Talk:Martin Luther/Archive 1

message: :Dear Harris7:
:According to Brecht, the account comes from Crotus Rubianus, a friend of Luther from the days before his entry into the monastery, in letter 213, 16 October 1519. WA br 1:543, line 105ff. CTSWyneken 12:21, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and further on, from Luther himself: WA 8:573, Lines 20ff, WA TR no. 116, WA TR 4 no. 4414, WA TR 4 no. 4704, WA TR 5 no. 5373, WA BR 2:384, Line 80. The text fro TR 4 nol 4704 says, it part: "On the 16th July (1539), St. Alexis Day, Luther observed: "Today is the anniversary of my entrance into the monastery at Erfurt." Then he began to relate how he made the vow. Two weeks earlier while travelling near Stotternheim, not far from Erfurt, he was so frightened by a flash of lightening that he exclaimed in terror: "Help me, St. Anne, I will become a monk!" [Hillerbrand, p. 23] CTSWyneken 14:42, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Answer

message: I speak from ignorance, but I thought that Luther held some sort of governing position. Actually, I thought I'd read that he was some sort of religious despot, or dictatorial church tyrant--but I'm not sure if that is anti-Lutheran sentiment that I've seen disguised as history. In fact, this is why I read the article, but I saw no mention of any such.
:Luther never held a position in government, nor would his theology permit such. He was the first to advocate the notion of separation of church and state, although his concept was very different from ours. He felt a government had a duty to God to promote Christianity, fight its enemies and punish blasphemy. His role -- and that of anyone in the church -- was to advise the government as to God's will. Luther's style was quite polemic, like the most partisan of our politicians on steriods. When read out of context and century, he can sound very extreme. What most people fail to realize is that everyone wrote that way in the sixteenth century. This is the day of Vlad the Impaler, Sueleman (sp.?) the Great of the Ottoman Empire, the Spanish Inquisition and the Conquestadors, Aztec sacrifices of the beating hearts of their enemies on the high altars of Mexico. Not a very gentle age. 
:You have a point, though, about anti-Luther propaganda. Very often it is disguised as history. Of course, NPOV, the reverse was often true! --CTSWyneken 20:45, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Government position? 

message: The phrase ... added several principles to the art of translation sets up the reader but doesn't enlarge on this statement. I'd be interested. Wetman 18:01, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I plan to do so, but haven't gotten that far. (real life has a way of getting in the way of Wiki... 8-) ) Last summer, I got as far as the 95 theses. Working on our Luther exhibit (with actual first printings of many of Luther's works in it) has brought me back into the picture again. --CTSWyneken 21:04, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation 

message: If anyone is interested, the Schaaf-Herzog article on Luther is online at:  It is public domain, so if someone wants to cut-and-paste, we can really expand our article rapidly and accurately. It's considered a rare, more or less POV, article written in the 19th Century. --CTSWyneken 21:09, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Online Essay on the Life of Luther

message: I have been studying Martin Luther most of my life, and I want to compliment you all on a fine page. The fact that I see little need for me to make changes or additions is striking in and of itself, and the joy I have been taking in re-reading it is a special compliment from me to each of you. Keep up the good work! Sam Spade 07:31, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great page! 

message: The book "Young Man Luther" by Erik H. Erikson (W. W. Norton & co., 1962) may be worthy to be referred among books on Luther. Its author was professor of psychoanalysis and human development and he wrote an analysis of Luther's struggles from the psychoanalytical (post-Freudian) point of view. However, he is by any means bashing Luther as crazy and the book gives a huge insight into Luther's struggle before and after his conversion. User:Matej
----
I recently added a bunch of rather controversial edits. I thought many of these were interesting points to make, but I understand that some of them might be disputed or considered POV. If anyone sees a problem, reply to this post (or edit a dissenting opinion into the article, perhaps). Brutannica 06:55, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another item to literature section? 

message: I've begun adding text from the 19th century Schaaf-Herzog Encyclopedia. It solid, but a bit old. Feel free to edit it. I just want to get more of the story told quickly. --CTSWyneken 20:30, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Expanding from Schaaf-Herzog

message: If anyone can find the text of either the Obelisci, the Asterisci, or the proceedings of Luther's and Karlstadt's debates with Eck, it would be a fine contribution to the article.
--jrcagle 23:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leipzig Debates 

message: I thought Martin Luther was a jurist to start with. Then he used his text-analyzing skills to analyze the bible, finding lots of strange things in his contemporary church, and first much later becoming a priest/monk.
I find this incoherent with the article (not that I've read it or anything ;). Am I wrong?
: Luther was a law student before he entered the monastery, but never practiced law at any level. His Biblical method arose out of his formal Biblical studies, his reading of the writings from the early church, especially St. Augustine, and his commitment to several principles of humanism, especially Ad fontes to the source.--CTSWyneken 11:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jurist? 

