Talk:Martin Luther/Archive 13

message: I am convinced that the original German pronunciation of his name is  as the English pronunciation has a [θ] sound, lacking in German. Can anyone give me advice on it aso I can assuredly add it on the page? RJL 15:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we need to go, not with the original pronunciation, but how his name is pronounced in English. It will just confuse people to do otherwise. (This is the reason we don't play with the name of Jesus (which was nothing of the kind; likely pronounced Yea -- sus (most Palestinians at the time of Jesus were multilingual and would have spoken Greek in public areas) or Ye-shoo-ah (in private and all Jewish areas) Luther's case is complex, since the German language was in flux at the time. At home, it was probably "Loo-der" But his daily discourse would range from High German (Loo-ter) to every day Saxon (Loo-der) to Latin in churchly circles, influenced by Humanism's high regard for Greek. (for a while, he wrote under the Greek pen name, elutheros, one set free. There it was definitely "th" in sound. Since this is the way he and his contemporaries came to spell it, I'm betting the English/Greek way is the most common way he and his contemporaries pronounced it. --CTSWyneken(talk) 17:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When speaking of his father Hans Luther (Luder) this would be a matter of importance. I agree with CTS here. You might note that Philipp Melanchthon is a prime example of a person whose German name has lost some significance: his original name was Philipp Schwarzerd ("black earth"), which he translated into Greek (Melanchthon). --Drboisclair 20:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: As I've said above, my major concern with the article is its length. Currently, with the large Luther and the Jews section, the article is at 78 kb. The section itself is 12.8 kb currently. By comparison, the lead section is 4.5 kb, Early Life, 1.98 kb, Monastic Life, 1.8 KB, 95 Theses, 1.33 KB, Papal response, 3.16 kb, Widening Breach, 3.81 KB, Worms 5.38 KB, Luther exile, 4.42 KB, return from exile, 4.42 KB, Luther Bible 955 bytes, Peasants War 1.69 KB, Liturgy 5.11 KB (This one also needs summary style attention), Eucharist 4.09 KB (also needs summary style attention)  Augsburg Confession 1013 bytes, Family life, 2.56 Bytes, Luther and Witches, 1.98 kb and final years, 6.33 KB. 
The Abstract of the Summary style guideline says: 
"When articles grow too long, longer sections should be spun off into their own articles and a several paragraph summary should be left in its place. Such sections are linked to the detailed article with a  or comparable template under the section title. To help preserve links to the edit history of the text being moved, it is essential that the edit summary for the creation of the new article that you write links back to the original article."
Wikipedia:Article size#Readability issues says:
Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose. Thus the 32 KB recommendation is considered to have stylistic value in many cases; if an article is significantly longer than that, then it probably should be summarized with detail moved to other articles (see Wikipedia:Summary style). For most long pages, division into sections is natural anyway; even if there is no "natural" way to split a long list or table, many editors believe that it should be done anyway, to allow section editing.
Articles longer than 12 to 15 printed pages (more than 30 to 35 KB of readable text) take longer to read than the upper limit of the average adult's attention span — 20 minutes.
I'll continue this analysis later. Others, of course, are welcome to add. --CTSWyneken(talk) 11:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is more from the guidelines... "It is generally considered to be a bad idea to divide an article too hastily. Often the best way to divide an article is to let it grow and then look for sections that could logically be summarized and spun off so the article once again efficiently covers its topic. Interwiki links, along with external links, further reading, references, see also and similar sections should not be counted toward an article's total size since the point is to limit readable prose in the main body of an article.".  If we do not count the "external links", "further reading", and "references" then isn't the article size about right? Repentance 14:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for this helpful addition. The article was first written in 2001 and had steadily expanded until last year, when we began a concerted effort to follow the Summary style guidelines. The long version of this text is months old. The subarticle itself was spun off a year or so ago to do just what the guidelines suggest. I think it is time to follow their counsel. The above section sizes exclude all the side information, images and the external links. Together they exceed 62 kb. So, no, it is long by both the stricter and the looser standard, even allowing that a few kb of footnotes are still included. --CTSWyneken(talk) 16:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Expanded in the 2007 edition. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:Summary style|Summary style]] and the Luther article 

message: ==== MSN Encarta ====
MSN Encarta. s.v. "Martin Luther" by George Forell. Article length: 12 kb. Space devoted to Luther and the Jews issue: 461 Bytes.--CTSWyneken(talk) 20:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Expanded in the 2007 edition. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles on Luther in Other Encyclopedias 

