Talk:Martin Luther/Archive 9

message: The part in the introduction regarding Luther and the Jews leaves the reader with perhaps an inappropriate impression regarding Luther if they do not bother to read on.  I suggest perhaps providing more context. Peyna 22:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The editors who work for the Lutheran church objected to any more of that being added to the intro, so we reached those two sentences as a compromise. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction / Jews 

message: Why is the page protected?  It seems to me like for the most part things have been settling down and any edit wars had ceased fire. Peyna 01:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Semi-protection was requested because the page was being reverted by AOL IPs and sockpuppet accounts, but the admin who did it chose full instead. A calming down period wouldn't be a bad thing. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it would appear I started editing this article at a bad time, since even regular edits were instantly rejected with hostility from random parties. =] Peyna 01:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think most or all of it was the same person, a known troublemaker. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Jossi has changed it to semi-protection. Thanks, Jossi. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it is safe to drop the semi-protection? Peyna 02:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: I request that editors please stop removing the sentence mentioning the 1983 statement by the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod. It looks like a petty insult toward those of us who are members of the LCMS. The LCMS is the most prominent member of a world-wide confederation of Lutheran Church bodies, who are faithful to the Lutheran standards. The ELCA, though it is larger than the LCMS, has not made it a practice to follow what might be considered authentic Lutheranism. By their associations with other Protestant church bodies they have compromised what might be considered distinctively Lutheran teachings. That doesn't mean that I am advocating leaving them out of this section. I am just saying: leave the LCMS statement in. This statement came before the ELCA statement, and it is important in this context.--Drboisclair 03:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That material may be more suitable for the article Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, or Lutheranism. This article is an article about Martin Luther, the person, and his impact on religion and society. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 03:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the article covers it well enough, so long as we have one example from any Lutheran body, it doesn't matter which, so long as it points out that probably all the other Lutheran bodies have done the same.  Peyna 03:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't fair to have one and not the other. It is about Luther, so it belongs here. Perhaps the article can be further shortened by simply deleting all statements on it. --Drboisclair 03:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Besides the first sentence says: "Lutheran Church bodies. So, leave it in. It isn't that long.--Drboisclair 04:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think the article is fine either way.  (Although, if we wanted to be "balanced" and include a statement from every Lutheran body in the world, it would certainly overwhelm the article).  I was merely pointing out that the whole point of including ANY statement was solely illustrative of the idea that Lutheran Churches have made PR statements regarding Luther and the Jews.  Therefore, so long as we have one statement, we're fine.  It doesn't matter which group it comes from.  Peyna 04:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the length of this section, and that more may be put into it, it would serve the length problem to simply remove the paragraph altogether. I think that if you have one in there you should have both. Thank you for your comments.--Drboisclair 04:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the point of having two statements from the U.S., as though it's the only country in the world that matters. Would it not make more sense to have one from the States and one from Germany? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I should clarify: I think we only need one. But if we must have two, the second should be from another country, and Germany makes most sense. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The editor who removed the statement on the Missouri Synod may not have been aware that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Missouri Synod are by far the two largest Lutheran denominations in the US. The fact several editors insist that Luther's influence on antisemitism be discussed indicates that the subject is of some importance, as is the fact that the two synods did see fot to issue a statement on the subject. We should be then be fair and include a statement to the effect that the two largest Lutheran denominations in the US have repudiated Luther's stance on the Jews. Dr Zak 05:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The level of detail is another issue. Dr Zak 05:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A statement from a non-US Lutheran body would be a good idea too.--Drboisclair 05:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand down from insisting on this. Statements from Lutheran bodies from different countries would balance it. I think that the sense of the group is to streamline here.--Drboisclair 05:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the paragraph quoting both organizations as Drboisclair had it is fine.  It's so much more succinct than it used to be.  These two Lutheran organizations are the largest and are quite distinct, and would be the equivalent of documenting statements from a Jewish perspective by both the RCA and the URJ.  I initially thought the ELCA should be listed before the LCMS since the ELCA is twice the size of the LCMS, but since the LCMS made the first statement, chronologically listing it is fine too. Sheesh, all these acronyms. Now I know my ABCs. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 18:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, if there's a statement from a Lutheran body in Germany, that would be relevant to add, it's true the statements don't need to be so USA-centric. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 20:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In this statement here  (see page 3) issued by  the EKD the issue is discussed within the wider theological context of the covenant of God with Israel and the controversy of proselytizing Jews. Dr Zak 00:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  The point is, both statements need to stay. The two church bodies teach very different things. As long as this section is to stay at this length, both need to remain. --CTSWyneken(talk) 12:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of the LCMS statement on Luther 

