Talk:Martin Luther/Archive 11

message: Firstly, I'm not quite sure what is meant by "ban" in "it had been rumored in August that Eck had arrived at Meissen with a papal ban". If it was the ban of excommunication, why would the Pope have to excommunicate Luther on January 3 1521? Perhaps this latter was a confirmation of an excommunication which had come into effect after the lapse of 120 days. The word "ban" is too vague, I feel.
:: If I read Bainton right, the ban in our text is being used as a synonym for the bull. Eck was commissioned as a nuncio to publish the document in Germany and met stiff resistance and every delaying tactic possible. Luther did not officially receive the bull until 10 October, and then questioned its authenticity, since von Militz was still trying to broker a settlement and his copy did not have the personal seal of the pope on it. It appears that October is the point the official clock was set to ticking, since that date is sixty days, give or take it, from the end of the year, giving time for word of its rejection before the formal ban was pronounced. SO, for clarity, let's replace "ban" with "bull." --CTSWyneken(talk) 00:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "bull" makes sense and cannot ever be wrong since everything was done by bull. I don't think the reader needs all the ins and outs of timing, so I'm off to have a go at shortening and simplifying the section and maybe reamalgamating it with the following one under a single title.qp10qp 11:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ban

message: The pope, though, according to the opening part of this section, had in June issued a warning bull with a 60-day limit on it. Since Eck was rumoured to have arrived with  the "ban" in August, I'd assumed that that was the excommunication, kicking in after expiry of the 60 days. But for unexplained reasons, this isn't pronounced until September 21, and turns out to be another delayed-action "ban". Why has the pope now given Luther more time (if indeed he has)?
:: See above. --CTSWyneken(talk) 11:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Another to look for. It should not be too difficult to locate. It sounds very familiar. --CTSWyneken(talk) 11:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chronology of the Excommunication

message: Finally, the quote at the bottom of this section seems, according to its footnote source (which by the way says that Luther burned the bull on 10 December, not 12!), to have been made by Luther on 10 July, whereas its positioning in the section gives the impression he said it after he'd been excommunicated. I think that gives the reader a misdirection. Since it's a good quote, it could go at the top of the section when Exsurge Domine is first mentioned.
:: Yet one more to source. --CTSWyneken(talk) 11:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that one is nicely sourced. It was by reading the note that I noticed its date.
I think the section can be made easier to follow, more accurate, and more precise. If the order of events can't be explained, it can certainly be simplified. qp10qp 19:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Here's the only reference I've been able to find for the above uncited quote by Luther. It is given by Philip Schaff in his Encyclopedia, vol.7, p.72, in which he says the following: "In Oct., 1520, at the instance of Miltitz, Luther sent his De Libertate Christiani to the pope, adding the significant phrase: "I submit to no laws of interpreting the word of God."  And also, while I'm at it, I may as well include the source for Luther's comment about "hatred of the pope" so it can be properly cited; in the event it winds up back in the article. This comment comes from Luther's Tischreden or Table Talk as recorded by Anthony Lauterbach and Jerome Weller in the American Edition of Luther's Works, vol. 54, P.228.  This particular section (No.3543A , pp.225-228) is entitled: Gravely Ill, Luther prepares for His Death - February 1537 ( Luther was in Smalcald for a meeting of the Smalcald League when he became gravely ill with a kidney stone ). The Last two paragraphs of this section read as follows: "He [Martin Luther] ordered the ministers to report the following to the chancellor of the duke of Saxony: "Tell my good friend the chancellor that I wish he might learn to know the pope as well as I know him. Then He'll be as hostile to him as I am." He Raised himself up and, after making the sign of the cross with his hand, he said to us who were standing around him, "The Lord fill you with his benediction and with hatred of the pope!"   The chancellor to whom Luther refered was Gregor Brück.  Delta x 01:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks. We could use Schaff as a verification for the quote, but my inability to find a direct source for it troubles me, particularly as this opaque passage is not Schaff's finest hour. So, should we keep the quote or not? qp10qp 11:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  I can go either way on that. Knowing the Table Talk reference, however, I may be able to pin down a different translation. Re: Schaff: much of the article was seeded from his encyclopedia. Not only is it OK to rewrite or jetison sections of his work that remains, it is what I expected would happen when editors had time to work with it. The text from him was intended to seed our essay. --CTSWyneken(talk) 11:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Source of Quotation