message: Is there a specific statement Luther made encouraging the suppression of witchcraft that we could add?  If not, the section seems a bit vauge.  Luther surely did oppose witchcraft, but I'm not so he did so in an hisorically significant way.  If the section can't be made more specific perhaps just remove it?
:After reviewing all the citations for "witchcraft" and "witch" in the American Edition of Luther's Works (55 volumes), I find very little remarkable about Luther's views on the matter - certainly nothing that merits the strongly worded section on "Luther and the persecution of witches". Typical of Luther's thoughts on witchcraft is the following (LW v.24, p.74):
::"It is true that the devil can torment people and lay them low; or he can blind them temporarily or lame a member, as he often did through his witches and devilish whores, and then heal them again. Not that these people were really blind or lame, for to such he could not restore sight or a member; but he bewitches the people and dupes their five senses, so that they do not know better and are willing to swear an oath that it is real."
:Luther understood witches to be cheats or deceivers, in keeping with the biblical depiction of Satan as a misleader. Their power, such as it may be, is primarily the power of deception, and it is at any rate completely subject to divine will. Witches, like the devil, only operate to the degree that God allows, and no more.
:In this position, Luther strikes me as, if anything, more moderate than many of his contemporaries in his approach to witches and their activities. Yes, he atttributed many misfortunes to witchcraft, including his own frequent illnesses. Yes, Luther (like any other Christian who takes scripture as the Word of God) wrestled with the meaning of passages like the cited Exodus 22:18. However, linking Luther in this manner to the Salem witch hunts seems quite a stretch to me. In reality, Luther's Works does not contain a single reference to this scipture that appears to advocate killing witches, and the Lutheran Confessions do not cite Ex. 22:18 at all. Of all the things that fired Luther's passion, witchcraft does not seem to rank high among them.
:This section in the Wikipedia article strikes me at best as an effort to thrust modern sensibilities onto a midieval man. With no evidence from the historical record, it ties Luther to a movement that he may well have denounced as hysteria inspired (ironically enough) by the trickery of the devil and of actual witches.
:I am in favor of deleting the section unless/until it is better researched and written from a NPOV.
:--Bob Schaefer 00:51, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed! Leave it out... --CTSWyneken 11:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luther and witchcraft 

message: An inline comment in the article questions the date of Luther's first publication of his complete Bible translation into German.  This is indeed listed as 1534 according to The Bible Through the Ages, Reader's Digest Assoc., 1996, , an outstanding text regrettably now out of print.  --Blainster 23:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of complete Bible translation

message: The latest editing change for the first section of this article is an improvement: "His call to the Church to return to the teachings of the Bible spawned new traditions within Christianity and his teachings affected the Counter-Reformation in the Roman Catholic Church." However, I would submit, "His call to the Church to return to the teachings of the Bible spawned new traditions within Christianity, which, in turn, promted the Counter Reformation as the Roman Catholic reaction" would be a more accurate statement here. drboisclair 19:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luther and the Counter-Reformation 

message: I think this article is very Pro-Luther in some parts.
There is an advantage in it being pro-Luther because readers are invited to look at the subject "from the inside." I do agree that objectivity is to be a goal; however, there has been so much negative press on Luther in recent years. drboisclair 20:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro-Luther. POV 

message: An editor removed "Roman" from before "Catholic" in Luther's Legacy section of this article. This would imply that Protestants in general and Lutherans in particular were not catholic. Protestants are not eo ipso (simply by being "Protestant") non-catholic. I made what I felt were necessary emendations. drboisclair 16:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "Roman" from before "Catholic" in this article 

message: Friends:
I dropped by and noticed massive changes in the text of this article. I'm not sure why, since, ironically, it was in areas we had edited together quite a bit and not in the ones that needed a lot of work (and still do) May I request a moritorium on these changes until we can absorb what's here now and see if they are truly improvements?
--CTSWyneken 02:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Massive Changes

message: In the first paragraph, we used to use the word "tradition" to describe "Lutheran and Protestant." This is the term used currently in scholarly circles for sets of denominations, organizations, etc. that share basic theological and cultural features that distinguish them from other traditions within the same religion. "Lutheran," "Anglican," "Reformed," "Pentecostal" are such traditions within Christianity. Denomination is used in scholarly circles for a specific organization, with rosters, rules, buildings and budgets. So, Christianity = Religion, Lutheran = Tradition, Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod = denomination, and, while we're at it, St. Peter Lutheran Church of Fort Wayne, Indiana = a congregation. If no one objects, I'll revert the term.
--CTSWyneken 10:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Commentary on Recent Changes

message: Thank you for looking in to this. Perhaps it is a technicality that means something to people attending seminaries and graduate schools. If you judge it to be best for the article, it might be best to go back to the general "Doctor of Theology": the German sources online have it as Th.D., but theological doctorate or doctor of theology is what the degree is called in Brecht, Schwiebert, and even Oberman. I agree about the Latin and German. As you can see in the Martin Chemnitz article, I have translated all the non-English words.
--drboisclair 00:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on Luther's degree 

message: Rev. Smith, as you see from the title page of this online source, these articles may be "edited by anyone." The "prestigious" Lutheran institution is Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, and the professors in question are the Rev. Dr. H. Richard Klann, Ph.D. and the Rev. Dr. Norman E. Nagel, Ph.D., whom I have had the pleasure of studying under. Perhaps, you'd like to check their credentials. Of all the professors that I have studied under I do not know any that knows Luther better in the LCMS. Excepting, of course, the sainted Rev. Dr. Heino Kadai, who used to teach at your institution, Concordia Theological Seminary, Ft. Wayne. As I said, I have taken numerous graduate courses on Luther. I know that you have an M.S. in L.S. and an M.Div. from the St. Louis Seminary, and you are blessed to be the librarian of a prestigious Lutheran institution and on the faculty--the librarian is on the faculty I take it. I respect your credentials, and I am disappointed that you see fit to delete data, which are historically accurate. You need to point out in this article that Luther was a biblical exegete. By just saying that he was a "doctor of theology" does not give the reader all the information. Why didn't you edit some of the inaccuracies in the paragraph on the 1520 treatises, e.g.? All of us have a right to edit this article. In my case I will not put anything into it that cannot be supported. Have you checked out the LW 10:1-2? Isn't it better if we add information that is original from our own study as experts in our field? Philip Schaff was a celebrated church historian; perhaps his citations from the History of the Christian Church should be referenced, so that we can be more respectful of his words. In short I would request the same respect for my input as a fellow Lutheran scholar. Cordially and fraternally, Rev. David R. Boisclair, M.Div., S.T.M., St. Louis, Missouri. drboisclair 04:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your work, and I would like to help. I will follow this courtesy protocol: it is only fair. I am sorry if I have deleted material from the Schaaf-Herzog Encyclopedia. I am glad that we are able to use that material. I would imagine that we cannot use resources that are copyrighted like The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Please call on my help if you think it appropriate. I would appreciate it if you took a look at and put the Martin Chemnitz on your "watch list." drboisclair 16:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps some of the Schaaf-Herzog material could be retro replaced by using the "history page". I could try to restore it if you desire. Perhaps it would be better if one had the entry in Schaaf-Herzog to consult and simply enter the information at the appropriate places. Will not take this on unless it is agreed. drboisclair 16:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  My credentials 

