Talk:Martin Luther/Archive 6

message: I can't believe that the word Augustinian has been deleted since last week. From my POV it should not be deleted at all. CTWyneken - can you help here? You know what you're doing!
Cor Unum 14:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dear Cor: I have no problem with the word Augustinian, because he was one. I don't think its quite accurate to term his whole theology as Augustinian. 8-) I'm not sure who deleted it. My guess was readability was the concern, but that is grasping at straws. --CTSWyneken 15:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Augustinian 

message: Now that things have quieted down a bit, why don't we make a to do list here. I'll get us started:
# Finish adjusting notes to Chicago Manual of Style.--CTSWyneken 10:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are very welcome, Truth, to try your hand at some of these. I'm not sure how much of it you could do without some substantial reading, though. Why don't you read through the article and make suggestions here. We can see what others think and go from there. I'd suggest you not do more than minor tweaking without talking about it here first, though. --CTSWyneken 19:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Do List 

message: I just read here that August Ferdinand Möbius is apparently a descendant of Martin Luther. Seeing as he is an important mathematician in history, might we want to make note of it? Of course before anything goes down it would probably be best to find a good source and hopefully the actual lineage as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by mobius (talk • contribs) 
:: Hmm... I'm not sure. I have nothing against it, per se, but are we doing this with other biography articles? In any case, if it is true, we could mention it in passing, or in a see also link. I'd be against going much beyond that, since it is a bit of a tangent. --CTSWyneken 11:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Descendants 

message: Fr. Peter Stravinskas, in his book, Mary and the Fundamentalist Challenge, p.73, makes the following rather remarkable statement: “Nor was Luther an iconoclast, for he strictly forbade the fanatical destruction of images and demanded at least a crucifix and a representation of Our Lady for his own use. He quite clearly did not see the Old Testament prohibition against images as having any application, so long as the images were not used in an idolatrous manner.25 Most interesting of all, perhaps, is the realization that his burial chamber in the Wittenberg church, on whose door he had posted his 95 Theses, was adorned with the 1521 Peter Vischer sculpture of the Coronation of the Virgin, with the inscription containing these lines:
<Ad summum Regina thronum defertur in altum: Angelicis praelatia choris, cui festus et ipse Filius occurrens Matrem super aethera ponit.>26 
   
The endnote(#26) on p. 113 states that “the gist of these lines means that Christ Himself exalts His mother above all creation.”
Can  someone tell me if this inscription does in fact appear, as described above, in Luther’s burial chamber, and if so, are there any images available of it either in print or on the web?
I thought I was reasonably familiar with luther's opinions on Mary, but I was astounded when I came across this bit of information, and I would just like to verify whether or not it is correct. Thanks. Delta x 17:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've never heard this before. Perhaps someone who's been there can say. I'll also do some digging tomorrow re: personal use of an image of the Virgin.
--CTSWyneken 23:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  From what I've been able to discover so far, Peter Vischer's bronze plate of "The Coronation of Mary", does in fact exist in the Castle Church in Wittenberg. However, it appears that this plate is not related to Luther at all, but is instead, "the tombstone for Henning Goden, Jurist and last Catholic Provost of the Castle Church."  This of course conflicts with  Fr. Stravinskas's statement that Luther's "burial chamber in the Wittenberg church...was adorned with the 1521 Peter Vischer sculpture of the Coronation of the Virgin," since apparently there is no "burial chamber" in the Castle Church to begin with!  Fr. Stravinskas seems me to be a very careful scholar who does an excellent job of documenting his sources, however, in this particular instance I think he has indeed made a "pious mistake." As for Luther's use of an image of the Virgin, well, one thing at a time... Delta x 07:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Having taken a look at one of many photos of the tombstone, you are correct. There is no such inscription on it. I'm having trouble finding any use of an image of Mary by Luther at all, and, with the text of the Invocavit Sermons, I would suspect this is also a Catholic myth. --CTSWyneken 10:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if this matter has been resolved, then I guess the cause of Truth (which alone can make any of us free - Jn. 8:32) has been served (myths 0 - truth 1). Maybe an article on the Castle Church itself someday - with lots of photo-documentation! At any rate, thanks for looking into this from a sometimes controversial, but always friendly - Delta x 16:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been through the Castle Church now twice, very thoroughly. What the Roman priest claims is absolutely false and untrue. There are very old burial markers in that church dating to pre-Reformation times. It may be that on them there is some symbol for Mary. But there is no such image, symbol or other representation of Mary on Luther's grave marker/monument. PTMcCain
I agree with you that Stravinskas undoubtedly erred regarding the inscription to Mary. However, his assertion that Luther “strictly forbade the fanatical destruction of images and demanded at least a crucifix and a representation of Our Lady for his own use” is in accordance with statements made by  Luther himself in his 1525 treatise “Against the Heavenly Prophets.” Of course, Luther strongly warns ( and I applaud him for doing so ) against the worship of these images.
Luther on the destruction of images: From Luther’s Works, American Edition, vol. 40 ( Church and Ministry II )
“Furthermore,  I have allowed and not  forbidden the  outward removal of images, so long as this takes place without rioting and uproar and is done by the proper authorities…However, when Karlstadt  disregards my spiritual and orderly way of putting away images and makes me out to be only a “protector of images,” this is an example of his holy and prophetic art, though I only resisted his factious, violent, and fanatical spirit”. p. 85.
“If, however, it had been incorrect to make an altar, and God’s commandment had been strictly applied to making, they would have reduced the altar to ashes. Otherwise they would not have escaped sin, as they said they would. Now the making of altars is as strictly forbidden as the making of images. If one can make and set up altars and special stones, so that God’s commandment is not trespassed because worship is absent, then my image breakers must also let me keep, wear, and let me look at a crucifix or a Madonna, yes, even an idol’s image, in full accord with the strictest Mosaic law, as long as I do not worship them, but only have them as memorials.” p.88 
“Now we do not request more than that one permit us to regard a crucifix or a saint’s image as a witness, for remembrance, as a sign as that image of Caesar was. Should it not be as possible for us without sin to have a crucifix or an image of Mary, as it was for the Jews and Christ himself to have an image of Caesar who, pagan and now dead, belonged to the devil?” P.96 
May this post help serve the cause of mutual friendship and better understanding between our respective traditions. - Delta x 18:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inscription to Mary in Luther’s burial chamber 