message: These points are just stylistic, and should be unrelated to content disputes.
This article is very long; it should probably try to meet FA guidelines. A few items:
* I find the "see also" parts in the lead distracting. The TOC follows immediately; are they really necessary? Does the MOS say anything about this?
::Agreed Please record comments and discussion in section below. --CTSWyneken(talk) 19:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed to "this way." Does that work? --CTSWyneken(talk) 19:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved some detail to the 95 Theses article, added it as the "main article." I'm going to take a look at a few standard encyclopedias on the topic and see what they say. We can then match the level of detail present in these in our own article. --CTSWyneken(talk) 15:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Trying to replace with commons image of Leo X. --CTSWyneken(talk) 19:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't need to replace it. I was just suggesting that you also provide a version that is already flipped (easy enough, it's a public domain image) so that it's convenient for computer-reading. Gimmetrow 19:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I got it done, but I can always go back. Flipping this image and providing both would be easy. I like color images better myself, but will go with the flow. Any preferences? --CTSWyneken(talk) 20:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Let's Rewrite: I think a few of the sections need rewording. The "Prelude" is one of them. --CTSWyneken(talk) 16:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Hey, that's a really nice template... --CTSWyneken(talk) 23:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Done: What do you think? --CTSWyneken(talk) 20:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was thinking of the column templates; I've converted this so you can see how it looks. Gimmetrow 20:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That works much nicer. I'm glad you dropped by. That's a new technique on me. Elegant. --CTSWyneken(talk) 16:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Comment: We've been spurred on by fact tags to note to the level of a journal article, so I don't think we can loose many of the notes. I've seen note sections done in two columns, however. That might help, but I'm not sure how that's done with inline coding. I'll look around. We could pare down the bibliography some. I'm not sure if list pages for bibliography fits wikipedia, but that would be another way to go. --CTSWyneken(talk) 20:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant smaller font, not fewer of them. This is optional and some editors dislike it, but I've put in the tags so you can see how it looks. Gimmetrow 20:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see. We've reacted pretty negatively to the small notes. My old eyes don't like them, but another user helped me adjust my stylesheet. But I always wonder about visitors. I'll not fight it on way or another, though. --CTSWyneken(talk) 20:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remove the div tags from the references/bibliography if you don't like it; easy to change. Gimmetrow 21:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  done--CTSWyneken(talk) 16:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Thanks! I and others have been working at it. I'm not quite satisified, mostly because I do not like cited or quoted in notes. I've been dinking at them as I've gotten a hold of the sources mentioned.--CTSWyneken(talk) 20:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Some good thoughts. I'll wade into some of these. Anyone like to help? --CTSWyneken(talk) 16:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some stylistic points 

message: Does anyone mind if I delete them? I think Gimme is right -- they are distracting. --CTSWyneken(talk) 19:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do it. Peyna 22:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. --CTSWyneken(talk) 16:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also in the lead 

message: Perhaps this comment may be useless given all the previous history, but I would like to try to give a neutral editor's solution. Currently the section dwells too long on the subject giving both views of the issue, a veritable swordfight of quoting sources. My suggestion is to keep the first three paragraphs and the last paragraph as is. The middle three paragraphs would be removed and replaced with a list of sources in a footnote attached to the last sentence of the third paragraph. The footnote would list sources on both views minimizing the quotation of sources, e.g. "For more information on view A see Berenbaum 8-9, Noble 1-2,... For more information on view B see Bainton 297, Wallman,...". I use view A and view B, but the experts here can come up with the appropriate description of each view. This improves readability and if anyone wants to find arguments on one side or other, they can look up the sources. Some might feel that this downplays the importance of this section, but I would counter that there are already two complete and very good articles from where this section is supposed to be derived. Just my thoughts and hope it helps. RelHistBuff 08:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the input. Sometime in the future, I'll come back to it. For now, I, for one, am not going near the subject with a ten foot pole until the rest of the article is in shape, not even to comment on the proposal until that time. I'm really tired of it occupying all of our time here. It needs much attention, but I would prefer to approach it last and with a substantial team of outsiders even then. In the meantime, do you have other suggestions? --CTSWyneken(talk) 14:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is wise to put it off until the rest is done. By the way, I agree that all the "See ... below" in the lead section should be removed. It's redundant as the lead section is supposed to be a summary of "what's below". Once I dig a bit deeper in the article (and its history), I'll try to help out. RelHistBuff 15:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree -- the rest of the article needs a total rewrite, to give it a neutral tone not currently present. The current tone is far too reverential. The "Luther and anti-Semitism" section does indeed have a neutral tone sorely lacking in the rest of the article, and I don't think that gutting it would improve that. --Mantanmoreland 16:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  See my comments in Comment on GA nomination. --CTSWyneken(talk) 16:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When you said "sometime in the future" I suppose you meant two hours? ;) --Mantanmoreland 16:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another comment on that section