message: In the spirit of the wikipedia, I do not mind editing of the articles here. After all, that's the point of this experiment. I do find it offensive, however, to find the work that I and others have done on this article over years, some with a lot of debate, completely revised without so much as a warning, much less  a discussion. Most of the changes you've made do not change the substance of what we've done. So why change them? Just because you do not like the way they sound? Then ask. Most of us do not mind some adjustment. I take this particular article quite personally because I am tired of Luther being abused unfairly. When there are changes, I check each one to be sure that the changes have merit. When you change enough to generate a whole history page of just your edits, you cost me much time and effort.
So, please! Before you change text in volume, some of it the words of historians like Philipp Schaaf of the 19th Century, please discuss it with us. You may be suprised (I, for one, would like to see much of the latter parts of the article fully redone.
Rev. Robert E. Smith
Concordia Theological Seminary
Fort Wayne, Indiana
--CTSWyneken 21:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not like Luther being abused either, and I resent all of the vandalism that is being done to this article. Perhaps this article like the one on our Lord should be protected from vandalism in some way. Perhaps if some editors may be considered to "own" an article, there should be some kind of notation made at the beginning of the article for the "outsider" to consult. As someone who admires and studies Luther I do not feel that I am an outsider, and I admit to being disappointed at my contributions being summarily removed. drboisclair 04:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  There has been serious discussion in the wikipedia governing board about just that. A number of "settled" articles find themselves under constant attack. The current mechanism, which relies on folks like me to stand watch on articles we care about, can be very burdensome. Incidently, you can often click on a user's name in the page history and see something about the user. This takes you to the user page, where you, Stan and I have left some idea of who we are. By using this info and by skimming through the page history, it is often clear who cares about a given article. When it comes to the subject matter of this article, not only are you not an outsider, but something of an expert. The issue  was we did not know that. I apologize for the wholesale deletes of your material. I normally would not have done this without expressing my concerns here, but, when you did not respond here to an earlier plea, I looked for a way to get your attention. Not my greatest moment.
--CTSWyneken 12:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I apologize for cavalierly revising material painstakingly devised. CTS library affords an excellent resource for formulating these articles. I like editing and revising, and at times I have acquired information that I naturally volunteer without consulting. I agree that this project is one that should be done carefully. I like the tremendous resources that "The Wittenberg Project" offers to the online community. "The Wittenberg Project" is a valuable resource that I hope will be expanded! Cordially, drboisclair 15:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Do not make massive changes without disscussion please

message: If you notice in this article, there is an enormous space that shows up at the beginning of this article because the beginning picture and the coat of arms are placed as they are. Perhaps the coat of arms might be put on the left and the picture box on the right or vice versa to make the beginning of this article look better. drboisclair 05:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the table of contents box always consumes its vertical space with no article text beside it. The placement of those two graphics fills space alongside the TOC that would otherwise be blank. If they were placed elsewhere, they would take additional space in their new location instead of making use of waste space here. BUT... any illustration should be located where is is most useful in context. I don't recall if the article has a section describing Luther's seal, but if it ever does have such a section, then it would certainly be better to move the seal graphic down to illustrate that section. --StanZegel 05:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The need to arrange the initial picture and coat of arms 

message: There is a move among the administration of Wikipedia to remove the biographical infoboxes comprehensively. I urge all to weigh in pro or con. The one in this article looks good and should be retained. This requires the timely attention of all, please.
--drboisclair 21:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Save our Biographical Infobox 

message: In order to avoid the "Biography Infobox" controversy, why not make the Cranach painting of Luther into an image box like the Luther seal: one could then add the caption information. I think that the Cranach painting should be retained
--drboisclair 19:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, that's the way it started out. Let's just go ahead and do it. --CTSWyneken 11:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  InfoBox Conversion to avoid Controversy 

message: When a moment presents itself, I'd like to thin out this section a bit. On the other side, a sentence on the Invocavit sermons is needed.
::added a needed break for Luther's return to Wittenberg and at least two sentences on the Invocavit Sermons. If too long, feel free to edit.drboisclair 19:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like the way it looks. When I get to thinning it, I suspect I'll leave it. The trick will be to keep the story line in tact, while taking out details that are not needed. --CTSWyneken 11:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exile in the Wartburg 

message: I'd like to list here the things the article is missing at this point. Please add whatever you'd like. Feel free to write new text on these...
* Luther's Marriage and family
* The Table Talk
* Settled life in Wittenberg
* Luther's hymns
* Luther's role in the writing of the Augustana; the Smalcald articles
* Luther's preaching
* Some detail on Luther's death and funeral
::Added detail on Luther's death, culled and condensed from Brecht, vol. 3.drboisclair 19:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nice job, Pastor Boisclair! On a first read, it sounds really good. You've provided a lot of rich detail. The only question would be if there is a little bit too much. But I will be a good boy and leave it alone. --CTSWyneken 11:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Professor Smith, I would be honored if you would refine it where you feel necessary. Team work is a blessing.drboisclair 18:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Events 

