Talk:Martin Luther/Archive 12

message: Is the long caption w/full birthdate and birthplace really necessary in the first picture?  It causes a big gap between the intro and the table of contents.  The full dates of birth are mentioned three times now in the article, and the places of birth and death at least twice.  I'm shortening it to 1483-1546. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 15:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: hmmm, nevermind I see it's part of a biography infobox.  Is that really necessary?  I think it should just be a picture with a caption. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 15:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can go either way. Some of the FA folks really like it -- that's why its there. --CTSWyneken(talk) 20:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, it's probably not a big deal to just leave it, especially if FA people prefer it.  It's likely most readers don't see the big couple-inch gap between the intro and the contents that I'm seeing.  Between my browser, wide laptop screen, and smaller font, the picture ends up much longer than the intro paragraph.  But most readers probably don't see that much of a gap. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 06:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture caption

message: I've semi-protected because the article seems to be attracting a lot of vandalism. However, as I've recently edited the page myself, if anyone would prefer an uninvolved admin to review the protection, let me know and I'll undo it and refer it to someone else. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problem here. It has been kind of annoying recently. --CTSWyneken(talk) 01:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protection

message: The claim that not all Lutheran Church bodies have repudiated Luther's words about the Jews is undocumented and not provable. It does not belong here. I'm not even sure the repudiations belong here at all, since they are really not about Luther himself, but individual church bodies. Produce a reliable, verifiable quotation before throwing a bomb into a now quiet article. 
Where the details of the discussion of Luther's words really belongs, per the "summary style" guidelines, is in the article Martin Luther and the Jews. You will notice the repudiation of several churches are documented there. --CTSWyneken(talk) 12:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please cease the personal attacks. --CTSWyneken(talk) 14:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to second that, CTSWyneken, though I have not been directly involved. Earlier today I added a template to the top of the talk page reminding users this is not an all purpose discussion forum. There are other places outside of WP for those discussions. Keesiewonder 14:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lutheran Church Bodies and Luther's anti-Jewish language 

message: I have removed the link to the full text of this translation recently added to the article because the text is under copyright and the holder has not given permission for the work to be made available on the internet. The issue here are the same as with the text discussed here, at On the Jews and Their Lies and Martin Luther and the Jews. See  Talk:Martin Luther and the Jews/Archive 2#Copyright and On the Jews and Their Lies - An Outside Opinion and Talk:Martin Luther/Copyright of Luther's Works#Summary and Update about Copyright and On the Jews and Their Lies. I'll add links to other discussions of this issue as time permits. --CTSWyneken(talk) 23:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright Vio of Bertram translation of <cite>On the Jews and Their Lies</cite> 

message: Is there a Wiki movement to wikify every day of the year, even for access dates in references? I can appreciate a wikilink to a year, but ... feel it is getting out of hand if we do it for every month-day combination. I will likely remove these ... unless someone kindly advises me that it is against policy or something. Thanks! Keesiewonder 02:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is (against guidelines) at present, see WP:MOSNUM, because dates need square brackets markup to respond to user prefernces.  The hope is that, at some point, changes in WM software will either automatically format date layouts, or provide an alternative markup. Rich Farmbrough, 09:29 5  January 2007 (GMT).
Ok. If I understand Rich correctly, to follow current guidelines, every "month day, year" combination must be wikilinked. Even if that same date has been wikilinked earlier in the same article. And even if it is an "accessed date" displayed as part of a citations list. Then, I will implement that in this article. Unless I hear that ML editors in general don't want that. Keesiewonder 10:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If you've never altered your preferences you might not understand fully. On your Preferences page under the "Date and time" tab you can choose one of five "Date format" options. What has this pleasant triviality to do with linking dates? Nothing, logically. Sadly, the MediaWiki software is not logical. If we write "June 30, 1905" as the date on which Albert Einstein transformed time into space-time, then every user for all time will see exactly that date format, with name of month, day, and year in that order. But if we write "June 30, 1905", with wikilinks, then I can set my preferences so that I see this as "1905 June 30" if I wish. (If you'd like to try it, here's "June 30, 1905" without nowiki tags.) As it happens, 1905 has special importance in the history of modern physics, as the year in which Einstein published revolutionary papers on diverse topics, the Annus Mirabilis Papers. Consequently, I might in this case actually want a link, and not the default link to the year, but a link to the article on those papers. Once again the software is badly designed; "June 30, 1905", which includes such a link, does not get the date formatting. In a logical world, linking and date formatting would be two separate options, each with its own markup. Plainly, we do not inhabit that world. --KSmrqT 13:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive wikilinking? 