message: ::::I've edited those sections now. In particular, I've provisionally cut a chunk of material that perhaps is slightly legendary. It certainly smells that way. People who own biographies of Luther might wish to put the following back in, if it holds up, but I think we should be bold in breaking with traditional stories, if necessary. Most encyclopedia accounts I've seen omit the stuff about him doing the cinematic thing to the crowd. And it appears that the proceedings of the diet went on after he made the statement: I don't think he emerged straight away. But I may be wrong.
::: If I remember correctly, Luther remained at Worms in negotiations for some time before heading home. --CTSWyneken(talk) 11:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit Report

message: I've begun the process of moving detail to subarticles and puting the section on a diet (pun intended).--CTSWyneken(talk) 11:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Begun work on [[Martin Luther#Widening breach|Widening breach]] 

message: Anyone seen this article about Wikipedia in the September 2006 edition of The Atlantic Monthly? I found it very interesting. Check it out. The Hive by Marshall Poe.  Delta x 01:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't see anything about this article in it though....? Homestarmy 01:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr. Poe's article is basically about Wikipedia in general: I didn't mean to imply otherwise. Delta x 02:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "The Hive"

message: I appreciate the work being done here to trim the article back. Now it's time to reduce the size of the "Luther and Antisemitism" section. It is obvious to me that this article has been created as a result of POV wars. Time to take it down in size. There are two other articles on Wiki related to this subject. So time to trim. Where do we start? Suggestions?VeitDietrich 02:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you sure you want to open that can of worms? We're not yet completely done with the rest of the article. If you're going to do this, I'd suggest looking at a few encyclopedia articles and biographies on Luther to get an idea how much they talk about the subject and what they say. --CTSWyneken(talk) 02:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a lot more to be done on the article first, and I favour leaving this section till last. My reason is that attempts to change it now (I'd say it needs cutting by half and a change of tense) may bring people here who, despite good intentions, may cause collateral damage to the rest of the article and introduce instability. I say we should get the rest of the article up to feature article level first, then really concentrate on what I consider the article's Achilles heel (nothing wrong with the intention of it, but there's too much of it and it's in journalese).qp10qp 12:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks for trimming

message: My motivation was to reduce the elephantine addenda to this article. Most of the items were already linked in the text; in-text links seem to me one of the great beauties of Wikipedia; they make it superfluous to add a random list of some of them at the end. I linked a few further in the text, where necessary—for example, Justification, Jesus, and Christianity.
Here are the ones not linked in the text, for editors to consider whether these may be done without or not.
* Christianity and anti-Semitism
* Erasmus' Correspondents
* John Calvin
* Images of Martin Luther
* International Museum of the Reformation
* Theology of the Cross
* Theology of Glory
Of these, John Calvin seems to me the only one we probably still need. I was surprised not to find his name in the text, and perhaps we need a line assessing Luther's contribution to the Reformation, where we can credit Calvin's too.
My opinions on the rest: the first two above are covered well enough by related links. People can find images of Luther easily enough—and more of them—at Google, as they well know. The International Museum of the Reformation is a surprisingly bad article, which reads like an ad for the museum; we might be better linking direct to the museum in "External Links". The two theologies at the bottom of the list are actually fully treated in the article but not under those names. Unless we name them that way in the article, readers are unlikely to respond to these two links; but then we'd link them in the article in the first place. The two articles are in any case very short and might better be linked from "Theology of Martin Luther"
I also changed the title of the "References" section to "Notes and References", because that's what it amounts to.qp10qp 13:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now placed a link to the Reformation museum in the "External Links" section, though it seems mainly concerned with Calvin.qp10qp 17:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've managed to fold a mention of Christianity and anti-Semitism into the text, since it does seem a substantial article. I wonder if the link to Images of Martin Luther— I can see that someone has gone to trouble in collecting these images— might find a way into Mr Wyneken's new article List of books and films about Martin Luther (excellent work on that and on "Widening Breach", by the way). Erasmus' Correspondents is a mere list, tangential to this article only in having Luther's name on it.qp10qp 19:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is there a way to add this to the wikimedia box we have on the page? --CTSWyneken(talk) 20:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure. There's a nice collection of pictures on Commons, but I don't know if the general reader would know what Commons is. My instinct was that the images link was not essential, but I do see that someone made the effort with the image page on behalf of this article.qp10qp 11:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I cut the "See also" section