message: I'm not sure it's wholly accurate to state in the section on Luther's other writings that "...he refused to engage fully with Erasmus's ideas, but composed a far more personal attack."  While it is true that Luther made no attempt to hide his disdain for the position Erasmus held, there is fairly good evidence to suggest that Luther respected Erasmus as a scholar, knowing the man's influence on the thought of the day; and furthermore, the characterization stretches neutrality in the direction of a mischaracterization or even an accusation that Luther didn't actually engage Erasmus' ideas. The Bondage of the Will is hundreds of pages long and certainly does deal quite directly with Erasmus' ideas. Three hundred pages of personal attacks would not endure as monumentally as this work has done, influencing theology and Reformation thought for almost 500 years. Example: in discussion of the First Part, Luther directly quotes Erasmus. He does make several digs at the other author ("you have here stated a mere naked definition, without declaring any part of it, (as all others do); because, perhaps, you feared more shipwrecks than one") but he goes on to engage this and many other ideas. The implication that Luther somehow spent his energy and ink on only personal attacks is inaccurate and seems to attack Luther and defend Erasmus. Neither of which needs to be done to give the average lay reader the necessary facts or point them in directions that enable their further study.
burnunit 07:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that you make a good point here, and I think that the appropriate emendation should be made in this section.--Drboisclair 01:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for bringing this up. It makes way for the important quotation of Luther about his writings. Like Saturn he wanted to devour the vast majority of them. Of course, this was his view on July 9, 1537.--Drboisclair 02:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  captivation of the will 

message: I just removed one other person, Isabella of Castile from the category anti-semetic people because these and a number of other persons were added awhile back and a number of them were not appropriate. Has it been decided beyond all resonable scholorly(sp) research that this label fits? I voted to keep this category as long as we/you/I were able to say 110%, not ifs ands or buts, this guy/gal was/is an anti-semite. Again, are we going to go back and "historically" categorize every notable person in history? Again, I am not a Luther scholor by ANY stretch, but it seems that his anti-semitic writes were a very small percentage of his overall body of work and weren't until his last3-4 years of life?. I am sure the category will get added back but just wanted to add the history behind the first inclusion as best I can tell. Thanks! --Tom 18:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This question has been discussed at great length with me as a Luther scholar disputing this designation of Luther for the same reasons as you assert here. The consensus of Wikipedia seems to be that we keep Luther in this category. I agree with you, but Wikipedia is a joint project.--Drboisclair 01:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Martin Luther the anti-semite?

message: For ease of reference, I'm gathering documentation of views on whether Luther's motives were racial at:
Talk:Martin Luther and the Jews/Religious or Racial Antisemitism
Please feel free to add references to secondary sources here. --CTSWyneken 13:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New subpage:  [[Talk:Martin Luther and the Jews/Religious or Racial Antisemitism]] 

message: This article is up for Featured Article status. Please leave your "vote" here. Thetruthbelow 00:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like the idea of the nom and will support it, but I think there's some work to do on it yet. To that end, let's make a list here of things we think need doing yet.--CTSWyneken 11:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think that this article is going to become a featured one. Sorry that I haven't worked on this article for a while, as I just started a Wikiproject, and it needed some work. Thetruthbelow 19:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. I'm going to be away from wiki entirely Wednesday to Saturday, so I won't be doing much editing either. One question: Have you discovered a way to deal with the white space to the right of the TOC? I'd love to get rid of it. --CTSWyneken 19:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: YAY!!!! I fixed the table of contents thing, but in order to do it I had to remove the infobox. Thetruthbelow 22:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicely done. Thanks.Ptmccain 23:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article 

message: #Continue the quest to CMSize the notes. While not required by Wikipedia, it makes them consistent and provides full information for those who wish to follow them.
#Look for print citations for all of the notes. The more solid the references, the better.
#Read the article front to back, looking for the same style, to reduce the use of less than common vocab (like rumination), to see if we introduce the titles of Luther's works in German and Latin as well as English, and, adopt one or the other style, etc. --CTSWyneken 11:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Do List 

message: I hope it is OK with all that I have omitted the paragraph from the "Luther's Other Writings" section of this article. It shortens the article as we wanted, and it does not give us a true representation of the subject matter.--Drboisclair 13:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is getting too long. The talk about De Servo Arbitrio is not necessary to offer the reader an overview of Luther's life and work. That subject can be taken up in a separate article, if somebody wants to do that and we can refer to it from the main article. 00:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In fact, we do have such an article. --CTSWyneken 00:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The paragraph from ''De Servo Arbitrio'' 

message: Does anyone mind if I move the German and Latin original titles to notes to improve the flow of the article? --CTSWyneken 19:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wonderful. They only clutter the article, which is for the non-specialist for whom German and Latin titles are probably of no great interest. Plus, they are used rather electically. Ptmccain 23:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving German and Latin titles to notes 

message: I think that it is important and helpful to include the quotation about how Luther was cool toward the idea of collecting his works. I had it in the De Servo Arbitrio section that was rightly omitted, but perhaps it could be put into the Catechisms section. It makes the point that Luther might have been less than happy with some of his writings.--Drboisclair 15:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "In response, Luther prepared the Small and Large Catechisms. They are instructional and devotional material on the Ten Commandments; the Apostles' Creed; the Lord's Prayer; Baptism; Confession and Absolution; and the Lord's Supper. The Small Catechism was supposed to be read by the people themselves, the Large Catechism by the pastors. /Added sentence:/ There were only two of his works that he thought worthy of preserving: Regarding [the plan] to collect my writings in volumes, I am quite cool and not at all eager about it because, roused by a Saturnian hunger, I would rather see tham all devoured. For I acknowledge not of them to be really a book of mine, except perhaps the one On the Bound Will and the Catechism.The two catechisms are still popular instructional materials among Lutherans."
I would also add the notes that accompany it.--Drboisclair 15:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luther's comments about the collection of his works 

message: In response to criticism at the featured article nom, I've created a gallery page (these pics are too good to not have available) and commented out some. If anyone would like to put one or more back, all you have to do is delete the  after the image tag, along with any comments. 
The gallery page is currently linked at the beginning of the article, if you want to look and add to it. It needs work.
By the way, even if the article doesn't make feature status, the ideas at the nom are pretty good advice, by and large. I suggest we work at it regardless of how it turns out. --CTSWyneken 15:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Check it out. I moved the TOC to a great place, formatted the pictures, and also moved the wikiquote and wikisource stuff to the see also box. Tell me what you think! Thetruthbelow 03:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Made the Layout Work!!!! 