message: I like the additions here very much. --CTSWyneken 11:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanded Bibliography 

message: Either there should be substantial discussion of his writing here or it should be merged in with the more historical section. I may try to do the latter unless anyone objects or wants to do it himself. As it is the secton is out of place, in addition to not being of the highest quality.
CSMR 04:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Welcome! I have no object to this. I have not gotten to this section at all. I'd prefer to have the last section resemble the Schaaf article linked in the online section. By the way, please put a little about yourself on your user page. To do this, click on your username, type a few lines and save it. It's good to know who a person is when we're all working together. --CTSWyneken 11:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luther's writings 

message: My apologies for the numerous edits in converting the infobox biography to an ordinary image with caption. I hope this is satisfactory. If not we could revert back to the infobox.drboisclair 10:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks good! Since I knew what you were up to, the number of edits was fine. It can be quite a pain to get an image to do what you wish, as I know all too well...
--CTSWyneken 12:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The numerous edit entries 

message: The price of a good article means that one has to have eternal vigilance against vandalism of any kind whether humorous, devilish, or angelical. Of course, you cannot let it bother you. You might find yourselves laughing as teachers do when they find that students have written silly things in the manuals on their desks!drboisclair 13:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deploring the vandalism 

message: With the addition of Bartholomäus Bernhardi of Feldkirchen and Gabriel Zwilling as new articles I have removed all the  red internal links to the Martin Luther article. drboisclair 03:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No More red internal links! 

message: An anonymous editor added this to the section on the "Indulgence controversy": "[Note: According to Traditions & Encounters 3rd ed. Vol.2 Bentley/Ziegler, The nailing of the theses did not actually occur. This is merely a popular legend.]" I cut it and pasted it here. There is dispute on this point. Cf. Brecht, Martin Luther: His Road to Reformation 1483-1521 (vol. 1), p. 200. I have read and heard that the nailing to the castle church door was a legend; however, the theses were "posted" to Archbishop Albert of Mainz. You may wish to delete this anonymous reference along with my qualification. I believe that Philipp Melanchthon's biography of Luther states that it was nailed to the Castle Church door. 
I thought it best to cut this anonymous reference and place it here.
drboisclair 02:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the speed with which you addressed this issue. For this reason any other statements on this matter should not be placed in this article. drboisclair 18:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The anonymous addition of 95 theses nailing disclaimer 

message: I have composed this section in line with the categories listed above as needed in the article. I think that we might add something about the extended family members who lived with the Luthers as well as the college students, but this is a beginning if it is acceptable. This could lead into a section on the Table Talk drboisclair 22:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicely done! --CTSWyneken 12:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new proposed addition to the article on Luther's marriage and family 

message: Hey, Stan, I understood that the marriage took place indoors before a small group. I know that it was customary for marriages to be held at the church door in those days; however, I do not think that Luther's was. I will research. Do you have clear research on this. Cheers, Dave drboisclair 10:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Only my recollections from my visits there. I trust your research over my memory. The Luther wedding reenactment is a big annual festival in Wittenberg, so that may serve as a guide/confirmation. --StanZegel  (talk) 11:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: And the festival's webpage says it happened inside the former monestery.--StanZegel  (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Some days after June 13, 1525 they had a wedding celebration when perhaps there was a ceremony before the church door. The question is which church? All Saints or St. Mary's? drboisclair 22:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would have been St. Mary's, the stadtkirche just off the marketplace, but it is worth researching. --StanZegel  (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I recall the wedding proper being done quickly and quietly. Not everyone approved, not the least of all Phillip! He never got over it and saw it as a bit of slight. Well deserved from my reading! They did do a public announcement later, which is what the Stadt Wittenberg celebration reenacts. --CTSWyneken 13:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where the Luther marriage took place 

message: Was she really Margareta Lindemann, as the article presently says? Other sources say M. Lindemann was the grandmother, and M. Ziegler was the mother. Because those whose last names begin with a "Z" are often not given their just recognition in this world, if the mother was indeed a Ziegler, she should be given credit for it! --StanZegel  (talk) 04:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luther's Mother 

message: This is a very, very Luther is good article. I put up an POV flag and someone took it down. This isn't WikiChurch or anything. Need major editing and I can't believe my Flag was put down. It doesn't make sense.
:We've worked very hard at giving an NPOV here. Can you be more specific? What do you think is POV here? Perhaps we can adjust it...
--CTSWyneken 11:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive Pov 

message: I am proposing that a word(s) on Law/Gospel and a link to the article on Law and Gospel might be added to this section:
Luther's theory of grace
The demanding discipline of earning academic degrees and preparing lectures drove Martin Luther to study the Scriptures in depth. Influenced by the call of humanism ad fontes—"to the sources"—he immersed himself in the study of the Bible and the early Church. Soon terms like penance and righteousness took on new meaning for Luther, and he became convinced that the Church had lost sight of several of the central truths of Christianity taught in Scripture—the most important of which being the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Luther began to teach that salvation is completely a gift of God's grace through Christ received by faith. {Luther's definition and reintroduction of the principle of the proper distinction between Law and Gospel safeguarded his theory of grace, which he believed to be the central message of Christianity.} drboisclair 00:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps "... by humanism's call ad fontes ("to the sources") ..." might be clearer? --StanZegel  (talk) 03:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Feel free to adjust it, Stan. --CTSWyneken 12:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