message: The picture sat oddly in among the notes and was plainly getting in the way there. But it's an inappropriate picture, anyway, in my opinion, because it was obviously drawn centuries after Luther's death—my guess would be nineteenth century. If we wanted to use another picture of Luther, we have extraordinary Cranachs to choose from. And we know from those and from the death mask that Luther looked nothing like the soft, kindly chap in this picture. As a document it is worthless; I'd like to see this article dissociate itself from Wikipedia's tolerance of anachronistic artworks.
I have issues with the drab photo of Luther's anachronistic statue, too, which is one too many photos in the "Eucharist Controversy" section, in my opinion; but I'll leave that for another day.qp10qp 14:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I cut an anachronistic and intrusive picture

message: In the section "Justification by faith", what has the second paragraph to do with the first or the heading? I'm not saying it has nothing to do with them, but to a layman (me, anyway) the connection is not clear. Apart from which, there there is no real explanation of what "Law and Gospel" means in this context; even from the linked article, which seems to refer more to later documents, I can't quite glean why this paragraph is here in particular and, I fear, nor may the general reader. The theology article puts "Law and Gospel" into a section of its own, but so far (I know this is work in progress) says no more about it.
My suggestion: remove paragraph on "Law and Gospel" as of limited general interest, but add a little on "Justification" to make up for it, to link forward to the indulgence section, which concerns Luther's attack on the notion of justification through financial transactions. I can do this by referring to the theology article, but it's probably better done by someone who knows more about it. (Or perhaps nothing needs doing at all, and it's just me.)
:: Law and Gospel is a major theme in Luther's theology (see "Martin Luther" in Encarta) and directly related to Justification. Luther believed original sin, the inborn curse that makes everyone a sinner from conception, separated us all from God forever. In Luther's view, the law is designed to show us our sin and lost state, condemn us to hell for our disobedience and drive us to Christ for salvation. The Gospel comforts sinners with the good news that Christ died on the cross in our place so that our guilt is atoned for, our sins forgiven and a new life planted within us. From Luther's perspective, it is important to jusfication because it details the way that God gives us His grace.
:: Having said this, I'm not committed to the current placement of this paragraph, nor its current wording. I do believe it belongs in our article in some fashion, however. --CTSWyneken(talk) 09:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I wasn't implying that it wasn't linked, just that it isn't explained or made to link. I think I might be able to link it to the Justification part now. I am happy enough with this section otherwise because the Justification theory seeems to me the seed of all the others.qp10qp 10:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Law and Gospel

message: Is there not a contradiction between:
"Around Christmas 1521 Anabaptists from Zwickau added to the anarchy."
and
"...the revolts turned into an all-out war [the Peasants' War (1524-5)], the experience of which played an important role in the founding of the Anabaptist movement."
Suggestion: refer to the anabaptist tendency in the first case, linking to the Zwickau prophets, and in the second case say that the war contributed to the development of the Anabaptist movement.
:: At the very least, the language is muddy. We do need to say something of the Anabaptists here and throughout. I'm open to a rework of what sounds like an artifact from the Schaff article. --CTSWyneken(talk) 09:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can sort this. The problem is that "anabaptist" was originally an insult, which is probably why there's no particular founding date. It can mean a belief in adult baptism or the name of a particular group.qp10qp 10:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anabaptists