message: The changing of the sentence in the section about Luther's grave destroys the effect:
:Old text: He was buried in the Castle Church in Wittenberg near to where he had made such an impact on Christendom: his pulpit.
:New text: He was buried in the Castle Church in Wittenberg, underneath the pulpit, "one of the important places of Luther's activity."
The reason given is that St. Mary's pulpit was Luther's pulpit in a greater sense than All Saints' pulpit. Technically, that is inaccurate. Luther was not pastor at St. Mary's, Bugenhagen was. Luther may have preached there, but that was not his pulpit. His call was to the University and to the Castle Church or Stift (Foundation) of All Saints. I don't understand why the work of others has to be changed in this article. I would remind my fellow editors that this is a joint project. The rhetorical point made here is that Luther preaching made the largest impact on Christianity. There was no reason why this had to be changed.--Drboisclair 22:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi David, no, actually Luther was a preacher assigned to St. Mary's, from the get-go even before the Reformation. The Castle Church pulpit was not "his pulpit." When he was sent to Wittenberg he was charged to be preacher to his fellow monks in the Augustinian cloister, but...he was also assigned to be a preacher at the Stadtkirche. I can understand why there may be some confusion. For, the Stadtkirche was actually, at this time, incorporated with the All Saints Foundation, hence the chapter's canon, Ulrich von Dinstedt, was supposed to fill the spot of preacher at the Stadtkirche, but it was Luther who took up the responsibility to serve as preacher at St. Mary. Luther himself would talk about his "charge" to be preacher at St. Mary. During the Invocavit sermons of 1522 he talked about it, explaining that he had not aspired to the task of being preacher at St. Mary, but "was chosen against my will to preach here." Elsewhere he was more specific and here we have insight into his "call" to be preacher at St. Mary: "In spite of my reluctance I was called by the council to preach."(LW 51:73).  Luther claimed that the Wittenberg town council had appointed him preacher at St. Mary, and on this basis he claimed that Karlstadt had no business changing things as he did in 1521-15222 while Luther was away at the Wartburg in exile. The right to fill preaching positions at St. Mary belonged to the All Saints Foundation, again, no doubt leading some to assume that Luther's pulpit was the Castle Church, but that is not true. Until the visitation of 1528, Luther received nine old schock, equivalent to eight gulden and twelve groschen, amazingly, for a long time this was Luther's *only* personal income. He never received a cent for any of his writings. Yes, it is true that St. Mary's became Bugenhagen's parish, but Luther was always serving at St. Mary as "assistant to the pastor" as we might say to day and indeed St. Mary's was his pulpit. I checked the Brecht footnote cited and the person who used it did not use it properly. If you can identify a nicer way rhetorically to say the same thing, great, but it is inaccurate to say the Castle Church was his pulpit. The reason the change was made was for the sake of accuracy, since Brecht was cited as if he was supporting the claim made, when in fact Brecht does not. Brecht has a wonderful section in the first volume of his three volume biography on "Luther Becomes A Preacher" and I think you would enjoy reading it. Oh, and one other thing, the pulpit in the Castle Church today is not one original to Luther, nor the one in St. Mary's today. There are at least two pulpits we can say for sure were used by Luther: the Torgau Castle Church and the pulpit where he preached his last sermon in Eisleben. OK, too much information, I know. Hope this helps David. For more details see Brecht, Volume I, p. 150ff.Ptmccain 22:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for sharing this information with me. I think that it proves the point that you are making. It is not too much information. I think that all you have written here is helpful. Thank you.--Drboisclair 23:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am disappointed by the edit 

message: I think that the Table of Contents needs to be embedded more deeply into the article as Thetruthbelow embedded it. It still creates that blank space.--Drboisclair 23:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See the discussion at the featured article page. I don't think we win this one. --CTSWyneken 23:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My vote would be for a better looking page than jumping through all their "Featured Articles" hoops. I kind of doubt some "powers that be" on Wiki would ever let it be a FA anyway.Ptmccain 00:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect it will make FA, and it's a good article.  The reasons to conform to the style are that it makes the TOC just alot less distracting.  Yes, you need to scroll past.  But if you embed it, you have to read around it, and it interferes with reading.  But, hey, if anyone changes it, I'm not going to change it back. Sam 00:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the way page looks now is Ugly, with a capital U. Is this really how Wiki wants pages to look? Can we compare our page to others that are longer and have long TOCs like this one? Is this par for the course on Wiki, or have others identfied better formatting solutions? Ptmccain 00:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia style discussion is cited on the FAC page; if you want to see a lot of long TOCs and how they are dealt with, look at the articles on American Presidents.  In general, this article has a longer TOC than most, because it has a lot of shorter sections (and those are also usually disfavored in the Style Manual, but I think they work just fine here).  The American Presidents do have the benefit of having developed a great big infobox for use on top.  Sam 01:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Sam, is it hard to cook up these boxes, sort of like the related articles thing used in Jesus? --CTSWyneken 01:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm with you on this one, but the FA folks do have a point. These TOCs really narrow the text block when we embed them. They also have no padding, which would sure help, but I do not have the time this week to figure out how to get it done. You may remember my earlier attempts to fill the space with pictures. It kinda worked -- kinda. If we could find some other kind of info box, maybe we can put it there. Anyway, I'd like not to be distracted by this issue at this moment. Could you all work on the other suggestions? WHen Truth and I are back, we'll see what we can cook up. --CTSWyneken 01:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've only done one, which I did by ripping off another box and changing the codes.  Once you start figuring out how it works it is not hard. I screwed up in one place, and it took me a bit to figure out the fix, but I got it eventually (and I do not have any kind of software background).  By the way, kind of funny to be thought of as an "FA" person; I've gotten one through (Roosevelt), and am working on another (Poetry), and have just commented on a half dozen FAs at this point, mostly history related. Sam 01:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes if you add spaces into an article, maybe one could "return" space the text below it down a little. One could experiment, but that can sometimes be embarrassing. --Drboisclair 02:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: There was a ref tag without the /ref close to it - all the text was down in the footnotes.  I deleted the ref tag; I'm not sure whether it was intended to have the ref with a /ref or not, so you may want to check it. Sam 14:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha! Thanks for your speedy help. Ptmccain 14:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The TOC should be more deeply imbedded into the article 

message: For some reason the Luther page is missing sections now, starting in those in and following "Exile at Wartburg" -- I see them on the edit article page, but can't get them to show up on main page. Any ideas what's happening? Ptmccain 14:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a ref tag without the /ref close to it - all the text was down in the footnotes.  I deleted the ref tag; I'm not sure whether it was intended to have the ref with a /ref or not, so you may want to check it. Sam 14:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha! Thanks for your speedy help. Ptmccain 14:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing Sections

message: Dear Friends: the text on WP:RS that refers to Electronic mailing lists as legitimate sources has been removed, the editor arguing that such are self-published and against guidelines. Please removed all citations to such sources and the quotations they support. I recommend commenting them out until the debate on the guideline's removal is resolved. --CTSWyneken 02:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. When the person themselves is a well-known expert in the field, they can certainly be used: Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym.  This obviously applies to Robert Michael.  Please don't misinterpret this, it has already been explained to you. Jayjg (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mailing lists 

message: Can we source this? People should NOT be added to this category based on consensus, rather just provide sources showing that they have already been labeled as such otherwise this smacks of original research/POV...Thanks--Tom 15:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: One more time, Luther the Anti-Semite

message: Doright, since you put the tag up, would you explain why? MPerel's version should seen to be agreeable to you. Unless you are accusing this user of bias... --CTSWyneken 19:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Tag 