text:  David, I like your addition very much. I'm wondering out loud, now that I read it, if we have it in the right place. (I really don't know...) When did Luther start using Law/Gospel talk? I also wonder about the title, which sounds a little awkward to me... --CTSWyneken 12:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I share your concern about the chronology in putting the Law/Gospel insight in this paragraph that precedes "Indulgence Controversy"; however, it would not fit thematically in the later paragraphs. My rationalization for putting it in the "Theory of Grace" paragraph stems from the fact that there are elements that were already in that paragraph that may not have been chronologically before the "Indulgence Controversy." Law/Gospel distinction is very closely linked to Luther's doctrine of Justification by grace through faith, so this paragraph is the natural place for a reference to Law / Gospel distinction. We probably need to modify the caption a bit. I would suggest: "Luther's doctrine of Justification and proper Law / Gospel distinction". drboisclair 15:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why don't we go to the simple title: "Luther's theology of grace" and insert the word: "later" in front of the Law/Gospel paragraph?
--CTSWyneken 18:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luther on Law and Gospel 

message: Contrary to popular belief, Martin Luther never adequately understood the Catholic Church's teachings on indulgences. As a result, his inflammatory writings on the matter have caused much confusion, and have led many to imagine that the Church once handed out indulgences to the highest bidder, with no concern for true repentance of sins. This is, quite simply, a distortion of the actual Catholic doctrine, which was the same in the Middle Ages as it is today.
The whole controversy surrounding Luther and indulgences began when Pope Julius II decided to restore the beautiful Basilica of Saint Peter in Rome, originally built by Emperor Constantine. To help pay for the project, Julius' successor, Leo X, "proclaimed and Indulgence," which stated that anyone who might contribute to the restoration of the basilica, should receive, provided they make a sincere confession, remission of the "temporal guilt" associated with their sins - that is, the punishment they might receive in purgatory. This, of course, had nothing to do with future sins the contributor might make. As ever the Church carefully administered the indulgences, and allowed them only to those confessing humbly and faithfully.
Martin Luther's sermon attacking Leo X's Indulgence contained "no accurate reasoning, no grasp of the subject, but plenty of violent declamation." He personally attacked John Tetzel, who had replied soberly to Luther's charges in defense of the Church: "I laugh at your words as I do at the braying of an ass; instead of water, I recommend to you the juice of the grape; and instead of fire, inhale, my friend, the smell of roast goose."
(See the brilliantly documented "Facts About Luther" by Msgr O'Hare.)
* O'Hare, Patrick F. Facts About Luther.  Rockford, IL: Tan Books and Publishers, 1987. .
(originally posted in the article, instead of on the talk page,  23:56, 3 November 2005 by IsabellasKnight)
With all due respect to the sincere Roman Catholic faith expressed in these paragraphs, this is simply an historical error. Martin Luther understood the concept of indulgences that they were the remitting or waiving by the pope of temporal penalties incurred by sins that are imposed by the church in its sacrament of penance. John Tetzel and his collegues did not disabuse their listeners of their simple belief that they were buying the forgiveness of sins, that indulgences were a plenary remission of eternal penalties. Luther at first did not advocate doing away with indulgences; he wanted them used properly. It was the Roman curia and the pope who blew things out of proportion by condemning Luther because he did not accept the novel concept that there was a treasury of merits gathered up of the surplus merit of Christ and the saints. This was vaguely set up in papal decretals of the then past two centuries 1300-1500. Luther encountering intransigent opposition began to investigate further into theology. This was what he was supposed to do as a doctor of theology. He was a teacher of the church, who was responsible to warn and instruct the church catholic on the true faith. I like to remember what Danny Thomas once said some 30 years ago about Pope John XXIII that if he had been pope in 1517 the Reformation would not have occurred. This may not be an historically accurate assessment, but it argues the need to get all the facts and sit down and dialogue. Allow the fresh air to air out the stale air in the church (aggiornamento). If the one who posted these paragraphs would examine the writings of scholarly Roman Catholic theologians like Fr. Harry McSorley or Fr. Daniel Olivier, he or she would have more insight to speak on these matters. Respectfully submitted IMHO, drboisclair 16:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The indulgence controversy 

message: Moving this from article main page to here for discussion as likely to be controversial and currently unsourced.Gaff 23:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luther's bouts with diabolical visions 

message: I'll keep a running list of what I learn about this work under this title. The first thing I notice is that Manchester is a historian of the twentieth century, writing mostly about WWII. Medieval Mind is his only work outside that subject. 
A review of the work in Word and World 14 (1994) no. 2:225-228 quotes the author's note from the work as saying: "Complete at last, this book is a source of pride, which is pleasant, though in this instance somewhat odd. It is, after all, a slight work, with no scholarly pretensions. All the sources are secondary, and few are new; I have not mastered recent scholarship on the early sixteenth century." p. xiii.
The reviewer says the work "displays a breathtaking lack of scholarship." and "obviously, the problems with this book are many. Events are sometimes related inaccurately. The conclusions drawn from particular events are often questionable. The presentation of facts is selective and biased. The method used is dubious. Someone interested in this period of history could find better books. It is hardly conceivable that one could find a worse book."
If you want to get into Luther's struggles, you need to find another work. read Obermann's Luther : man between God and the Devil and Brecht's three volume Martin Luther before adding material on this topic.
----
This book is not the first we hear about a preoccupation with what is called an "elimination theology": Osborne popularized this thinking with his Luther (play). I appreciate the work the above poster has brought to bear on this. drboisclair 14:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  William Manchester and Luther 

message: Well guys, do you think this article meets the criteria for a featured article? Should we get an outside opinion on whether it is ready? --StanZegel  (talk) 02:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article? 