message: May be time for that again. --Mantanmoreland 14:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let's wait just a bit and see what happens. We've almost always had one or two vandals a day. What gets annoying is when it climbs to five or ten a day. If this particular user keeps at it, we can report the IP for banning. --CTSWyneken(talk) 14:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, CTS, but apparently the vandalism was considered serious enough that semi-protection was granted anyway. Presumably this can be lifted in a week or so.--Mantanmoreland 14:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed. --CTSWyneken(talk) 14:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semiprotection 

message: Does anyone know why it is placed where it is? Unlike the other pictures it seems unrelated to the neighbouring text. I thought at first she'd died then, but she died in 1531. (Don't worry, I'm not proposing to delete it.)qp10qp 17:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not sure. we could move it somewhere else. How about the early life article? Of course there are other good photos there... --CTSWyneken(talk) 18:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You can have a go. But here's my reasoning for not tackling it myself yet: the more we trim the rest of the article—and that job is still only a half or a third done—the better the eventual case for cutting the anti-Semitism section, which will then self-evidently be out of proportion. At this point, however, a serious attempt to cut it down might draw a group of people here who would destabilize the overall editing process, for example by trashing good work along with their reverts. Just an opinion.qp10qp 17:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Qp. --CTSWyneken(talk) 18:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture of Margarethe Luther

message: I think the article has improved considerably and is easier to read. Now it is time to start cutting back on that way-too long section on Luther and Antisemitism. Since there are two separate Wikipedia articles on the subject, I think that the present length of the sub-section looks silly compared to the rest of the article. I haven't spent too much time reading the history of this issue, but my initial impression is that its length is a result of a good bit of editing warring back and forth and POV pushing by those who want to make this the predominant issue in the Luther article. Time to cut it back, in my opinion. VeitDietrich 16:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can have a go. But here's my reasoning for not tackling it myself yet: the more we trim the rest of the article—and that job is still only a half or a third done—the better the eventual case for cutting the anti-Semitism section, which will then self-evidently be out of proportion. At this point, however, a serious attempt to cut it down might draw a group of people here who would destabilize the overall editing process, for example by trashing good work along with their reverts. Just an opinion.qp10qp 17:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Qp. --CTSWyneken(talk) 18:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Impressions of the Luther Article