message: Marius's comments were not even relevant to Johnson's assessment of Luther's book, much less contradicting them.  Please stop whitewashing, especially with irrelevant statements.  Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop pushing your POV on this article "Jay." It is so obvious what you and a handful of other --CTSWyneken 00:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ptmccain, if you cannot restrict your comments to article contents, rather than other editors, you will undoubtedly be blocked yet again. Please review WP:CIVIL. Jayjg (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would be nice if you would comment when Doright attacks just as quickly as you have done here. --CTSWyneken 00:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  The comment is relevant to the quote before Johnson. It is POV to exclude the comments of a historian by your standards, a Luther scholar and a non-Lutheran at that. --CTSWyneken 23:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Balanced" as in "it reflects my POV on these issues." Ptmccain 23:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree. It is not balanced when it fails to take into account that at least several Luther scholars do not believe Luther sanctioned murder. In fact, only Robert Michael has been produced who claims this or even quotes this portion of Luther's venomous tract. --CTSWyneken 00:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote is being used to balance claims about Nazism, The Final Solution, etc., but it doesn't have anything to do with that. It's irrelevant. Jayjg (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and for some reason Ptmccain feels that it now must be quoted twice in the section.  That's what comes of blind edit-warring. Jayjg (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  I'm done for a day to let all this settle. Please consider that you all are also contributing to the conflict here. --CTSWyneken 00:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marius comment 

message: Doright, since you put the tag up, would you explain why? MPerel's version should seen to be agreeable to you. Unless you are accusing this user of bias... --CTSWyneken 19:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Tag 

message: There are a lot of unnecessary caps in this article e.g. "Consubstantiation." I can go through and remove them, but someone else might prefer to do it in case there are any that need to be capitalized. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not be adverse to changing to lower case here, but "Consubstantiation" is a proper name, and it is the title of the article linked here. It is the proper name of a philosophico-theological concept. I agree with the removal of caps where common nouns are involved.--Drboisclair 19:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a proper noun. It should be lower case. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dictionary.com supports you in this. They give the wrong def, though, "consubstantiation" was not Luther's theory of the Christian Eucharist.--Drboisclair 20:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Caps

message: As it turns out, the particular phrase that started this debate is unnecessary, since the quotation from Luther's Small Catechism the follows immediately uses it. I assume that it's OK for Luther to use the term Christ, if it is fully cited.
As far as the debate itself, here's how I see it:
I can understand Slim's desire not to have Wikipedia appear to be calling Jesus the Christ. It is fine by me if we work hard to find language that cannot be seen as doing this. In fact, I know an editor who is a professed agnostic or atheist (can't remember which) I'd be willing to invite to read for such.
Drboisclair and Dr. Zak are right, however. For Luther, Jesus = Christ = God = the Angel of the Lord. For Luther, they are inseparable. I think the quotes already in this article demonstrate this. He uses the terms interchangably and together constantly. That being said, I do not recall him using the phrase: "blood of Jesus" or "body of Jesus." He says either "body of Christ" or "body of our Lord Jesus Christ." It is Jesus as the Christ that stands at the center of Luther's theology. For Luther, Christ is the message of the Scripture; the cross the heart and center of the gospel. In fact, one of the slogans of the Reformation is "Sola Christus."
The challenge ahead of us is finding a way to say all of this without the article seeming to endorse any of it and it not being said in the stilted language we all hate. May I suggest the next phrase to tackle is in the first paragraph. Anyone have an idea how we can manage to explain Luther's sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura, sola christus in a way that satisfies all these concerns? --CTSWyneken 23:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Humbly, I offer the emendation that the slogan is Solus Christus being a little better with my Latin than my Hebrew. I imagine that we have to stick to direct quotations. I think that what you have posted is 100% accurate. I wish that we could progress on to other things, and that there might be a little more congeniality.--Drboisclair 01:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are likely correct as to the grammar, David. I'm typing from memory, not a source at the moment. --CTSWyneken 01:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  The concern is that Wikipedia not been seen as advocating the theological position of Christians.  --CTS Wyneken 11:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia doesn't have a theological position, El guero, and can't appear to have adopted one. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus, Christ 

message: I've taken the liberty of removing some posts that were provocative. I see a few more still on the page from various people so I may remove those too. I know that feelings have run high. There are two alternatives: either we continue to address each other in a provocative manner; or we don't. I suggest the latter. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I vote (oops! there's that nasty word... 8-) ) for the latter too. Let's work together. --CTS Wyneken 15:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am glad that there is good oversight being done here to allow what is best to be seen.--Drboisclair 15:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPA

message: The non-quoted text has been relieved of stating "body of Christ," "blood of Christ" by the addition of a Luther quotation. I hope this satisfies WP guidelines.--Drboisclair 16:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus, Christ issue solved in the Eucharist section of this article 

message: Allright everyone, I have made a new TOC so that all that white space isn't showing, and I also made sure that it didn't cramp things up.  If you don't like it, please comment here with your reason why.Shalom--Thetruthbelow 16:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it is great! I wish all the articles could have this. This white space in articles is a persistent problem.--Drboisclair 16:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you drboisclair, I really worked hard on it. Shalom--Thetruthbelow 16:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to revert it but did you consider what happens if someone prints out the article? When considering formatting on a page it is also important to consider the hard copy version.  i do think that the TOC will be great for talk pages. In fact, i just added it to the human talk page. David D. (Talk) 17:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I didn't even think about that. The thing with the talk pages is a great idea though. We should make that design for the TOC more accesible to everyone. Shalom--Thetruthbelow 17:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NEW TOC 

message: Thanks for adding this! It is very helpful. Let's go through the FA commentary and see if we wish to add to it. --CTS Wyneken 20:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Do List 

message: I have removed the Franklin quote for several reasons: 
1 -- It is incorrectly ascribed. Franklin is volume editor, not a co-editor for the whole series. See On the Jews and Their Lies for proper attribution.
2 -- This is supposed to be a summary. One critique in our recent FA nom was the lack of summary style and the suggestion we take material to subarticles. Since this quote is already in one sub-article, we do not need at length here, too.
3 -- The content of Franklin's observation is taken up in this section already. If a shorter portion of this quote is viewed by several other editors as especially good, then it should be used to replace other material.
This is, as far as I know, also the opinion of DRBoisclair, who removed this quote earlier and corrected the attribution at On the Jews and Their Lies. --CTS Wyneken 00:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Franklin Quote 

message: This flag was removed by DRBoisclair as necessary and reinstated by Doright. I retained it to allow for discussion. Does anyone else feel the flag merited at this state of the article? --CTS Wyneken 00:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we need to get the Jesus/Christ issue sorted. That would help toward NPOV. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It seems to be hurting the article. Matt B."aka" Thetruthbelow 01:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I've said above, I'm willing to work at that. Could I ask that we return the state of these quotes to the way they were six hours or so ago and talk through them one at a time? Since this is an emotional issue to all sides, be bold editing is likely to set off a series of back and forth, as we have just seen. --CTS Wyneken 01:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The POV flag was put up with no explanation offered. Finally, after many requests for an explanation, one was offered which borders on the truly irrational. The POV issue that has everyone continually worked up, Luther and the Jews, is more than adequately covered. It is mentioned in the introduction, receives more than adequate coverage in the article and refers to two additional articles elsewhere on Wikipedia. The POV flag is nothing but harassment creating a hostile environment by a particular editor who seems to want nothing more than to attack people and cause fights. Time for it to come down. Ptmccain 01:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  While I understand your frustration with this, Paul, could we just focus on the facts and not characterize this user or his motives? I don't think it helps to provoke him. --CTS Wyneken 01:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Flag raised again by Doright 