message: I'd like to create two new pages: List of Books by Martin Luther and List of Books about Martin Luther. I would copy all of the bibliography and external links to these pages. I would list them as main articles and then reduce the bibliography to a few, general titles and links. Does that sound like a plan? --CTSWyneken(talk) 16:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just my thoughts, but one of the reasons articles have the references and bibliography together is supposedly to allow a reader to print only those two sections, and look things up. (Not that many readers do that, sadly.) A separate bibliography would allow it to become detached from the article, and could end up including many books not actually used for this article, so a "list of books about Luther" seems to me a bad idea. On the other hand, "books by Luther" are not used substantially in this article, and in any event are historical and fixed in number. That list could be separated out with fewer problems, although if page numbers mattered it would still be nice to list a specific edition here for the works actually used. Gimmetrow 23:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My idea would be to keep key biographies in the list. They could include all of the cited works, if we chose. Since Luther is the second most written about figure in history (I'm told), that would keep the booklist limited in size. The other think to consider is using the formal citing scheme we do here, all of the information for the items cited appears in full the first time its cited. The booklist, in this case is really redundant. --CTSWyneken(talk) 23:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The bibliography is hardly out of proportion to the size of the article. I don't see the point.--Mantanmoreland 00:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is in response to the observation that it was long. If others agree that it is reasonable length, I'm content to leave it as is. I do think it would help the reader to have a much shorter list here, though. --CTSWyneken(talk) 11:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the rest of the article is ever cut substantially in size, the bibliography too can be reduced. Gimmetrow is correct that keeping on the page is more reader-friendly.--Mantanmoreland 13:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposing two new "main articles" 

message: I'd like to work on a few article-wide things. Some have been mentioned recently by other editors, too. Can we collect them here?
1 -- Moving a lot of detail into subarticles. I'd like to focus on summary (see Wikipedia:Summary style). Let's work on ones with existing main articles first (with the exception of the Martin Luther and antisemitism issue. That should be absolutely last) 
2 -- Paraphrasing and/or replacing the remaining Schaff text. It was added for that very purpose, but distractions have kept us from it.
3 -- Finish checking references, removing the cited ins if possible. 
4 -- Read encyclopedia articles on Luther, looking for what they include and don't. We should be able to get some ideas this way. Encarta's [Martin Luther] is openly accessible. Others are easy to get to at a variety of libraries.
Anything else? --CTSWyneken(talk) 17:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the best way to proceed here IMHO, and I would add that we should begin anew to avoid suspecting the worst of our fellow editors. More can be accomplished when we work co-operatively. I for one would like to make a fresh start here.--Drboisclair 21:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree in principle and I appreciate your good faith in retaining (after first reverting) the paragraph. --Mantanmoreland 12:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for the whole article 

message: It is standard practice to reduce the size of long lists of References using the references-small class. For example, of the 26 articles promoted to Featured Article status this month, all but one used this convention (the one that didn't had only 11 references). If you need the text to be "easy on the eyes" you can always increase the font size in your browser. Kaldari 02:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That has been discussed here. The problem: most visitors of wikipedia do not know how to adjust either the browser or their wiki account's font sizes. Instead, they will find it very difficult to read. We can certainly reopen the discussion, but the last decision here was to leave it large. --CTSWyneken(talk) 10:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading the guidelines pages I don't see anything suggesting any particular size be used; therefore, I suggest we maintain the status quo. Peyna 12:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is mentioned under Style recommendations on the Footnotes page. Regardless, it is not required one way or another. Personally, I think it improves the layout of the article, as you don't have to scroll through pages and pages of citations. Also, it matches the convention of many other reference works. However, if this issue has already been decided, I will let it be, as it is quite minor. You may be asked to revisit the issue, however, if you apply as a featured article candidate. Kaldari 14:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of references text