message: While we have extensive coverage of Luther's views on Judaism, we have no mention whatsoever of Luther's views on Islam. Luther's views on Islam are expressed in the following works:
*On War Against the Turk (1529)
*Heerpredigt wider den Türken (Sermon Against the Turks, 1529)
*Vorwort zu dem Libellus de ritu et moribus Turcorum (Preface to Tract on the Religion and Customs of the Turks, 1530)
*Appeal for Prayer Against the Turks (1541)
*Vorrede zu Theodor Biblianders Koranausgabe (Preface to Theodor Bibliander’s Edition of the Qur’an, 1543)
A good academic overview of Luther's views on Islam can be found in "Martin Luther — Translations of Two Prefaces on Islam" by Sarah Henrich and James L. Boyce. A more pedestrian overview can be found at LutheransOnline.com. Kaldari 05:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the references! We will, of course, want to add something about Luther's views on Islam. In the context of his life and times, these views are more important than his comments on Judaism. I'm not in favor of putting more than a brief reference in about it, however. The section on Luther's views on the Jews is, in my opinion, much too long, as are other parts of the article. We have been working on the body of the work to bring it down to size. --CTSWyneken(talk) 10:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it seems Luther's views on Islam were more relevant at the time Luther was alive since the Holy Roman Empire was at war with Turkey. His views on Judaism were largely ignored until the rise of Nazism. It seems to me the sections on Islam and Judaism should have similar weight in this article. While it's true his views on Judaism were used by the Nazis for propaganda, his views on Islam were also used as political propaganda, although 400 years ealier. Of course, World War II and the holocaust are more relevant and notable to a modern audience, so perhaps it makes sense to have a larger section on Judaism. Regardless, things are a bit lop-sided as they stand now. Kaldari 19:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In light of the Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy, maybe his views on Islam have renewed relevance.--Shtove 19:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Amazing! It's been a long time since the choir sang here! 8-) If someone wants to add something, go ahead. My time is limited at the moment. Do me a favor, though. National Geographic's 1983 article on Luther mentioned that Sueleman the Great once remarked, "Luther would find me a most gracious ruler." It is said the report got back to Luther at table, who lifted his stein and said, "God save me from so gracous a ruler." I can't find it. If you see a cite, I would love to have it. --CTSWyneken(talk) 10:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to chime in here - yes please do contribute on Luther's views of Islam! That is a fantastic idea. (as for the pople and his recent remarks and the hysterical reaction, don't get me started...)--Mantanmoreland 11:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uuuh, so who's going to contribute? Where are the in-house Islamic scholars when you need them?--Shtove 00:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  (outdent) If no one comes by in a week or so, my time should ease up and I'll do it. Anyone is welcome to read an print bio or encyclopedia article, then add the detail. --CTSWyneken(talk) 02:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luther on Islam 

message: I know you will probably criticize my sources, but a movie I have seen and a comic I have read (these don't compare to other sources, I know) have shown Martin going to Rome before being sent to Wittenburg and seeing the corruption there, which helped him start his reforms. Is there any historical proof for this? If anyone knows of any, I would like to put something in the article about this, if I could. 70.230.29.198
:: Welcome! Yes, he did go to Rome as described and I do believe that you have the timing right. May I suggest that you pick up Roland Bainton's little biography, Here I Stand? It should be fairly easy to get your hands on and would provide all the detail you'd need. Also, please register as a user and sign in. It helps us to build working relationships. You need not reveal anything about your real world identity, if you would rather not. --CTSWyneken(talk) 02:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trip to Rome