message: Ptmccain changed "Here I stand. I can do no other" to "Here I stand. I can do otherwise." This seems to reverse the meaning. Is this a correction from Bainton, a correction of Bainton, or something else? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a simple typo. No problems. Ptmccain 01:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Paul, David, could you put the German original here for neatness sake? I'd try to do it from memory, but... --CTS Wyneken 01:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders. Gott hilfe mir. Amen.Ptmccain 01:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! What do you know? I would've have been right. A number of ways to translate this, as you can see, JP. --CTS Wyneken 01:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. (I'm pretty good with German.) My actual concern -- I figured it was a typo, anyway -- had to do with the Bainton reference following the quote. The way I would interpret the citation is that the translated quote is deliberately from the cited text. At any rate, I'm not too happy with the version that's there now -- "Here I stand. I can do no other" doesn't strike me as good idiomatic English. "I can do nothing else" would strike me as best... --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  I am with you on that one, but every version I come up with sounds funny. The Bainton one is the traditional translation. I normally chicken out and say, well, Luther probably didn't say it anyway! 8-) --CTS Wyneken(talk) 02:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And that goes back to my original question. Since we're citing Bainton, is the Bainton translation the one in the text? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diet of Worms -- translation or source check please? 

message: The tocleft is quite ugly, especially with all the other images crushed around it. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for being willing to talk about it, Slim. I don't especially like the look of it in wrap mode, while I do not know that I'd call it ugly. I'd term it funny, but that's personal taste. Anyway, I really hate the normal white space to the right version. Is there some other solution that would work for you? Maybe a list of articles related to Luther? an image? Something else? --CTS Wyneken 01:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks just fine Slim. And it makes for a very well done printed version as well. Please stop removing this. Anyone who knows about page layout knows that all the blank white space is horribly ugly. If you are truly interested in beautifying the page, then stop putting that ugly title page from Luther's works up on the page. Find a nicer image. Please stop trying to force your will on this page in a matter of little consequence, but one that numerous editors want. Just because you don't doesn't give you any right to keep reverting it. Please stop.Ptmccain 01:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Paul, could we try a little less confrontational tone? --CTS Wyneken 01:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bob, has this actually accomplished anything at all? Slim demonstrates nothing but hostility. Note how her revert wiped away over 15 edits I made to the page, in her zeal to accuse me of putting Christ back in the article everywhere. I would like her to explain herself and justify her actions, which is nothing short of vandalizing the page. And didn't she also just violate the 3RR policy?Ptmccain 01:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Paul, I went back and checked. No, there isn't even remotely a 3RR problem here. In fact, I have to commend Slim for a revert contrary to her interest. (diff) She put the TOC back the way we prefer, although she finds it ugly. --CTS Wyneken 11:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, to be honest, we really haven't tried that very much (including myself, mea culpa) I'll leave it to each to characterize their own attempts/ --CTS Wyneken 02:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Guys, I have tried multiple versions on this page, first with placement, then with the side scrolling bar. I would not do this, thereby taking up my time, if I did not think that it helped the article. Try to keep that in mind. Matt B."aka" Thetruthbelow 02:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Matt, you've done very fine work and it has been hard getting it to look good. I have no idea what Slim's problem is. Maybe it is her computer? The formatting makes the page look very nice on my two Macs, and my three PCs. It is a shame somebody feels they have the right to revert what has been worked on so long and hard and has improved the appearance of the article. It also makes the article look very nice when it is printed out. The continuing reverting that Slim does to the TOC is, to me, now nothing more than page vandalism.Ptmccain 02:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you Paul. Maybe it is a problem on her computer. If so Slim, let me know so I can fix it. Slim, I know you aren't criticizing my work as much as trying to make the page the best it can be, so help me to help you. Again, Paul thank you for your kind words to me. Matt B."aka" Thetruthbelow 02:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: TOC

message: We have a dilemma in the first paragraph, fellow editors. As a number of us have said, for Luther, Jesus and Christ cannot be separated. For him, Jesus is the Christ. As you can see from the several quotations in this article, he almost always says, "Jesus Christ" or "Christ Jesus." It is a matter of confession for him and it is distorting not to render it that way here. For Luther, the death of Jesus on the cross is the central teaching of our faith and that cross has no meaning apart from Jesus' role as the Christ. It's not a perfect analogy, but the closest I can come to is how a Rabbi might feel about the use of the divine name in an article about the Torah.
On the other hand, we do not want to leave the impression that our article endorses the Christian doctrine of Jesus as the Messiah.
So, can we find language that does both? --CTS Wyneken 02:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And why must the article therefore leave the impression that it endorses the view that he is *not* the Messiah? You see, this POV obsession on this point cuts both ways. Comparing "Christ" to PBOH in Islam betrays an appalling level of ignorance of basic facts. PBOH is not a name, or a title. Mohammed's name is not "Mohammed PBOH"... however "Christ" is a word recognized worldwide by any intelligent or educated person as the name for... Jesus Christ. You don't have to be Christian to understand this point. This is much ado about nothing and reveals nothing to me more than the ridiculous lengths to which a select few self-appointed "experts" on Wikipedia want to take this politically correct silliness. Bob, let's continue with your good comparison. What's to stop us from sprinkling "Yahweh" or "YHWH" through all the orthodox Jewish articles? If we don't do this, aren't we "allowing" this religious point of view to hold sway, that one should not use letters on the page of the Old Testament? But why would we want to do this? Why can't we respect the fact of what Jesus Christ means for people like Martin Luther? Even as we would not rudely offend orthodox Jews? Ptmccain 02:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that saying "Christ" is another name for Jesus isn't helpful. Maybe it's helpful to contemplate the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Catechism states (§ 436) that "It [Christ] became the name proper to Jesus only because he accomplished perfectly the divine mission that "Christ" signifies." To say  "God's grace through Christ" carries the idea of divine redemption, whereas saying "God's grace through Jesus" loses that important connotation - at least to Christian readers. Dr Zak 02:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree with you Zak, but on the other hand, trying to push for "Christ" because of what it means to Christianity seems ultimately fruitless. If you can't appeal to more intelligent reasons for using it, which appears to be an exercise in futility with Wikipedia, then at the bare minimum a common sense approach to the fact that worldwide "Christ" is immediately recognized by countless people of whatever their religion as a name for Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus Christ. That's my point, though I certainly entirely concur with your desire to use the word Christ for its meaning to Christianity. Ptmccain 02:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: While I can't speak for my religion, being Jewish myself I am not offended by the first paragraph. I do not feel that it is endorsing Jesus as the son of God, but rather stating Luther's belief that he was. Again, this is myself speaking for myself, not my entire religion, but I think it is fine as it is. If we dilute it so much just to be politicaly correct, it will no longer have any substance. Matt B."aka" Thetruthbelow 02:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I empathize with all here, but I can understand the WP:NPOV issues here. I have remedied the matter in the "Eucharist" section by simply quoting Luther. So, quote Luther, and you avoid the problem of having Wikipedia saying that Jesus is the Christ.--Drboisclair 04:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus Christ vs. Jesus in first paragraph 