message: MSN Encarta. s.v. "Martin Luther" by George Forell. Article length: 12 kb. Space devoted to Luther and the Jews issue: 461 Bytes.--CTSWyneken(talk) 20:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MSN Encarta 

message: Encyclopedia Britannica Online. s.v. "Luther, Martin."  by E. Gordon Rupp. Article lengh: 61 kb. Space devoted to the Luther and the Jews issue: 3 words. --CTSWyneken(talk) 20:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Expanded in the 2007 edition. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopedia Britannica Online 

message: Why has the Diet of Worms and Excommunication section been cut? I know there's another article about it, but we did have a good little section on it here, in my opinion.qp10qp 21:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm... I didn't notice that had been done since last we worked on it. As long as the results are short, I don't mind having you put it back. --CTSWyneken(talk) 21:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Um - Worms & Excommunication needs mentioning! The Lutheran part of my conscience is troubled by it not being present. Can you point me to the section somehow or send it to me in email or place it on my talk or just put it in the article, bracing for a revert, but not one without discussion here if need be? I expect this was 'cut' by mistake and not by deliberate intent ... but ... don't really know. Keesiewonder 10:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's what I get for not watching over vacation -- or for not checking when it was mentioned. The section is back. It really needs to go to summary style also. --CTSWyneken(talk) 11:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This one has no controversy to it at all, as far as I remember. The question is only how much detail? --CTSWyneken(talk) 12:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Excellent! THANK YOU! :-) So, let's try our 'summary style' expertise on this section ... Or is this another highly controversial section? ... got to get ready for work! Keesiewonder 12:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Diet of Worms

message: Luther was born as Luder, just as his father and mother. He changed it to Luther, because the meaning of the word "Luder" in the german language 
is quite negative, it's still used today to refer to somebody who is hormic and raw in his nature. See the german article or profound scholastic literature about him. <info re: unsigned comment retrieved by Keesiewonder 10:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See above. A listing of his name in an encyclopedia should be the name that he is best known for. The German language was not standardized in 1483: Luther was instrumental in standardizing the name. Even the German Wiki has it Martin Luther. Luther Latinized and Hellenized his name to Lutherus and eleutherios respectively. He also signed his name "Luther." This debate is a matter of orthography (how a word is written and spelled). In historical works Hans Luther is sometimes denoted "Hans Luder", but not Martin Luther. This change should not be made. It is not the wrong last name, but the right last name.--Drboisclair 00:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think a footnote on this matter would be most helpful. I do not think that Luther should be listed as "Luder," though.--Drboisclair 21:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, for me too, it is Luther; not Luder. Keesiewonder 01:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong last name

message: Whoa ... it's going a little too fast for me right now, Justas Jonas. But, I'll just watch and try to talk since I'm too tired to be really constructive right now. I've been watching your edit summaries. One that I see is this ("further trimming to avoid giving impression that "minority viewpoint" is equal to majority viewpoint"). Please articulate just what you find the "majority" viewpoint to be so I can better follow your thoughts. Thanks! Keesiewonder 01:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. These are indeed bold edits to say the least. I would like to point out that like all Wikipedia policies, WP:BOLD is hemmed in by other policies, such as the one, I forget its precise wording, that articles of long standing should be trimmed dramatically only after discussion on talk pages. This article is a compromise version worked out after expenditure of much angst. That partly accounts for the length, and the reason it has resisted cutting in the past. --Mantanmoreland 19:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like the size, which is the point I've been arguing for above. I think the most positive way of handling this is asking... is there anything missing? If so, what? Are there details that could yet be moved to the sub-article? --CTSWyneken(talk) 19:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess I wasn't needed after all then, nobodies challenged it. Homestarmy 22:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not really comfortable with this edit ... but I'm listening ... 

message: On 31 October 1517, Luther wrote to Albert, Archbishop of Mainz and Magdeburg, protesting the sale of indulgences in his episcopal territories and inviting him to a disputation on the matter. He enclosed the 95 Theses, a copy of which, according to tradition, he posted the same day on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg.  
 