message: Come on now, folks, this is blatant POV. Why not return to the paragraph as it was a month ago. --Drboisclair 17:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Luther is also known for his writings about the Jews, in which he proposed that their homes be destroyed, synagogues and schools burned, money confiscated, and rights and liberties curtailed.[9] These views were given "full publicity"[10] by the Nazis in Germany in 1933–45.[11]
This paragraph states the facts and avoids the POV characterizations. I propose to return the paragraph to this.--Drboisclair 17:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you really think that characterizing the statements above as "virulently anti-semitic" is POV? What would be a more NPOV way of describing such statements? I'm quite opposed to just listing Luther's most anti-Semitic statements in the intro. That to me is more POV, as it is without any context, and bad style as quotes and specific details do not belong in intros. If there is a better way to summarize the issue of Luther's anti-Semitism, or his views on Jews in general, I would certainly be interested in hearing your ideas. Kaldari 17:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: What would actually bring the sentence closer to NPOV is if we added a bit more context. It should be understood that Luther lived in very anti-Semetic times, and his views were certainly not radical or unorthodoxed in the setting in which they existed. Without explaining that to the reader, one gets a very jarring impression of Luther's position (as the reader interprets it from a modern context). Kaldari 17:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His views are regarded by some historians as extreme even by the standards of the day. We've been through this a thousand times, Kaldari, in order to reach an agreement over that paragraph. It's complex, there are different defs of anti-Semitism (was it racial, was it religious, as it something else?), and different views on how radical Luther's words were. Therefore, better just to say what he said, and not to add our own opinion to it. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I would like to respond to this comment. You mean "Obviously, much of Luther's writings about the Jews was anti-Semitic." I have personally read many of Luther's treatises and letters that do not speak of the Jews, and they are not anti-Semitic. Besides, you should also take into consideration his That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew (1523). What is interesting to note in his horrible Against the Jews and Their Lies (1543) is that he seems to go against the common medieval custom of denying Jewish people property ownership and the right to become artisans and join the appropriate guilds. Of course, his proposals are evil, but he seems to be going against the grain of medieval anti-Semitism. I think that you raise an important point about the type of antisemitism involved. This should come out in the section below and in an article that deals with Luther and Antisemitism. --Drboisclair 19:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thank my fellow editors for their remarks and work on this paragraph, and I thank them for their consideration of this matter. My view is that the paragraph had been painstakingly crafted in past months, and it provides the needed information. Thank you all again.--Drboisclair 19:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tell me, do you also believe that characterizing Hilter as anti-Semitic would be POV? If not, why not? Stylistically, I strongly oppose the wording of the current sentence. If you can suggest a better way to summerize the information, please do so. Listing such specific details without any context is not acceptable for an intro paragraph. Kaldari 19:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fellow editor Kaldari, you do more by saying what Hitler did than by calling him names. Luther never did what Hitler did. I resent the equation of Luther=Hitler. That is unfair and unscholarly. I think that you are more effective in putting the point across by simply having the paragraph as we have painstakingly crafted it over the past months. And, yes, it might be considered POV for Wikipedia to state "Hitler was anti-Semitic". I have no problem with all the vilifying words that can be said of a man, who was also an enemy to Christians. Why not list what he factually did, wrote, and stood for by quoting documents and historians, et al. Understate things rather than overstate things. I have no problem believing that Hitler is burning in hell with all of his other fellow monsters like Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, and Pol Pot.--Drboisclair 19:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh please, don't start trolling by declaring that I have equated Luther to Hitler. You have reduced the quality of this debate to a childish flame war. I have no problem listing what Luther did. I do however, have a problem adding such specific lists to the intro. Show me a suggestion that is a summary and I will certainly be interested. Kaldari 20:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, brother, here we go again.--Drboisclair 20:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not leave it as Slim Virgin has put it. I think you should be open to the manner in which she and others would want this to read. Please stop edit warring.--Drboisclair 20:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care about whether it makes Luther look like an angel or a monster. My concern here is purely stylistic. I came here from WikiProjecy Biography to help get this article up to shape. I am neither Christian nor Jewish (not even religious). I'm not interested in Martin Luther as a person, whatsoever. I'm only interested in Martin Luther as an article, and the style of the intro is what is not acceptable. Offer me a suggestion that is a summary. Kaldari 20:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Then you should know that it should be phrased "Luther's writings are considered antisemitic ..." That is the NPOV way to put it. I would accept such a statement. You could even state that most modern historians characterize Luther's anti-Jewish writings as anti-Semitic. Why not leave it as Slim Virgin has put it? It is summary enough. A summary is a bit longer than the precis or synopsis that you are proposing.--Drboisclair 20:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine with me. I would prefer virtually anything to the previous version. If my original attempt was POV it was only because I was trying to strike a compromise between the two editing camps and that was the best I could come up with. The Lutheran editors were loathe to mention "anti-Semitism" at all in the intro and the Jewish editors wanted to add a detailed list of the most salacious statements without any context. I'll be the first to admit my attempt is not perfect, but I sincerely believe it was progress toward something that is both factual, agreeable, and proper intro style. Kaldari 20:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And who are the Jewish editors? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The style of the lead section is perfectly acceptable, Kaldari. Please see WP:LEAD. There's no reason not to have relevant details and quotes in lead sections, and it's a misunderstanding of the guideline to think otherwise. This lead section was crafted over many months of debate. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section in question was not "crafted over many months of debate". You wrote the current version word for word and defended it against alternative suggestions (all of which were arguably crap). Besides, no matter how long it was worked on, that does not mean I am not allowed to have input. I'm sure you are familiar with No binding decisions. Kaldari 20:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you're quite wrong about that. This has been discussed over three (at least) talk pages, so don't assume you know the history of the debate by only looking here, and the lead was written after a lot of back and forth on those pages. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I have read almost every word of those debates (which took several hours). Kaldari 20:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which talk pages did you read, and could you say who the Jewish editors are? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I am familiar with WP:LEAD. If you are going to include quotes and details in the intro, however, you need to have some kind of context in which to present them. Simply listing facts does not help the reader gain a cursory understanding of the subject matter (the purpose of the introduction). Kaldari 20:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's too complex a subject to give an intelligent summary, which is why we gave examples of things he said, without calling them anti-Semitic. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is true, it should not be in the intro at all. I believe, however, that it is possible to work together towards an intelligent summary. The argument that "this has been settled" is not going to cut it. Kaldari 20:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should complex issues not be in leads? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, I'm not set on the use of the word anti-Semitic. I'm just trying to come up with the best wording that will help the readers understand the issue. Please believe me when I say I am working on this in good faith and from a completely neutral point of view. Indeed, I imagine I am the only person who has participated in this debate without some type of conflict of interest. Kaldari 21:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is my conflict of interest? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm strongly against dumbing down or inserting unsourced original research apologetics into articles, particularly of the type you have inserted. I, too, would like to know what my "conflict of interest" is. Jayjg (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV of "virulently antisemitic" 