message: Fellow editors:
Doright has restored the text deleted by several editors for the reasons stated above. He has copied this version from the one at On the Jews and Their Lies, which has a correct attribution. This satisfies the first reason I gave for deleting the material but does not address the others. 
Please take a look at the section above and express your opinion about the text. --CTS Wyneken 19:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be concern on the part of all editors about the style, and we have good rhetoricians on this website. The course seems to be to prosecute Luther on the part of this fledgling editor.--Drboisclair 20:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an interesting quote.  I went to read the original (it's available on Google Books), and found the discussion following the quote to be even more interesting, and to qualify the statements quoted (where he indicates that he finds in Luther the Nazi Program through Kristallnacht, etc.).  I think it is worthwhile to preserve a substantial amount of the quote and the discussion essentially showing that there was a progression in the anti-semitism reflected in Luther's works to the vitriol found in his later days.  It may be that some of the lengthier elements of the quote or discussion can be put in footnotes, so the points are made but the space used in the article minimized. Sam 13:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Franklin Quote Restored by User Doright 

message: Doright has again set the POV flag. Does anyone else think it is needed? --CTS Wyneken(talk) 23:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, and I have removed it. Matt B."aka" Thetruthbelow 05:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Flag is back 

message: Dear Doright:
Please explain why you have reverted a shorter text and why you feel it was improper for Ptmccain to be bold? --CTS Wyneken(talk) 23:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doright's Revert with charge 

message: Doright, exactly what kind of citation do you wish, since the one that follows supports it, as do citations to the same concept later in the article?
Do you seriously question that Luther taught salvation by grace alone? --CTS Wyneken(talk) 21:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, we can play Slim and Doright's little  game. It is a shame Doright, in his zeal, failed actually to read any of the citatons or sections referred to, for there is plenty of documentation, such as congregational singing and Luther's Bible translation. This is nothing but page vandalism.Ptmccain 21:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm at a loss as to how you describe a religious tenet without sounding religious. All of the words and phrases can be documented. We could insert the whole Small Catechism on the Apostles' Creed, but I assume we really don't want to do that. Please excuse the exasperated tone, but we teach our children to memorize these concepts. It's like asking an article on Judaism to document that the Torah contains commandments. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 23:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I learned long ago that people always tend to accuse others their own personal failings Slim. I found your remark revealing, from that standpoint, also from standpoint of the fact that a Wiki admin is in clear violation of Wiki's policy on personal attacks. Is it true that Wiki admin's are not held to Wiki policy?Ptmccain 21:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Beams, motes, mosquito-sieving! Dr Zak 22:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: SV, Doright what are the excessively religious bits that you have difficulties with. "Salvation", "grace", "Christ", the "law" and the "gospel" are all well-defined terms with a fixed meaning in Christian theology. We can't just drop them. Dr Zak 22:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're missing the point. This article overall does not have a neutral tone and is far too reverential and hagiographic. This is just one example. It seems to escape some editors here that this is not a religious journal. --Mantanmoreland 00:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please do not attack the motives of other editors. Of course this is not a religious journal. But neither is Luther a soldier or a scientist. Who he is has everything to do with his theology. Presenting it in sufficient detail is important to understanding why he is considered a pivotal figure in western history. (See the Time Magazine article on the last Millennium) --CTS Wyneken(talk) 01:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop trying to silence other editors by making unfounded accusations of "personal attacks." This article is a mess, it reads in places like a religious tract, and I am not going to walk on eggshells because of the hypersensitivity of you and other editors. Such accusations are manipulative and in my opinion are not made in good faith. If you cannot withstand the give and take of vigorous discourse over editing, may I suggest that you edit subject matter in which you are less emotionally invested.--Mantanmoreland 01:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luther's Doctrine of Salvation by Grace 

message: -- The passage already cited
-- "If you have a true faith that Christ is your Savior, then at once you have a gracious God, for faith leads you in and opens up God's heart and will, that you should see pure grace and overflowing love. This it is to behold God in faith that you should look upon His fatherly, friendly heart, in which there is no anger nor ungraciousness." Luther as quoted in Bainton, 50.
-- This passage, which I cannot quote myself, since I am the translator.
Many more are available. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 23:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salvation by Grace 

message: "The last and greatest reform of all [in music] was in congregational song. In the Middle Ages the liturgy was almost entirely restricted to the celebrant and the choir. The congregation joined in a few responses in the vernacular. Luther so developed this element that he may be considered the father of congregational song." Bainton, 269.--CTS Wyneken(talk) 23:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see this has been added, which is great, but does the move toward participatory music in the service deserve more discussion in the body of the article as well?  Just an aside, but any idea when the Catholic Church followed the Lutheran lead and incorporated more music in their own mass? Was that a product of the Counter-Reformation or did it happen later? Sam 14:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll look for that as I go back through the literature again. There are still some holes, like this one, in the article. The periodic controversies have delayed in filling them in. The larger question is whether, as suggested in the FA nom, we spin off much of the detail into subarticles, as we did with Martin Luther and the Jews and the 95 Theses or expand here. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 14:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I found a little more discussion of Luther and liturgical music at hymns and Christian Music, and it's also possible to expand those and cross-reference.  But it's a topic worthy of an article if anyone has the energy and knowledge for it, and a little more here would be useful, since the theme is introduced.  Sam 14:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hymn Singing 

message: Summarizing argument from Prelude on the Babylonian Captivity of the Church: "The clergy should be permitted to marry" Bainton, 199-120.
If he could not reform all Christendom,at any rate he could and did establsh the protestant parsonage." Bainton, 223.--CTS Wyneken(talk) 00:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I've got a bit of free time, I may need to look up Bainton.  The cite supports the idea that he established the clerical marriage, but I found the discussion in Zwingli more interesting, suggesting as it did that a form of "common law" clerical marriage was already widespread.  Does Bainton address this issue?  (Zwingli, of course, didn't bother to cite their discussion - harrumph!). Sam 14:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriage of Clergy 

message: It seems like there is a bit of tag warring going on over the following:
::His contributions to Western civilization include his translation of the Bible, which provided a standard version of the German language and added several principles to the art of translation. His translation significantly influenced the English King James Bible. (See Luther's Bible translation below.) 
I think the key here is what in the statement is supported or not supported by the section on Luther's Bible translation.  If this selection is changed as follows, it would be fully supported and no additional citation would be needed:
:: His contributions to Western civilization include his translation of the Bible into the German language.  This translation significantly influenced later translations, including the English King James Bible.  (See Luther's German Bible, below.)
I think a better approach would be to add discussion below on the principles Luther added to the art of translation and on the process by which and the extent to which Luther's translation became the standard (e.g., how many other translations were there, what numbers were they published in, how broadly were they disseminated, which Churches adopted them as in any way official, etc.).  I myself would be interested in such a discussion.  Sam 14:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tag Wars