Luther objected to a saying attributed to Johann Tetzel, a papal commissioner for indulgences: "As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs";Bainton, 60; Brecht, 1:182; Kittelson, 104. and he insisted that since pardons were God's alone to grant, those who claimed indulgences absolved buyers from all punishments and granted them salvation were in error.Errant itaque indulgentiarum predicatores ii, qui dicunt per pape indulgentias hominem ab omni pena solvi et salvari. (Thesis 21) Christians, he said, must not slacken in following Christ on account of such false assurances.Exhortandi sunt Christiani, ut caput suum Christum per penas, mortes infernosque sequi studeant. Ac sic magis per multas tribulationes intrare celum quam per securitatem pacis confidant. (Theses 94 and 95) In challenging the pope's authority in this way, Luther took, perhaps unintentionally, a step towards the break with Rome.
The 95 Theses were quickly translated into German, printed, and widely copied, making the controversy one of the first in history to be fanned by the printing press.Brecht, 1:204–205. Within two weeks, the theses had spread throughout Germany; within two months throughout Europe. In contrast, the response of the papacy was painstakingly slow.
:In my opinion, it's difficult to be any pithier without abandoning the essential theological points. (The notes are there to show how close this keeps to what Luther actually said.) qp10qp 23:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: <cite>The 95 Theses (suggested alternative trim)</cite>

message: I guess I wasn't needed after all then, nobodies challenged it. Homestarmy 22:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was asked by a friend to come help out, but since the Anti-semitism part is so much shorter now, I suppose it doesn't necessarily need to be re-written :/. Having it mostly be quotes though seems sort of odd, my first re-written paragraph might be helpful, but I was primarily re-writing things to try and help lower the length. Homestarmy 13:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't go off just yet, as this entire article is in a state of flux. I am sure that efforts will be made to re-lengthen the article in general, as that has been the pattern.--Mantanmoreland 22:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Needed 

message: It has been said that Luther contributed to the rise of nationalism in Europe.  Could this be mentioned in the article? Steve Dufour 18:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you have a reference for it? I vaguely remember hearing it, but have no recall of seeing it in print. --CTSWyneken(talk) 21:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a big fan of the old BBC PBS series "Civilisation" by Kenneth Clark.  My wife gave me a set of the DVDs for Christmas.  Clark makes the point in his discussion of the Reformation.  BTW, Clark, who seems to be a Catholic - or at least a major fan of the Catholic Church, counts Luther as one of his "Heroes of Civilisation".  Steve Dufour 04:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would love to include the point, but I'm not eager to get into a reference fight later with someone. If we run across it in print, now, THAT'S another kettle of fish. --CTSWyneken(talk) 13:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nationalism

message: The way it's written, citation 9 in the article should be citing a scholar who calls ML's writing anti-semitic ... rather than citing ML's article itself. 
Luther is also known for his writings about the Jews, the nature and consequences of which are the subject of much debate among scholars; in fact, many scholars characterize these writings as anti-Semitic[9] or anti-Judaic.[10]
Keesiewonder 01:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There was a reference to this before. One from the subsection itself should serve. --CTSWyneken(talk) 00:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: 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).
Keesiewonder 11:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Many Scholars ...

message: Where in the EB article on Anti-Semitism (currently citation 11) do I see that it is written by Michael Berenbaum? I know it is APA and not CMS style, but if we were citing APA, EB itself suggests this for a citation which does not include a reference to Berenbaum. Just a thought.
*anti-Semitism. (2007). In Encyclopædia Britannica.  Retrieved January 11, 2007, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article-215021
Keesiewonder 01:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can find the signature of the scholar that produced the article at the end of the entry, just before the bibliography. CMS includes authors of signed entries so that you know who worte them without going through the trouble of looking it up. If you have trouble finding it, I'll be more precise when I have access to the article tomorrow. --CTSWyneken(talk) 01:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: EB Citations

message: Justus Jonas, please stop making massive changes without discussion. Most of this detail belongs in a general article on Luther. Deleting it is such a way lessens the quality of the article and puts at risk the attempt to raise it to FA standards. I have chosen not to consider it blanking. --CTSWyneken(talk) 21:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. --Mantanmoreland 02:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive deletions 

message: As far as I can tell, only Justus Jonas opposes using the current portrait in info box. As far as I can tell, his argument is about size. The info box is one of the more common graphics in wikipedia. I favor keeping it. Does anyone else oppose it? --CTSWyneken(talk) 11:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info Box vs. Image 

message: My teacher tells me that on his deathbed, Martin Luther turned back to Catholicism. From what I have read in several biographies, this is untrue. Has anyone else heard of Luther turning back to Catholicism?Gotmesomepants 18:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tis an Internet rumor, my friend. Not true.--Mantanmoreland 18:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From my in depth studies I second Mantanmoreland's point here. Luther did not "convert back" to Roman Catholicism; however, he is shown in pictures with a rosary in his hands on his death bed in that recent PBS special Martin Luther. --Drboisclair 20:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. The account of his last hours states that he was asked if he stood firm in the faith he taught and confessed and reports he said yes. --CTSWyneken(talk) 20:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This subject was raised recently on a number of message boards, as was the identical question posed by Gotmesomepants. See .--Mantanmoreland 21:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this true? 