message: Do we wish to draw attention to John Frederick's unfortunate decree against the Jews in 1536? drboisclair 12:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elector John Frederick's Decree against the Jews 1536 

message: : There has been quite a bit of passion here, making it hard to come to some sort of resolution. We have all been at least somewhat jumping to conclusions, even while responding to the other sides' attacks on our own character. So, I'd like to propose a way to get us to a resolution:
: * We freeze the version of the article in the form it was in yesterday.
: * We all cease using inflamitory rhetoric. Any such language will be ignored and no reply given at all to the arguments in that paragraph.
: * We archive the discussion of this subject from this point backwards to its beginning. (please, no one do this until at least all of Humus, drboisclair and SZagel weigh in here)
: * It would help if everyone identify their credentials on their user pages, so we know whom we are working with.
: * I believe precedent in and outside of Wikipedia are important. Let's see what the lay of the land is.
: * We take a time out from the discussion of the issue itself and use the time to do research. I've gathered together below what I've done over the past few days. Please feel free to add categories and accumulate data. I'd especially appreciate brief quotations from the guidelines, rules and policies of Wikipedia as they apply to the matter of creating subarticles, summaries and the inclusion of quotations. 
: * I will draw no conclusions from this data here for a week or so and request you all do the same.
: * When we come back to it, I'd like to start with the issue of why or why not we should include quotations in this summary? Then we can see if we can come to a consensus as to whether or not quotations should go into this summary. Then we go on to which details summarize the issues involved fairly. If we've decided to quote, which ones are the best at conveying this? If not, we edit the language of the paragraph to express both viewpoints.
: So, fellow editors... Is this a good plan? --CTSWyneken 14:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that it is a good plan. I wonder if we should perhaps delete the entire summary until then and just have the caption and the link to the Martin Luther and the Jews article. As it stands the summary will draw fire, so until we have done some thinking as CTSWyneken has suggested let's leave it completely blank. drboisclair 15:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A pause is agreeble to me, and I concur with drboisclair's thoughts on elimating the summary in the interim. --StanZegel  (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  We may self-impose a moratorium (a week of reflection is fine with me). WP is open and collaborative project (unfortunately, still many substandard articles) and our only guide is WP:RULES. If we are unable to resolve a conflict here, we should follow WP:DR. As others said earlier, the summary doesn't go anywhere. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 09:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Good then! Would someone archive this discussion above this proposal? As far as the rules go, of course. Please add any paragraphs you find relevant from the rules to the data section on rules and guidelines below. I also think that we can resolve these issues to a satisfactory place if we consider each issue objectively. If you don't mind, I'd like us to consider one issue at a time. If we do this, at the very least we will understand each other. --CTSWyneken 16:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Resolution of [[Martin Luther and the Jews]] Summary Debate 