message: I see someone just pulled the religious sounding summary from the opening to opt for a more abstract and academic sounding intro. I thought what was there before rambled a bit, but really don't mind seeing Luther's own words used for one of his most important positions. However, if the article goes with sola fide alone without explanation I think it is just too jargonish.  Some plain, clear explanation of the Latin is needed, and in this case the Latin, after all, is just shorthand in any case.  Sam 00:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I welcome any tweaking, expanding on it a bit. I just wanted to initiate some sort of improvement, it could use more.  --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 00:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Btw, I do think sole fide should be explictly mentioned as it was one of the central themes Martin Luther is known for. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 00:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  MP, I'm glad to see you here. But, how do we talk about Luther's theology without explaining or talking about his theology? --CTS Wyneken(talk) 00:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi CTSW, do please take a whack at it.  I'm sure there's a happy medium.  And what is the self-imposed daily editing limit you mentioned somewhere above? --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 01:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  None of this is aimed at you, MP. When I find myself getting angry, and have reverted at least twice, I back off, lest I violate 3RR. I really should go away every from here tonight, because I find it incredible to have the most basic facts of Luther's life challenged and removed from an article about him, and at least one editor not sensitive to the fact that I and members of my denomination might not like being told another denomination speaks for us. Having said that, I must say good night. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 01:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone issues - opening paragraph 

message: "He came to believe that Christian are saved not through their own efforts, but by the gift of God's grace, which they accept in faith." Luther, Martin. Funk and Wagnalls New Encyclopedia (Funk and Wagnalls, 1983), 16:262.--CTS Wyneken(talk) 01:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotations from Encyclopedias of Luther's Theology 

message: Just found this terrifically well done summary of the problems with Wikipedia, problems very much demonstrated on these discussion pages where people with no expertise whatsoever or real knowledge of the subject matter they are talking about attempt to thwart well founded statements. Check it out: []Ptmccain 01:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quote from the article: Criticism of the project from within the inner sanctum has been very rare so far, although fellow co-founder Larry Sanger, who is no longer associated with the project, pleaded with the management to improve its content by befriending, and not alienating, established sources of expertise. (i.e., people who know what they're talking about.)
Click here to find out more! Meanwhile, criticism from outside the Wikipedia camp has been rebuffed with a ferocious blend of irrationality and vigor that's almost unprecedented in our experience: if you thought Apple, Amiga, Mozilla or OS/2 fans were er, ... passionate, you haven't met a wiki-fiddler. For them, it's a religious crusade.Ptmccain 01:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Great Summary of the Problems with Wikipedia

message: If it's OK with everyone, let's discuss Sam's suggestions. COpied from above, they are:
<Blockquote>Here's my view on the intro.  The first paragraph has not been made the subject to controversy and should be left alone.  The second paragraph seems out of place in many ways.  Going into hymns and marriage before discussing the translation of the Bible and his other writings strikes me as out of place.  I would place second in this article a short sentance on his translation of the Bible; another short sentance on his influence on the structure of the Church (missing now); a third on his influence on the liturgy, which would include a reference to hymns.  I am not convinced is marriage merits inclusion in the lead, but it would probably belong in this paragraph if it is put anywhere.  Then, I would add a paragraph focusing on the broad influence of his writings, including his writings relating to the Jews.  I would add to the current discussion a sentance noting that there has been a significant debate among historians of the level of influence and the extent of his influence on the development of anti-Semitism (I think the debate itself is notable and is not mentioned in the intro).  I think dealing with anti-Semiticism as an integral part of his writing and influence is more useful than having an isolated paragraph as an aside. I would then conclude with the discussion of the size of the Lutheran and Protestant chruches today - I think that is a natural end. Sam</blockquote> 
:My thoughts:
:Except for the last sentence, I agree that the first paragraph is OK. I do not think it captures what the doctrine is and needs some rewording, perhaps a quote from Luther or one his biographers. We can set it aside for now. I'll come back with a proposal later that we can talk about, unless someone else wants to take a crack at it. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 13:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The second paragraph certainly could move down. I like the suggestion for a new second paragraph. Would you give us a draft, Sam? --CTS Wyneken(talk) 13:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Luther's marriage is important, since it is credited (as you can see with the citation provided) Again, the language can be adjusted. To that end, let's check a few sources and report here what they say about the importance of this event. Then we can adjust it as seems best. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 13:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The Luther and Jews paragraph here certainly can be adjusted, as you have described, but I would prefer to leave it alone, given the controversy it is likely to stir. The trick with this and with describing his writing's influnece is that it can easily grow too large. For example, we have Luther's involvement in the peasant's war, his support of the formation of state churches, the concepts of the priesthood of all believers, the distinction between ecclesiatical and secular powers (ironic that), principles of biblical interpretation, the sacraments, etc. You can see how it all can get out of hand. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 13:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As we work our way though, we need to keep in mind the criticism in the FA nom that we should use summary style, consider spinning of subarticles and so on. In this context, I think we should aim at the intro summarizing the article, the article summarizing the subarticles, where the detail and any debates can be conducted fully. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 13:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it is far better in terms of tone and more encyclopedic, and no longer absurdly deals with hymns quite so far high in the article. I think this is the right, nonpartisan summary style to use throughout the article. However, it does not deal with the anti-Semitism issue at all adequately or with proper emphasis. --Mantanmoreland 15:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plese be specific.  I believe the language is preferable to what was there before.  In terms of emphasis, this is exactly what I'd proposed. Sam 16:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Excellent, much improved from the current intro.  It addresses tone, flow, and gives due weight to pertinent topics.  --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 16:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, a significant improvement. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I see a few little problems with spelling and the like have been caught, but if anyone sees a way to further improve it, or wants to try out a somewhat different approach to address any issues, that's what the Sandbox is for. Please feel free to make changes to fix any shortcomings you see. (and I now note more substantive changes have been made - please check the differences to see how the proposal develops, and please let us know here what changes are being made). Sam 18:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Working on Intro 

message: I'll double check, but I think the word "proper" belongs to Luther. If so, I'd argue to put it back but rewrite in some way to show that it is Luther's view. --CTSWyneken(talk) 02:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just putting it in quotes would do the trick.  I wasn't sure how important it was to the meaning, and am trying to be extremely sensitive to the charge that this article shows other biases, even if they are not being identified, as I review. Sam 14:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've found reference to it and tried a little different way of putting it. This doctrine is very important in Luther's theology of grace. If you'd like, I could document further. The bottom line for Luther was he believed that Catholic, Reformed and Anabaptists claimed the law saves in some way, and that the Gospel was a new law. For Luther, confusing Law with Gospel led to works righteousness. Hence, it is central to his theology. --CTSWyneken(talk) 17:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Proper" distinction between Law and Gospel 