message: What's up with this? Change is not better. Thanks for trying though, but it's better the way it was. We did discuss this, and everyone but one user expressed liking Homestarmy's edits. Keesiewonder talk 01:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keesie, you seem to be under the impression that you own this page, or have somehow been appointed as "mother hen" to the page. Would you please let me know when you arrived at this status? Perhaps I missed some kind of new category of Wiki administrator: "Official Mother Hen." Justas Jonas 01:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In a way, when a supermajority forms one way or another towards something, that supermajority does often have the right to implement agreed upon changes... Homestarmy 02:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Justus, you are the only one who disagrees with this change. I support Homes restoring it. --CTSWyneken(talk) 02:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Home, I wonder why some here are so anxious to keep Luther's actual words from being quoted? And where is this alleged "supermajority."? Justas Jonas 02:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wanted to help someone who asked me to aid in shortening the article, and as i've said above, this was the version I came up with to shorten it. People felt it was still a better way to write it overall it seems, so I figured i'd implement it anyway. The supermajority is the very large majority of editors who apparently supported my version, unlike a consensus which would be a 100 percent agreement or some sort of agreement between majority or minority, apparently there is no such agreement I suppose, leaving us with a supermajority. Homestarmy 02:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please point me to this supermajority that expressed their support for your edit. Names and dates please. Thanks. Oh, by the way, you avoided my question...why not let Luther's words be read by Wiki readers? I smell a POV here!Justas Jonas 02:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see a 4 to 1 in the topic I first started, the names and dates are in their signatures. Of course, a supermajority is ambiguous to define, I wouldn't complain if you didn't see it the way I do. I was re-writing a version without Luther's direct quotes firstly to try and shorten it, and secondly because by quoting Luther directly, it wasn't as small as a summary could reasonably get. But I don't care enough to fight over it or something right now, smelly POV's or not. Homestarmy 02:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *-> "Supermajority" -- Basically everyone except Justas Jonas who has edited the talk page or the article since 19:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: My apologies for the confusion I caused earlier with my edits. I was intending only to fix the third paragraph of the lead, because someone had fiddled with it and the writing wasn't so good. I must have gone back into an earlier version and reverted the whole thing inadverently, when all I intended to do was cut and paste. When I realized what I'd done, I went back and undid it, but didn't realize I had also changed the infobox, so I didn't think to undo that. I've therefore now reverted to CTSW's version that was in place before I made my edit, but I retained the tweak I made to the intro. Hopefully I didn't make yet another mess, and I hope the infobox is back as it was. I have no opinion on that, by the way, except I'm not keen on the look of the white space it creates between the lead and the toc, but that's not an issue I'm overly concerned about. Once again, I'm sorry about the confusion. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to revert yourself, that's just fine of course, but the way you reverted you wiped out all my edits from tonight. Please try it again. Thanks. Justas Jonas 04:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  more minority rule w/o discussion 

message: Someone added a philosophy tag to this talk page; we mention that L was nick-named "the philosopher" by the time he entered university. We don't really discuss Luther's philosophy, or do we? philosophy ?= theology ... (not always, IMO) Thanks ... Keesiewonder talk 00:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Normally he isn't classed a philosopher, although one could argue that theology is philosophy with God in it. 8-) --CTSWyneken(talk) 01:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  philosopher 

message: Frankly, this is a section with no point. This has no real bearing on a consideration of Luther's life, and that makes it trivia per W guidelines on trivia. If anyone can incorporate this into another section in a legit way it should be; otherwise it should be deleted.Darentig 21:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We've deleted it repeatedly, but it keeps coming back. We've just lost the energy to keep removing it. --CTSWyneken(talk) 21:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OIC. Darentig 21:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it coming back just because random people just come by and re-insert it? That doesn't sound very fair. Homestarmy 03:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not random people. The same editor. --CTSWyneken(talk) 15:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Who, and why? :/ Homestarmy 15:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Finding out who and why is relatively easy, though painstaking: go through the "history" tab. Remember all editors are anonymous in Wiki theoretically. I remember when the article was put in. The references were taken from the 18th Century Walch edition of Luther's works. I rewrote it, finding the Karant-Nunn resource, trying to improve it to Wiki standards. Presently I agree with its removal and permanent exclusion from the main article, but as CTS has stated: there is a particular editor that continues to readd it. --Drboisclair 16:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Witcraft/Trivia 

message: someone sabotaged the article... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Catherine the Great does not deserve her title (talk • contribs) 03:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ruined... 