message: I'm serious about this. The previous stalemate version has stagnated long enough. Let's improve it! Here is my suggestion, as currently submitted:
Luther is also known for his writing about the Jews, much of which is considered anti-Semitic.Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1987), 242. Like most Christian theologists of the era, Luther was strongly contentious towards other religions, going so far as to call for Jewish homes to be destroyed, and their synagogues and schools burned.Martin Luther, "On the Jews and Their Lies," Tr. Martin H. Bertram, in Luther's Works ed. Franklin Sherman (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), 47:268-272 (hereafter cited in notes as LW). These views were given "full publicity"Timothy F. Lull, "Luther's Writings," in The Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther, ed. Donald K. McKim (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 58. by the Nazis in Germany in 1933–45.See also Uwe Siemon-Netto, The Fabricated Luther: the Rise and Fall of the Shirer Myth, Forward by Peter L. Berger (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1995).
Any comment or suggestion on how to improve on that? Kaldari 21:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're also introducing problems with the grammar e.g. "strongly contentious towards." SlimVirgin (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not characterize SlimVirgin's version as crap. This is the second time to have attempted to portray what I have said in a wildly inaccurate manner. Kaldari 21:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Didn't you post this above: "The section in question was not "crafted over many months of debate". You wrote the current version word for word and defended it against alternative suggestions (all of which were arguably crap)." I guess that you meant the alternate suggestions that were posted on the talk pages. However, this characterization is uncivil.--Drboisclair 21:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Kaldari, you say you're here in good faith, but at the same time you announce that only you can be NPOV because everyone else has an unspecified conflict of interest, and you continue to revert against three editors on a page you've not edited before. I hope you can see how it's hard to view that as constructive input. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You've also violated 3RR as your first edit today was a revert. Please review WP:3RR: the versions do not have to be the same each time to count towards 3RR. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You didn't give anyone time to work with you. You've been reverting, reverting, reverting, and accusing people of conflict of interest. Again I have to ask you: what is my conflict of interest? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about the reverts. I'm not going to edit the article any more today. I'm just frustrated because I feel like no one is taking my suggestions seriously at all. Kaldari 21:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The intro as we have worked it out has several references, which will not make sense if you simply use them to refer to what you have changed it to be. The references as provided to Luther's On the Jews ... point to the facts that are stated in the paragraph.--Drboisclair 21:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Kaldari, it's amazing how you come in here talking about "the Jews" and insisting that everyone but you has a "conflict of interest", and then having the nerve to say that everyone by you is not working "in good faith". I think it's pretty clear at this point who is not working "in good faith". Jayjg (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean "talking about the Jews"? I didn't accuse anyone of not working in good faith. I said that many of the editors have a conflict of interest here (which is a point Slim brought up in the FA nomination). Kaldari 21:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no "conflict of interest" here. All editors are equal, and they are all anonymous. I may have disagreed with some of the editors here, but I have just as much of an input in changing things as they have.--Drboisclair 21:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: A conflict of interest implies that one has a way of unduly influencing the outcome of something through exercising a position of authority. That is not going on here.--Drboisclair 21:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having a conflict of interest means you exercise a position of authority regarding a decision in which you have a personal interest. Everyone who is an editor has a position of authority here. Regardless, this is not a productive argument to have. I only brought it up due to my sheer frustration of no one seriously considering my concerns and input, but rather insisting the matter is closed. Kaldari 21:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) An issue was raised once about one editor, but you wrote that "I imagine I am the only person who has participated in this debate without some type of conflict of interest." I really would like to know what you perceive my conflict of interest to be. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was under the impression that most of the editors involved in this debate were either Lutheran or Jewish. Is that not the case? Regardless, it's not a productive issue to get into. Can I retract it? :) Kaldari 22:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The introduction is too cluttered with insignificant details. I think that mentioning his hatred towards the jewry is enough, we don't need a long list of proposed actions against them. -Lapinmies 11:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea was simply to indicate what he actually said. I agree that it should be streamlined, but it must be streamlined to the satisfaction of all the editors, who are working on it.--Drboisclair 16:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's work on crafting an intro sentence that provides context, does not whitewash the issue, and conforms to good intro style 

