Church. I will repeat, since I am impelled to by this unfair accusation: an LCMS employee is never paid to edit these articles. The policy of the LCMS is to let the truth be told no matter how embarrassing. I would ask User:Mantanmoreland to stop repeating this false accusation.--Drboisclair 16:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are all anonymous here unless we identify ourselves on talk pages and user pages as being employees of the Lutheran Church. You're in fine form today, Drbo. Continue.--Mantanmoreland 19:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can determine there are no employees of the LCMS contributing on this website, Manta, Manta--Drboisclair 19:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Liturgy and Church government

message: Drboisclair has reverted en masse every reversion that has been made on this page today except for the most recent one on Luther's Bible, and that's because it hadn't been made yet. These wholesale reversions must stop. This is precisely the problem that has beset this article for months. Every time a good faith effort is made to trim it, the trims are reverted and we are back to square one.--Mantanmoreland 18:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The same can be said for wholesale deletions. --CTSWyneken(talk) 18:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mantanmoreland, why don't you stop disrupting the careful editing of this article. All you do is cause discord.--Drboisclair 19:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've reverted all of RelHistBuff's edits. This is precisely the kind of rigidity and bad faith "brick wall" obstructionism that has prevented this article from being trimmed in the past. Attempting to drive a wedge between editors -- this ham-handed game of saying "your edits are OK but the other guys are awful" -- is another old game you've played in the past. I hope RelHistBuff hasn't been driven away by your tactics.--Mantanmoreland 20:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What in the world is "ham-handed"? One of your original phrases?--Drboisclair 16:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not ranting you are.--Drboisclair 19:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please stop wholesale reversions 

message: Very nicely done. Thank you! I don't see anything on first pass that needs changing. Drboisclair, what do you think? --CTSWyneken(talk) 17:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I like it as well.--Drboisclair 15:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eucharistic Controversy Section 

message: I've made an editing pass over this section and gave it a new title. Constructive comments and minor edits are welcome. --CTSWyneken(talk) 18:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luther and Justification 

message: A comment on this section. It basically uses 6 treatises as the basis of the section and the subsection titles are in fact the titles of three of them. They may be important treatises, but from the point-of-view of a encyclopedia reader, the titles have no impact or meaning ("German nobility", "Babylonian captivity",...). I think it is more interesting for the reader if there were relevant subsection titles covering the points of doctrine. RelHistBuff 20:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We can certainly reduce these subsections and summarize their content. We can work the titles of the work into the flow of the text something like: "in his Prelude on the Babylonian Captivity of the Church..." Since three of them sound the signature doctrines of Luther's theology for the first time, we should call them by name. But since at least one or two of them have their own articles, we can treat those as main articles and go to summary style. If you want to take a crack at it, go ahead. --CTSWyneken(talk) 00:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the moment, no, better someone else does that. I did have plans on editing it, but I'd rather stay out at least for now. But I do want to insist on my original position about the titles. If you look at the TOC at the top of the article, the name of those three subsections really look out of place. "Widening breach" as a section title and "Prelude on the Babylonian Captivity..." as a subsection looks really bizarre. If you really have to keep the three treatises as subsection titles, the top section title should be something like "Three important treatises by Luther". However, if one keeps "Widening breach" then the subsection titles should be something related to why Luther was widening the breach. Maybe something like "Commitment to the laity", "Different views on the sacraments", whatever. Each section could still cover the three treatises, but the titles should match the section title. RelHistBuff 20:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish you would. I can't edit it -- I will be automatically reverted by CTS and Drbosclair, so there is little point in trying. However, this article needs a fresh eye quite desperately.--Mantanmoreland 20:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let me note that Mantanmoreland has made only one addition to this article, that the material was retained. There was some give and take on it, mostly having to do with positioning and with citation. These were resolved and the section is still there. The recent reversals came because he summarily reverted the work done by me and drboisclair.--CTSWyneken(talk) 21:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not true. My edit the other day was to preserve RelHistBuff's trim, which you reverted . A little silly to rewrite history, CTS. Previous to that, my effort to rewrite and trim the first paragraph was reverted just as you reverted RelHistBuff.--Mantanmoreland 21:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  Go back and look. I did not put everything back, just two paragraphs, one of which was returned only to keep the text available for trimming. Later, I went back and trimmed a paragraph that had been left alone, included a portion of the quote, and then deleted the rest. All of this would have happened sooner, had you not reverted that work, twice I believe. Just stop the personal smears and disparaging remarks. If you want to work, fine. Do so. But stop the destructive behavior.--CTSWyneken(talk) 21:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not everything -- "only" two out of three paragraphs. When I compromised by just removing the quote and reinstating the rest , that was acceptable until Drboisclair vetoed it.. The following day the Luther quote that was so necessary all of a sudden became unecessary. Had I made that edit it would have been reverted automatically. These tactics are typical of how you and Drbo maintain control of the article. And thank you but I don't need your permission to work on the article, even if doing so is waste of time because of your kneejerk reversions.--Mantanmoreland 21:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  If no one else gets to it, I'll work on it. As far as the titles go, I think I really wasn't very clear about my thoughts. I didn't mean to suggest that we retain the subdivisions. In fact, I think we can reduce the whole thing to a few paragraphs. What I'm trying to say is we need to call the treatises by name in the flow of the text. --CTSWyneken(talk) 21:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, if there will be no subsections than that solves that. RelHistBuff 08:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Widening breach

message: Notes 83 and 114 have no text; the first is a named ref and I'm guessing so is the other. This can happen either because the original ref (with the citation text) is moved after the first use of the name, or because it was deleted. If it's too inconvenient to have the cite text with the first use of the name, it's ok to repeat it with every reference and not use named refs. Gimmetrow 00:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! Later today or tomorrow, I'll go back and see what happened to them. --CTSWyneken(talk) 11:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think I've got 'em. That was fun... --CTSWyneken(talk) 22:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes 