message: In the last edit series, the citation info for this note was lost. Does anyone know where this is from? --CTSWyneken(talk) 22:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Now 65 & 75, due to the revert/restore? Keesiewonder 23:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try this:
I think the current 65 is 86 in this version , and the current 75 is 98 in that same version. Keesiewonder 00:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 60 

message: would sincerely like to hear what people's specific, detailed and well articulated responses are to the following very legitimate observations offered earlier? And saying, "You can't change it because we've already talked about it." The point is that the sub-article does very much stick out like a sore thumb in terms of its length. I think it finally makes Wikipedia look rather silly actually. That's my .02 as simply an observer: 	
			
: THERE ARE TWO ENTIRE OTHER ARTICLES CLEARLY LINKED TO IN THIS ARTICLE that provide more than enough attention and information to this issue. The purpose of the article is to provide a broad overview of Luther's life and work. It asserts his antisemitism, documents it and comments on it. No need to entertain such a long discussion of it that is entirely out of proportion with the rest of the article. You could easily make every section very long as well. I've studied the history and while other sections have been trimmed down, this one persists in staying long just because some people with a POV, one way or the other, want to keep hashing over their debate about Luther's antisemitism. Keep it simple. Keep it short. People who want to learn more detail can easily find it.Justas Jonas 01:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see anything wrong with current summary. WP:NOT#PAPER. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem is that it is not a summary. In fact, WP:NOT#PAPER makes that point, too.  It is article length itself and duplicates to a great extent Martin Luther and the Jews. We are trying to bring the article to FA state, which requires summary style. The edit you saw as blanking was an attempt to do just that. I'm not arguing that the info or even the text of this section go away, just that it move to the sub-article in keeping with these standards and guidelines. Would you be willing to do a revision that accomplished that? --CTSWyneken(talk) 12:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What is a good answer to these perfectly legitimate points?

message: This has floated about due to the sudden... activity... the reference is lost. Would someone please restore it? --CTSWyneken(talk) 20:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note <nowiki>."<ref name = "Noble" /></nowiki> 

message: Is this "sentence" an accurate citation?
:Luther's hymns, including his best-known "A Mighty Fortress is Our God," inspired the development of Steven Gerrard, congregational singing within Christianity.
Steven Gerrard? WP has an article on a modern soccer player by this name. My Bainton book is in storage. Is it time for a disambiguation link for Steven Gerrard? Is there spam in this sentence? How about deleting "Steven Gerrard," ? Keesiewonder 01:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  vandalism. I removed it. --CTSWyneken(talk) 01:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steven Gerrard????? 

message: How noteworthy are the 9 (currently) red-linked gentlemen in the ML article? 6 of these 9 are only linked to by the ML article. 1 is additionally linked to one of the major 'see also' articles that is mentioned in the ML article (Richard Steigmann-Gall). 2 are linked to by maybe 1 additional article; if so this may beg for a new disambiguation page. (See Franklin Sherman, Ronald Berger). How have we been deciding who gets a red wikilink request, and who doesn't? There are certainly several authors currently cited who are not red-linked that could be. If I had to vote without doing any further research, I would recommend we un-wikilink 8 of these 9, leaving Richard Steigmann-Gall red-linked. Thoughts? Keesiewonder 02:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I prefer not to link to non-existant articles. The purpose in wikipedia is to encourage the writing of new articles, but I don't see how that is possible for most things which are so linked. I'd favor delinking them. --CTSWyneken(talk) 13:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worthyness of red-linked folks? 