message: === Wikipedia Policies, Guidelines and Suggestions ===
==== WP:RULES ====
Excerpts
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Its goals go no further.
Avoid bias. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing differing views on a subject factually and objectively.
Respect other contributors
==== NPOV ====
Excerpts
Articles should be written without bias, representing all majority and significant minority views fairly. This is the neutral point of view policy.
Fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct.
Articles without bias describe debates fairly instead of advocating any side of the debate. Since all articles are edited by people, this is difficult, as people are inherently biased.
Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view is correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Presenting all points of view says, more or less,
A good way to help building a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to wikipedia, and then cite that source. This is an easy way to characterize a side of a debate without excluding that the debate has other sides. The trick is to find the best and most reputable sources you can. Try the library for good books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources. A little bit of ground work can save a lot of time in trying to justify a point later.
The only other important consideration is that sources of comparable reputability might contradict. In that case the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches of the same topic exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources. And, when available, give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner.
Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:
: You won't even need to say he was evil. That's why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.
==== WP:RS ====
What follows is a description of Wikipedia's best practises. Many articles may fall short of this standard until one or more editors devote time and effort to fact-checking and reference-running. (See efforts to identify reliable sources.) In the meantime, readers can still benefit from your contributions, bearing in mind that unsourced edits, or edits relying on inappropriate sources, may be challenged at any time.
There are many ways in which factual errors can be introduced into reports. Keep in mind that some articles are about characterizing the various factions in a dispute. This means that you will be looking for reliable published reports of people's opinions.
* A fact is an actual state of affairs, which can be an historical event, or a social or natural phenomenon. To say of a sentence or proposition that it is true is to say that it refers to a fact.
* An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group holds a certain opinion is a fact, and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group holds the opinion.
* A primary source provides direct evidence for a certain state of affairs. This may mean that the source observes a state of affairs directly, or that they observe indirect evidence of it. In other words, a primary source is a source very close to the original state of affairs you are writing about. An example of primary-source material would be a photograph of a car accident taken by an eye witness, or a report from that eye witness. A trial transcript is also primary-source material. Wikipedia articles may rely on primary sources so long as what they say has been published by a credible publication. For example, a trial transcript has been published by the court. We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a credible publication. See Wikipedia:No original research.
* A secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources. A tertiary source usually summarizes secondary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source.
When reporting facts, Wikipedia articles should cite sources. Tertiary sources like reputable encyclopedias, such as the Encyclopædia Britannica, as well as reputable specialized encyclopedias such as the New Grove and the Dictionary of National Biography, contain a wealth of reliable information. Older editions such as the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica often have fuller articles than current editions on some subjects, though there is always the danger that the information is outdated.
If suspect sources have references, follow them. If there are no references, or if the references provided are insufficient, you may need to do additional research, or reconsider the reliability of the report.
When reporting that an opinion is held by a particular individual or group, the best citation will be to a direct quote, citing the source of the quote in full after the sentence (see Harvard referencing) or using a footnote. If there is text, audio, or video available of someone expressing the opinion directly, it is preferable to include or transcribe an excerpt, which is allowed under fair use.'''
Evaluating sources
* Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or the Socialist Workers Party. Groups like these may be used as primary sources only i.e. as sources about themselves, and even then with caution and sparingly.
* Were they actually there? Be careful to distinguish between descriptions of events by eyewitnesses and by commentators. The former are primary sources; the latter secondary. Both can be reliable.
* Find out what other people say about your sources.
* Have they reported other facts reliably, including on different subjects? Cross-check with what you already know.
* Are the publications available for other editors to check? We provide sources for our readers, so they must be accessible in principle, although not necessarily online.
Evaluating secondary sources
* Have they used multiple independent primary sources?
History
Historical events are difficult to verify. We must rely on people's memories, recorded accounts, and physical evidence to reconstruct it. Evidence and factual accounts contemporary with the events are valuable because there are fewer steps separating them from reality. On the other hand, their authors are more likely to have been involved in the events, and therefore to have a particular point of view. Indeed, the evaluation and judicious use of primary sources is a major part of the craft of history.
Summaries and overviews of history require interpretation and analysis, finding patterns and attributing causes. Sometimes later historical analyses of this kind are more reliable, because the passage of time allows more scholarly debate, more reflection, and decreases the likelihood that the historian was personally involved in or attached to the events that he or she is analyzing.
Sometimes, historians try to discern the reasons why such or such decision was taken, or the real intents of such or such leader. While there may be some material clues supporting such claims, in general, they should be considered as speculation, not as fact.
Beware false authority
Would you trust a plumber to fill your cavities? Likewise, you should probably not trust someone who has a Ph.D. in plant biology to tell you about quantum mechanics. Just as actors in TV commercials don white lab coats to make viewers think they are serious scientists, people with degrees in one field are not necessarily experts in any other. Watch out for false claims of authority.
Try to use sources who have degrees in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions. The most reputable have written textbooks in their field for the undergraduate level or higher: these authors can be expected to have a broad, authoritative grasp of their subject.
=== Biographical Articles that analyze the significance of their subjects ===
Petrarch No mention of how his works are used in the present. 
Erasmus Although there is mention of the RCC’s disappointment with him, there is nothing about his works being used by present day activists (Much about legacy)
Thomas More Point of interest: Marius considered him a fanatic. There is nothing that speaks of a writing of his used by a present day group. (Much about legacy)
William Tyndale There is much about his legacy, but nothing about a contemporary use of his works.
John Colet a little on his legacy, but nothing about his works being used by contemporaries to further their ends.
Martin Bucer Martin Bucer before 1543 had written a derogatory book ‘’On the Jews’’ in 1539, which had caused him to be regarded by the Jews as their chief antagonist among the Protestant Reformers up to 1542. Nothing in his article about this work or about its use in modern times.
Johann Eck He wrote a book against the Jews known as Refutation of a Jew-Book (Ains Juden-buechlins Verlegung), but there is nothing about his antijudaism let alone no mention of the use made of his works in the modern day.
John Calvin mention is made of a discussion of his doctrine of double predestination in a movie “Hardcore” but nothing about the use of his works in the modern day.
Huldrych Zwingli  Nothing on any of his writings being used in the modern day
Nostradamus  notable exception: the use of his works is noted in the article.
William Farel Nothing about his writings being used in the modern day.
William Shakespeare As you might guess, the information on him is so vast that other articles are referenced that discuss modern use of his work. Luther should be a parallel to Shakespeare in the manner in which his article is set up. We could use the Shakespeare article as a guide in setting up the main Luther article. Shakespeare's article is brief and loaded with internal links. drboisclair 20:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I consider ML to be one of the most influential figures in the history of humanity, on par with Kant, Marx and Paul of Tarsus. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dave, Humus, I'm glad you are benefitting from this exercise. However, please do not analyze at this stage. If we stop data gathering to weigh all this, then we will be drawn into debating the final form. In other words, the sooner we analyze, the more likely we are to engage emotionally again.  What I'm looking for is data on what other articles do. That way, we can consider what the rest of the encyclopedia is doing. Please feel free to add other articles to this list. What I'm looking for is to have you ask: does it consider the significance for the figure it writes about? If so, does it weigh the signficance of the subject's writings? Feel free to include other questions, too... --CTSWyneken 16:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research Relevant to the Summary of [[Martin Luther and the Jews]] 

message: Petrarch No mention of how his works are used in the present. 
Erasmus Although there is mention of the RCC’s disappointment with him, there is nothing about his works being used by present day activists (Much about legacy)
Thomas More Point of interest: Marius considered him a fanatic. There is nothing that speaks of a writing of his used by a present day group. (Much about legacy)
William Tyndale There is much about his legacy, but nothing about a contemporary use of his works.
John Colet a little on his legacy, but nothing about his works being used by contemporaries to further their ends.
Martin Bucer Martin Bucer before 1543 had written a derogatory book ‘’On the Jews’’ in 1539, which had caused him to be regarded by the Jews as their chief antagonist among the Protestant Reformers up to 1542. Nothing in his article about this work or about its use in modern times.
Johann Eck He wrote a book against the Jews known as Refutation of a Jew-Book (Ains Juden-buechlins Verlegung), but there is nothing about his antijudaism let alone no mention of the use made of his works in the modern day.
John Calvin mention is made of a discussion of his doctrine of double predestination in a movie “Hardcore” but nothing about the use of his works in the modern day.
Huldrych Zwingli  Nothing on any of his writings being used in the modern day
Nostradamus  notable exception: the use of his works is noted in the article.
William Farel Nothing about his writings being used in the modern day.
William Shakespeare As you might guess, the information on him is so vast that other articles are referenced that discuss modern use of his work. Luther should be a parallel to Shakespeare in the manner in which his article is set up. We could use the Shakespeare article as a guide in setting up the main Luther article. Shakespeare's article is brief and loaded with internal links. drboisclair 20:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I consider ML to be one of the most influential figures in the history of humanity, on par with Kant, Marx and Paul of Tarsus. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dave, Humus, I'm glad you are benefitting from this exercise. However, please do not analyze at this stage. If we stop data gathering to weigh all this, then we will be drawn into debating the final form. In other words, the sooner we analyze, the more likely we are to engage emotionally again.  What I'm looking for is data on what other articles do. That way, we can consider what the rest of the encyclopedia is doing. Please feel free to add other articles to this list. What I'm looking for is to have you ask: does it consider the significance for the figure it writes about? If so, does it weigh the signficance of the subject's writings? Feel free to include other questions, too... --CTSWyneken 16:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biographical Articles that analyze the significance of their subjects 