message: I have added the word "considered", but if anyone has a stronger word, I wouldn't mind if it were used. As it stood it makes a judgment that is the premiss of the debate that is delineated in the subsection below. I like the shorter paragraph, but I would not be against simply reverting to what was painstakingly arrived at over the summer.--Drboisclair 16:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The new final paragraph 

message: I have changed the final sentence a bit for "radical" I believe that "revolutionary" is better, since Luther opposed what is known to history as the "Radical Reformation". The "revolution" is the Protestant Reformation. Editor Kaldari has agreed that this sentence is a good addition as it ties everything in together. Contribution from other editors is very welcome as always.--Drboisclair 01:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Editor Kaldari has changed "full" publicity to "widespread" publicity, which is a good emendation. This intro has to be the cream of the crop from a literary standpoint.--Drboisclair 01:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with the removal of the mention of the Reformation in the final sentence, when I put it in I was just translating "revolution" which is nothing other than the Reformation unless one were thinking of the revolution that Luther started philosophically by his championing the individual conscience in religion and philosophy.--Drboisclair 01:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "revolutionary theological views" is adequate since we already state that he inspired the Reformation in the first sentence. Kaldari 01:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but I think that we should avoid "radical" for the reason stated above. Of course, "radical" as an adjective is a synonym for "very extreme" without any politics involved. However, Luther's reformation was considered a "conservative" reformation compared to that of Zwingli and the Anabaptists.--Drboisclair 01:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's looking fine to me. The only reason I wrote "full publicity" is that it was a quote from the Lutheran encyclopedia, and I was trying to stick closely to the source because of the various disagreements. Widespread is much better English. Thanks, Kaldari. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nicely done! Does anyone mind if I do some minor stylistic work? I like to avoid passive constructions, if possible and prefer to avoid multiple clause sentences. --CTSWyneken(talk) 11:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Keeping things in active voice grammatically is a good stylistic change.--Drboisclair 16:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final sentence of the Lead-in Intro 

message: An anonymous editor changed this section, which messed up the footnotes. I have restored it as well as I could. I would welcome any help in the restoration. I and others would ask that this section be left as it is for now. The last edit was injurious to the article. Please, watch your editing it messes up the footnotes.--Drboisclair 01:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Antisemitism section