message: Where are we with this topic today? (I do see and have skimmed the section above on "Notes.") Most of the articles I've frequented on WP have ISBNs or ISSNs in the reference lists. I am not wed to a particular citation style, but will admit to knowing APA far better than CMS. Does anyone have a problem with me passing through our current reference list and adding ISBNs or ISSNs? Is doing this against the current CMS formatting style? If I make what I would feel would be an enhancement to the article by adding this cataloging information, please know I do not intend to change the current formatting style. So, if it is important to you, please suggest how you would like to see this proposed, new information appear. And, if I have missed an at-length discussion before I arrived here, please just kindly point me to the archive number I need to be in to bring myself up to speed. Thanks! Kind Regards, Keesiewonder 03:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's no problem with us adjusting the style we use. I've used CMS because we need a consistant style, it is the accepted style in the disciplines of history and theology and it is capable of handling very complex citation situations. I'd like to stay with it for the most part for these reasons. While ISBN and ISSNs are not a part of that style, they can be somewhat useful if someone wants to get a hold of an item. The bottom line is that the citation be accurate (we've had one user cite a database abstract as if it were the article it summarized), able to help us find an item and the exact place in it quickly and be consistant throughout. Our problem here has not been too much info, but too litte. --CTSWyneken(talk) 11:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks. Pending feedback from others, I'll then begin adding ISBNs and/or ISSNs. Staying with CMS is A-ok with me. No-one need worry about my citations not being accurate ... I am kind-of a stickler on them myself, though not a pro and certainly capable of human error. I've spent a great percentage of my time on WP to date editing citations and obliterating citations deemed invalid by SmackBot. Keesiewonder 12:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: The article Hitler's Pope (an article about a book) includes a necessary link to the article Pope Pius XII (an article about a person). The article Pope Pius XII is in the category People who  helped Jews during the Holocaust. That's interesting. Isn't this also a contradiction? Pope Pius XII is called Hitler's Pope, and he is known as a person who helped Jews during the Holocaust. Please explain. (Yes, I know I can post this same question on the talk page for Pope Pius XII.)
I see the definition of Anti-Semitic people at .  Can someone explain to me why Hitler's Pope is not in this category?
I also see there's a category for Anti-Judaism, currently used for only two articles (Martin Luther and Anti-Judaism) and also as a sub-category of the category Jewish history.  
The only specific person with an article on WP who is labeled as anti-Judaism is Martin Luther. Of all the people for whom WP has a single person article, the only person who is anti-Judaism is Martin Luther. There's only been one anti-Judaism person for all of time. Even categories such as Ku Klux Klan members, Nazis and Neo-Nazis don't fall into the anti-Judaism category on WP.
You're kidding, right? Check for yourself. That's what I can learn (Martin Luther is the only anti-Judaism person who ever existed) from the English language Wikipedia.
What can editors of the article on Martin Luther learn from the editors of the article on Pope Pius XII? The latter article is at FA status right now; the article on Martin Luther is at GA status. And, at least at the cut in time that I chose to compose this message, the article on Pope Pius XII does not seem to have experienced many of the issues that the Martin Luther article experiences. Where's the category that puts Pope Pius XII into a category of one - i.e. Anti-Semitic Popes, Anti-Judaism Popes? How do this Pope's WP editors manage to prevent such things from happening? Are the editors who are active in the Martin Luther article also active in the Pope Pius XII article? Does WP need to expand its definition of Anti-Semitic so that it is easier to include people such as Pope Pius XII?
Clarification on any and all of the above would be most welcome. Something, many things, in fact, are just not adding up correctly for me. I'm afraid this is what can happen when "we" are allowed to put people in to categories. If I want to read encyclopedia articles to introduce myself to something, after observing the above, do I really want to turn to WP as my encyclopedia of choice? The jury's still out on that one! 
Kind Regards,
Keesiewonder 00:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at WP:CFD (Categories for Discussion) to see this kind of issue debated at length. Personally, I favor assigning people to categories based on objective criteria. (So that you can show a common standard was applied, and that any factual issues are fully documented in the article). WP has tons of policy about reasonable categories, it's worth checking out (WP:CAT). EdJohnston 03:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Putting People in to Categories 

message: Please remind me why we need an external link to the 95 theses in Turkish when we have a link to the 95 theses in English, are the English Wikipedia, and there is a link to the Turkish version of the Martin Luther article in the menu bar on the left? Keesiewonder 14:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  no need here. It could be moved to the 95 Theses article. As a matter of fact, I think all of the external links could move to sub-articles except the ones that are Luther biographies. In fact, I thought we had done that somewhere along the way... --CTSWyneken(talk) 15:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 95 Theses in Turkish