message: Collier's Encyclopedia, Academic American Encyclopedia, World Book Encyclpedia do not mention Luther's views of the Jews at all.
The Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia Vol. 16, 261-264, includes  the following words on Luther and the Jews: "he felt burdened by the resurgence of the papacy and by what he preceived as an attempt by the Jews to take advantage of the confusion among Christians and reopen the question of Jesus' messaihship. Apprehensive about his own responsibility for this situation, he wrote a violent polemic against the Jews, as well as polemics against the papacy and the radical wing of the reformers" --CTSWyneken 04:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luther and the Jews in Encyclopedias 

message: ==== Biographical details ====
UPI Religion Editor. 
Interview with Christianity Today 
Vitae 
==== Fabricated Luther ====
In the Bibliography of Carter Lindberg, The European Reformations Blackwell, 1996, p. 430.
Cited as authority in Mark C. Mattes. Role of Justification in Contemporary Theology Eerdmans, 2004, p. 90, note 20.
Review in First Things --CTSWyneken 22:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scholarship of Siemon-Netto 

message: In the Bibliography of Carter Lindberg, The European Reformations Blackwell, 1996, p. 430.
Cited as authority in Mark C. Mattes. Role of Justification in Contemporary Theology Eerdmans, 2004, p. 90, note 20.
Review in First Things --CTSWyneken 22:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  <cite>Fabricated Luther</cite> 

message: We need technical assistance to help the article as it appears. There is an enormous space that appears after the caption "Luther's early life". As you can see I have been trying different formatting changes without changing the text, but to no avail. There is still a large space that occurs after "Luther's early life" caption. Please help! drboisclair 23:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appearance problem with article 

message: Does anyone mind if I execute the edits listed under the section labeled Streamlining... above? --CTSWyneken 10:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Streamlining, Checking Redux 

message: Spitz, Lewis William, 1922-    Luther and German humanism. Aldershot, Great Britain ;   Brookfield, Vt., USA : Variorum, 1996.
Junghans, Helmar. Der junge Luther und die Humanisten. Göttingen : Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985.
Tracy, James D."Humanism and the Reformation" in   Reformation Europe :   a guide to research St. Louis : Center for Reformation Research, c1982.
Grossmann, Maria.    Humanism in Wittenberg, 1485-1517 Nieuwkoop : De Graaf, 1975.--CTSWyneken 14:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much for the recommendations.  -- Jbull 15:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luther and Humanism Works 

message: I have just added a new section to Judaism and Christianity on "love."  It is just a stub of a section, hopefully others will add more about the Jewish notion.  But I know that my characterization of the Christian notion is at best wildly incomplete.  Perhaps among the contributors to this page there are some who could go over it and add whatever additional material, detail, nuance, explanation they think necessary. I am very concerned about not misrepresenting, or doing justice to, the Christian point of view. I also added a long quote from Maimonides to the section on Heaven and Hell; in fact, I did a rewrite a week or two ago.  I know the Jewish position is well-represented but again I am concerned that in the process the Christian view may appear misrepresented or at least underrepresented.  So, I'd be grateful if someone checked and made sure the Christian view(s) are accurately and sufficiently represented. Thanks, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  I want to make sure the article is NPOV compliant. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  At this moment, it is admirably so. --CTSWyneken 19:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  favor 

message: I want to express my appreciation for the edits of the Luther and the Jews paragraph on the part of user:Humus_sapiens. It is very helpful. drboisclair 21:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appreciation for Humus edits 

message: Luther was not a political revolutionary. I believe that including him in this subcategory is misleading and should be removed, and I have done it. Labeling Luther a "revolutionary" betrays a cursory knowledge of him and his writings. drboisclair 13:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Luther was a revolutionary in the best sense of that term.  If every self-styled revolutionary had Luther's success, they'd be thrilled!  Luther revolutionized the Church and the approach Christians should take to Scripture.  While his "revolution" (granted, "reformation" is indeed the better word) was first theological, and only secondarily (or maybe peripherally) political, he certain revolutionized the Church and the world, like few others in all of history.  I will defer to my Lutheran brethren, but I really think that Luther was a great revolutionary...again, in the best, truest sense of the word.  KHM03 15:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would it be possible to establish a Reformer catagory? --CTSWyneken 15:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Category:Protestant Reformers...Luther's already there.  KHM03 16:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for the removal of the subcategory:Revolutionaries 

message: Fellow editors:
I've put all the current information on the copyright of Martin's Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies into the copyright topic page. For future reference, I'll put anything new I discover there and will answer questions about the status of this and other works at that location. --CTSWyneken 16:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright of Luther's Works Topic Updated