message: Just a few comments on the picky side...
# Luther's role as town preacher is important in the 95 theses story because he likely would never have composed them, if he were not a confessor of ordinary folk. When they presented the plenary indulgence to him, told him that they were off the hook and did not have to confess and relayed to Luther what Tetzel preached, Luther decided to act. The souls of these people were at sake, in his view, because they believed they did not have to repent. Now, that doesn't mean we want this level of detail in a summary paragraph, but it is not just there to defend a picture. It's the match that lit the fuse.
::Ok, but then some adjustment to the original text would be needed with the usual citations. Otherwise it looks out of place from the point-of-view of the non-Luther specialist. As the only mention of St. Mary's church in the article are in two photo captions, it looked like the text was placed there so that the photos could be included. RelHistBuff 12:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no problem with that. The whole section still needs adjusting in light of the 95 Theses article. I moved some material a little while ago, but haven't gotten back to it. If time permits, I'll check the treatment in an encyclopedia article or two and see if I can get some guidence as to how it can be done shortly and sweetly.--CTSWyneken(talk) 13:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought about the anachronism of the word, but then as the clause is being used to describe Eck from the present day point-of-view (describing Eck in his whole life), I thought it was ok. Eck came into the flow of the text rather suddenly without any introduction so I added that clause. If you know of a better way to describe him, then go ahead and change it. RelHistBuff 12:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's good to have an introductory clause there. Again, this is sheer pickiness, so there's no hurry in coming up with a better phrase. If I think of one, I'll try it out here. --CTSWyneken(talk) 13:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on Miscellaneous Changes 

message: Luther was known for his bitter attacks on the papacy, which grew more vitriolic in his later years. In the context of the opening of the Council of Trent in 1545, Luther wrote a pamphlet entitled, Against the Roman Papacy an Institution of the Devil.LW 41:259-376. It was his bitterest attack against the institution of the papacy.LW 41:259. One conservative Roman Catholic commentator observed with respect to this document:Perhaps no one in history abhorred the Church and all she stands for more than Martin Luther. His diatribes against the papacy and the structure of the Church in general are well known. Popes, bishops, and cardinals are referred to as "Roman sodom." One of Luther's pamphlets is entitled "Against the Papacy Established by the Devil" (1545). He once blessed a group of followers, saying: "May the Lord fill you with His blessings and with hatred of the Pope." Emanuel Valenza, "Christ Among Us? No. Heresy and Revolution, Yes!" The Angellus 8 (1985) No. 3. http://www.sspx.ca/Angelus/1985_March/Christ_Among_Us.htm.
My motivation is to help get the article down to fighting weight. This clumsily titled section is mainly filled with a quote by some commentator who makes the ridiculous suggestion that Martin Luther abhorred the Church more than anyone else in history. Also the title in the pamphlet is translated differently in the quote than in the article text. Finally, the Council of Trent was in effect a series of councils that went on till 1563; its placing in this chronological point in the article makes it seem an important event in Luther's life, but it began only shortly before he died. In short, the section has no substance.
I do think the Council of Trent's worth mentioning, and also this pamphlet: but they can be referred to in other parts of the article.
Any comments? qp10qp 16:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose of this section was to add something of the Roman Catholic POV to the article. I'm not married to this section as is but perhaps you can distribute some of this content elsewhere. --Mantanmoreland 01:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds like a good plan. Another way to handle it would be to take up in the last section that Luther's rhetoric grew more harsh, vile and vulgar in his last years. We have the matter of not only giving as good as he got in battle with the Papacy and attacked the Jews, but also targeted Muslims and Anabaptists, as well. --CTSWyneken(talk) 12:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that the pamphlet on the Jews was chronologically out-of-place and I wondered if it shouldn't be placed later along with his other last harsh writings. I would agree that your solution is good. In putting it together, it will unfortunately be a somewhat large section concatenating the various polemics, but it does show the items in chronological context. RelHistBuff 13:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I think this is all reasonable. The Catholic POV needs to be in here as well and the hostility viz the Pope is important.--Mantanmoreland 13:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luther, the papacy, and the [[Council of Trent]] 

message: I felt I had to tweak this because the word "confession" is in this context a technical word which needed a touch of clarification for the Wikipedia reader. And I also tried to make slightly clearer what happened at Augsburg. I was unable to discover quite what proportion of contribution Luther and Melanchthon each made to the Augsburg text, however, and as I didn't want the Melanchthon article saying Phil was the main man while the Luther article said Martin was, I've made that neutral.qp10qp 22:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Melanchthon wrote the actual words (and thought of himself as the author), Luther provided the content and approved the final form. The princes subscribed to it. From the beginning, all throught of it as a common confession of the whole Lutheran tradition. If you'd like, I can provide a link to a historical overview of the thing for you. --CTSWyneken(talk) 01:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've come to the conclusion that Luther and Melancthon's specific contributions can't be quantified, though clearly Luther's ideas were the powerhouse. By all means give me the link, though I did spend hours trying to run this to ground. (But one reason I like working on this article is that I know you guys have the resources to straighten out any details I get wrong.}qp10qp 11:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I appreciate the work you and RelHistBuff have been doing here. You have a good eye for material that we do not necessarily need to have in the article. The occaisonal item or two I've had problems with are easy to repair. For the historical introduction to the documents in the Book of Concord, see "Historical Introductions to the Lutheran Confessions." This is a digitization of a classical history of the confessions, used as a text by many Lutheran seminaries. It is public domain and reads like it, I'm afraid. Let me know if you need further resources. --CTSWyneken(talk) 12:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Augsburg Confession