message: Why is the section titled the diet of worms and not the edict of worms? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aceofspades1217 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because it is about the events at the Diet. The edict is important, but is the result of these events. --CTSWyneken(talk) 15:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diet of worms? 

message: This article has been added to that category. I don't know of a St. (Martin) Luther (1483-1546) ... Keesiewonder talk 22:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: St. Luther was the patron saint of Konzentrationslager Auschwitz.  NumberedMan 23:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, as the person who added the category and the banner, it is because the project, in the interests of fairness and neutrality, is now trying to include all those individuals who are commemorated in Christian liturgical calendars. The introductory comment in :Category:Lutheran saints I think clarifies this a little. We are also hoping to add high quality and importance articles of Lutheran, Anglican and Orthodox saints to the Portal:Saints. I didn't add the data on his commemoration in the Calendar of Saints (Lutheran), as I have to the pages of the other parties included in it, as I thought it kind of obvious in this case. The :Category:Renewers of the church, which is a more specific subcat of Lutheran saints, was added later, after I created the subcat. However, speaking strictly for myself, I'm not sure that the project will necessarily object to having one less contentious article to worry about. 'Bye. :) John Carter 18:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If you will notice, it was not numbered man who added the Wikiproject banner, but John Carter who added it in very good faith.  Too be less Roman-leaning, WP Saints is adding those commemorated on liturgical calendars of protestant churches.  I am re-adding the banner.  It is not a political or theological statement.  It is merely an achnowledgement that Luther is commemorated on the Lutheran (and also the britissssssh) calendar.  -- Pastordavid 12:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't help but wonder if WP Saints should be renamed to something a little more appropriate that directly describe all persons in the category. Honestly, I can't think of a better name off the top of my head, but to put Martin Luther, or even say (don't know if he's in there) John Calvin or Gahndi is misleading at best. Saint Definition: A person who has been declared a saint by process of canonization. Anyway, to put Martin Luther in a category in which he technically does not belong, seems ( albeit unintentionally given the previous post ) a bit POV. Guldenat 04:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Saints?

message: May we discuss the addition of a suitable graphic for the Luther and anti-Semitism section?  
The article currently has 17 graphics: 
*a painting of Martin Luther 
*a Timeline graphic
*View of church where Luther was baptized
*One of Luther's monastic cells
*The Luther seal
*Pope Leo X by Raphael 
*Luther as Monk, 1520 
*First printed edition of Exsurge Domine 
*Wartburg Castle Eisenach
*Martin Luther's mother Margarethe Luther 
*Portrait of Katharina von Bora, wife of Martin Luther, by Lucas Cranach the Elder. 1526. Oil on panel. Warburg-Stiftung, Eisenach, Germany
*Luther's 1534 bible
*Rare, early printing of “A Mighty Fortress”
*Statue of Martin Luther outside the Marienkirche in central Berlin
*The Augsburg Confession
*Luther's grave in the Castle Church in Wittenberg
*Part of a series on Lutheranism (which contains another "Luther's Seal"
Noticably absent is a graphic for the Luther and anti-Semitism section.  I propose the addition of 
*On the Jews and Their Lies
Any comments or suggestions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GraphicPatrol (talk • contribs) 22:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suitable Graphic for Luther and anti-Semitism section 