message: Dear Sam:
Both Kittelson (103-104) and Bainton (60) include this quotation, attributing it to Tetzel. They cite Walther Köhler, ed. Dokumente zum Ablassensstreit von 1517, 2nd. rev. ed. (Tübingen, 1934), 125, 127. as the source. I'll check further as time permits. --CTSWyneken(talk) 14:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, Sam, but I am a librarian. 8-) I love this kind of thing. Do send me the cites and I'll go looking for it. I pull Grisar and see what he says. You'll be interested to know that the English varies between the two versions. The only thing in common is the "ings" and the end of both lines. I'll fetch the latin source. My Latin is passing, but I always have to have lexicon nearby to do much more than locate a quote.--CTSWyneken(talk) 14:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  by the way, Grisar, a turn of the 20th Century catholic historian, says he sees no evidence that Tetzel used the jingle, but it would be in keeping with his misstatements of church ductrine on indulgences. --CTSWyneken(talk) 00:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not had a chance to get back to this, but I will.  I think indicating that the quote is "attributed to" Tetzel may be a way to be accurate, based on Grisar and the old Catholic Encylopedia, both sources a century closer to the event than we are, without losing the quote, which is undeniably viewed as very illustrative of the sentiments of the time by many historians.  Sam 18:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. I'll do it. --CTSWyneken(talk) 20:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Once the coin into the coffer clings..." 

message: The disparaging of Dr. Siemon-Netto is an action that is inconsistent with Wikipedia practice not to sit in judgment of sources. He has an earned doctorate. Please stop removing quotation from his work. To remove it slants the article.--Drboisclair 16:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Old territory (except for the alleged Wikipedia practice of not sitting in judgment of sources, which is a new one). See --Mantanmoreland 16:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It doesn't matter whether or not one sees him as an historian. He is still a Ph.D., who has done his research in this field. This will never be resolved until Wikipedia principles are followed, i.e. not to sit in judgment of creditable sources. The only reason to oppose him is if one disagrees with him, which is to push a POV. I understand that one should evaluate sources, but if all checks out, it may be included. In this case it is necessary to balance the article in accordance with WP:NPOV.--Drboisclair 16:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Siemon-Netto's status 

message: The quotations from Drs. Siemon-Netto and Brecht should remain, and editors should work with them to make the article NPOV. The Brecht quote is very critical of Luther. Brecht is acknowledged Luther scholar, who has cut the mustard.--Drboisclair 16:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making use of the material 

message: With respect to the Shirer quotation that was just introduced: one can see that Mr. Shirer has not read Eisenmenger. To say that Luther's writings were "unequaled" ignores Eisenmenger. This comes from writing before one has all one's facts. Happily, Dr. Siemon-Netto has done the research as has Dr. Wallmann. Oh, and I forgot to mention that Mr. Shirer was a journalist, but he also was a top rate historian even though he did not have a degree in history.--Drboisclair 18:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Additional quote (more available) from Shirer added to make his statement more specific.--Mantanmoreland 18:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is always helpful as quotations must never be taken out of context. They are still general, and some "Protestants" might demur to Luther being called the "founder of Protestantism." Is the journalist speaking or the historian?--Drboisclair 18:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That lengthy quote from Luther is interesting, but much too long and unencyclopedic. Why not trim it a bit? You can do that without falling into 3RR territory if you added it.--Mantanmoreland 20:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but since we are expanding this section: it might do to leave it in extenso. --Drboisclair 20:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the problem. You see, then the opposing POV quotes will be lengthed, and there will be no end to it. A good quote, as I said, but it will convey the same meaning and if anything be stronger if edited down. What you have now is such a large block of text that it is self-defeating.--Mantanmoreland 20:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.--Drboisclair 20:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The generality of Shirer's statement 

message: Removed from article per WP:Ver.  Citation requested 1 week ago, none provided.
His translation significantly influenced the English King James Bible.
--Doright 22:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Courtesy would dictate leaving the sentence in the article. I would appreciate it if the editor would stop vandalizing the article. As to the editor's accusations of violating WP:POINT they are groundless as are the editor's other charges. --Drboisclair 23:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand the WP:POINT charge myself.  What was the quote supposed to be demonstrating? This is why communicating via curt edit comments is much less useful than taking the time to spell out something on the talk pages. Sam 23:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sam, Since you are keen on communication, what does WP:POINT have to do with King James Bible? --Doright 00:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Drboisclair, Courtesy and WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL and WP:FAITH would dictate that you stop claiming that editors are "vandalizing the article" when they make edit you don't like.--Doright 00:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I could request a simple, civil answer to my question? Sam 00:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must have missed that one - feel free to point me to it.  But, on your own edit summary, I'm curious what point you believe Dr.boisclair was making through the quote he added. As to edit summaries about "vandalizing", I put those in the same category as the other curt edit comments that seem to show up here all the time. Sam 00:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sam, I'm having trouble keeping up with you.  In your 00:28, 12 July comment you appear to be responding to your own prior comment and engaging yourself in dialog. You say, "I must have missed that one."  I have no idea what you are referring to.  Missed which one what?  It's very confusing.  So let's take it from the top and perhaps you can simply answer what all this has to do with Luther and the King James Bible?  That would be a good start toward communication.  I'm beginning to suspect the answer is: absolutely nothing.  But, I'll keep an open mind to see if you can connect the dots for me. --Doright 04:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only WPPOINT comment I saw was yours, in the edit summary relating to the deletion of a Martin Luther quote.  That was the WPPOINT comment that drsboisclair was referring to, and the one that I am baffled by.  I have no idea what WPPOINT comment has been made regarding the King James bible.  I have not seen a WPPOINT comment made on the King James Bible, so I cannot answer your question. I asked why in your edit summary removing this quote you made this cryptic WPPOINT comment. Sam 10:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sam, not answering the simplest of questions with a simple straightforward answer (e.g., what are you referring to when you said, "I must have missed that one," or what is the connection between your WP:Point question and the King James Bible), your disparaging request that a "civil answer to my question" be provided, the admonition regarding "curt edit comments" immediately following Drboisclair personal attack accusing me of vandalizing the article in concert with [this similar attack] against another user is reminiscent of the style demonstrated [here].  It strikes me that posting things like [this] without looking does not assume good faith and is part of the reason this entire page is simply painful to read .  However, despite the mounting evidence to the contrary, I will continue to assume good faith, but not ignore bad behavior.  That being said, the answer to your question that is obvious to other editors is stated [ here] in the thread of the appropriately titled talk section.  As absolutely none of this has anything whatsoever to do with the King James Bible, out of respect for other editors, I will not respond further to this off topic discussion in this section.  If you require further information, I suggest you discuss it in the proper section. --Doright 17:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  For now, I do not mind the move of the KJV point here. In the flurry of activity here, I just haven't had the time to track down a cite for this one. --CTSWyneken(talk) 00:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  King James Bible