message: I see how a section on Luther and witchcraft has been added, removed, and reinserted. The argument seems to be about whether the content is "extraneous" to the article. For what little it might be worth to the rest of you, I personally think that, at best, the bulk of this content should be spun off into a separate article. Witchcraft is not a particularly significant subject in the life of Luther, and the inclusion of this data would seem to give it more attention than it might be seen as deserving. John Carter 18:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The content has been spun off to Martin Luther and the persecution of witches and that article is about to be unanimously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Luther and the persecution of witches.  So that definitely is a bad option. I don't really think it needs to be in the article unless there is some evidence that it was a major aspect of his ministry.  There are thousands of Christian doctrines and we don't need Luther's opinions on all of them.  Rather, the ones that are in some fashion important to his ministry should be there.  --BigDT 18:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with BigDT, this IS NOT a major aspect of Luther's teaching.--ChesterMarcol 18:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So the point is Luther opposed witchcraft?  Unless I'm missing something, that would make him like every other Christian theologian, priest, and ethicist for um, 2000 years.  I'm sorry, I just don't see the sense of the argument for inclusion.  Did Luther instigate witch trials in Wittenburg? Did his opposition to witchcraft substantially effect his theology? Are the persecutions of witches attributable to Luther any moreso than to any other source?  -- Pastordavid 18:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further, it was removed a month ago as inappropriate ... It is being re-added now because the POV-fork article is being deleted.  I'm sorry, if it wasn't appropriate a month ago, what has changed to make it appropriate now? -- Pastordavid 18:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't involved in this section until a few minutes ago, but I don't understand the hostility to having a couple of good, accurate paragraphs somewhere on Martin Luther's attitude toward witchcraft. If you put Martin Luther and witchcraft in Google as a search term you get 746,000 hits. Even if half of that is extraneous it does show a lot written on the subject. Some of what shows up on Google appears to be misinformation, and I think it might be useful to have accurate info on the subject.--Mantanmoreland 19:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Martin Luther and sex gets 1.3 million hits .  Martin Luther and murder (excluding Martin Luther King) gets 370K .  Martin Luther and most any term will get lots of hits because a heckuva lot of his sermons or writings are online.  But there needs to be some assertion that this section is actually important or relevant.  Luther taught about a lot of things just like any other theologian. --BigDT 21:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps his views had impact on the attitude toward witchcraft at the time? I'd like to hear from whoever added this section originally.  --Mantanmoreland 14:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Luther had no different view of witchcraft than most people at the time. He basicly thought of it as evil and as something that was quite existant. Captain panda In vino veritas 15:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps this information could be included in the extant Christian views on witchcraft page? It would seem to be relevant to that page, and considering that article is rather short as is, it would probably be a welcome addition to that page. John Carter 22:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  [outdent] Luther's views on witches and witchcraft, beyond his paraphrase of the second commandment,  are so obscure and had so little influence that no biography of Luther to my knowledge, even mentions it in passing. If someone knows of such a reference, please provide it. The works our section quotes are so obscure they have yet to appear in English in their entirety. In contrast, virtually every biography gives substantial space to his views on Islam, the Anabaptists, and, of course, the pope. Even his hatred of the Jews gets some attention in most post-WWII studies. It really is not worth the space here under these circumstances. --CTSWyneken(talk) 23:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think John Carter's suggestion has merit, unless there is a claim of undue weight such as being made here. I couldn't help but notice there has been no input from whoever placed the text in the article in the first place.--Mantanmoreland 14:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I was the one that cast the section into its present state, it was put in mysteriously by an anonymous editor, who obviously knew his/her German. This was over a year and a half ago. I tracked down the references to the eighteenth and nineteenth century editions of Luther's works, i.e. the first Walch edition and the second Walch edition (known as the St. Louis Edition). Fortunately, in the Karant-Nunn book the same references are provided and translated with reference to the definitive Weimar Edition. To some extent I could be said to be the author of the section, though I was not the initiator, and I agree with user Carter's suggestion that the material could be put into the Christianity and witchcraft article. Here it is a bit of trivia that detracts from the broad coverage that this article should have of Dr. Luther.--Drboisclair 15:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the initiator has vanished, and shows no interest in defending the section, then I guess that's that.--Mantanmoreland 17:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Witchcraft section 

message: From at least two prep schools. Time to semiprotect?--Mantanmoreland 18:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd go for it. Let's give the reformer a few week's rest... --CTSWyneken(talk) 21:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: School's out. Let's see if it starts again tomorrow.--Mantanmoreland 21:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandalism resumed. I've requested semiprotection.--Mantanmoreland 23:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: A new wikiproject has been formed, focusing on articles relating to Lutheranism.  Come by and check it out, and sign up to help improve articles about Lutheranism on Wikipedia.  WikiProject Lutheranism.  -- Pastordavid 20:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lutheranism Project 

message: We should not have so many categories that it is hard to find ones that are truly useful. I have trimmed out tangental ones. --CTSWyneken(talk) 18:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  catagories 

message: This phrase is totally unnecessary and uses the word "sects," which is considered a pejoritive in Lutheran theological circles. It is thus both redundant and POV. I have removed it. --CTSWyneken(talk) 18:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Endured criticism"