Talk:Martin Luther/Archive 5

message: Since the works linked to above infringe the copyright of Augsburg Fortress Press (see User Cecropia's Opinion), I have deleted them, per Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works --CTSWyneken 19:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: User Doright Links to Infringing Works Deleted

message: Why don't we put it to an informal vote? If I may be so bold to to propose this after just coming to this page. I propose three ways to treat the mention of Martin Luther's writings on the Jews, in the intro. I would ask that only logged in contributers weigh in, on this vote.Mytwocents 07:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One sentence mention It is admittedly a hard thing to constrain such a bold charge to one terse sentence.  But I think anything more than a deliberately constrained, carefully neutral mention, of such a terrible charge, would overwhelm the introduction, and give too much weight to one aspect of Luther's life.  It should introduce Luther's views, and connect them to the Nazi's final solution and leave everything else to be said in the MLOTJ section and subpage. Mytwocents 07:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: One sentence mention No matter what we think the length of the intro should be (it is missing things, like much of the negative legacy mentioned in the section near the end of the article), this issue is not a major part of Luther's life. See print encyclopedias, if you doubt this) We do need to consider the issue, because it was so much a part of Nazi justification of their horrors. But we already do this below and at length at Martin Luther and the Jews. So, here, one sentence on Luther and the Jews and mention of the other negative aspects of Luther's legacy at similar length. --CTSWyneken 11:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No more polls. The last time you did one was on the categories, and it didn't go your way, but you ignored it anyway. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The WP guide suggests 3-4 paragraphs for the intro is appropriate for an article this size (see WP:LEAD).  Luther is mentioned in almost any modern history analysis of the Holocaust, so his legacy regarding his writings on Jews is significant according to historians.  The current two-sentences in the intro better summarizes this fact more than anything else I've seen.  Ok folks, FYI, this will likely be my only WP edit for several days as I'm traveling out of town momentarily... --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 12:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, MP! I'll read the guide mentioned. On the significance issue: yes, of course we must include something on it. We already do. In fact, we include more than most encyclopedias do, even before we get to the Martin Luther and the Jews and the On the Jews and Their Lies (Martin Luther) articles. It is not treated as a major part of his work and career. Have a pleasant trip and come back to us safely! --CTSWyneken 12:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: As per MPerel.  The intro doesn't need less information on this; rather, it needs more information on other facets of Luther. Jayjg (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote proposal

message: :One sentence mention It is admittedly a hard thing to constrain such a bold charge to one terse sentence.  But I think anything more than a deliberately constrained, carefully neutral mention, of such a terrible charge, would overwhelm the introduction, and give too much weight to one aspect of Luther's life.  It should introduce Luther's views, and connect them to the Nazi's final solution and leave everything else to be said in the MLOTJ section and subpage. Mytwocents 07:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One sentence mention No matter what we think the length of the intro should be (it is missing things, like much of the negative legacy mentioned in the section near the end of the article), this issue is not a major part of Luther's life. See print encyclopedias, if you doubt this) We do need to consider the issue, because it was so much a part of Nazi justification of their horrors. But we already do this below and at length at Martin Luther and the Jews. So, here, one sentence on Luther and the Jews and mention of the other negative aspects of Luther's legacy at similar length. --CTSWyneken 11:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: One sentence mention:

message: ::No more polls. The last time you did one was on the categories, and it didn't go your way, but you ignored it anyway. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The WP guide suggests 3-4 paragraphs for the intro is appropriate for an article this size (see WP:LEAD).  Luther is mentioned in almost any modern history analysis of the Holocaust, so his legacy regarding his writings on Jews is significant according to historians.  The current two-sentences in the intro better summarizes this fact more than anything else I've seen.  Ok folks, FYI, this will likely be my only WP edit for several days as I'm traveling out of town momentarily... --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 12:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, MP! I'll read the guide mentioned. On the significance issue: yes, of course we must include something on it. We already do. In fact, we include more than most encyclopedias do, even before we get to the Martin Luther and the Jews and the On the Jews and Their Lies (Martin Luther) articles. It is not treated as a major part of his work and career. Have a pleasant trip and come back to us safely! --CTSWyneken 12:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: As per MPerel.  The intro doesn't need less information on this; rather, it needs more information on other facets of Luther. Jayjg (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Full paragraph, of a three paragraph intro:

message: I think that the following sentence should be removed from the "Theology of grace" section:
:Luther was so opposed to the teaching that anything but grace could save, that he saw the book of James as an "epistle of straw" and held it in lower esteem than Paul's letters.  Luther also had his doubts about the veracity of Hebrews and Revelation as well.
This does not express Luther's mature attitude on these biblical books. I agree that it is overstated, and I would add that its implication is less than accurate as to Luther's entire motivation. Drboisclair 20:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have no objection to its removal, particularly given that it's unsourced. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, but let's give the newcomer a day or two to source it and modify it. --CTSWyneken 00:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Luther calling James "a right strawy epistle" and his desire to throw it and others out of the NT canon is famous, no? It's commonly addressed by scholars in connection with his strong Justification by Faith views and rejection of Indulgences.  Whether the editor comes back to improve it or not, something should probably be addressed somewhere in the article about it, imo. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 05:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue would be appropriate in the section that deals with Luther's translation of the Bible. Luther did not simply dismiss the Epistle of James because he disagreed with it. Luther had a concept of canonicity that directed him here. This view of James was placed in the prefaces that he wrote to the books of the New Testament that he translated in 1522--His German translation of the entire New Testament appeared in September, 1522. His opposition to James, Hebrews, and Revelation stems from the Early Church's distinction of books as Homologoumena and Antilegomena. Homologoumena books were attested "with one voice" and Antilegomena books were "opposed" by Christian leaders in the early centuries. Drboisclair 19:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would you write something up about Luther and James for the German Bible section, Dave? I suspect the discussions in Brecht, Schwiebert and Bainton would help. The problem with the now removed sentence is that it doesn't reflect what Luther's attitude towards the epistle was. So, what I'm saying is, you're both right. --CTSWyneken 19:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of this sentence 

message: I hope this gives a better sequence. I suppose the Nazi reference ought to stand on the same basis as German language, translation techniques, Counter-Reformation.--shtove 23:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus: the blank space to the left of Luther's portrait should be filled with text - how'ja doo dat?--shtove 23:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rephrase intro 

message: Does anyone know whose translation this is? "Mit Hexen muß man kein Mitleid haben; ich wollte sie selber verbrennen." "You must not have pity on witches, I myself would burn them." SlimVirgin (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No idea. This section was introduced by another editor. We left it in because it cites the original text of Luther and is more or less accurate. --CTSWyneken 01:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I look at the translation, it's pretty bad, isn't it? Very roughly: you must have no part of hexes; I would burn them myself." --CTSWyneken 01:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it says "You (or one) should have no pity for witches. I wanted to burn them myself." SlimVirgin (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Well, wait... the word has a wider meaning than that according to Cassell's: Witch, soceress, witchcraft... in verb form, to conjure..." Mitleid = compassion, pity. Not as bad as it looked at first. --CTSWyneken 01:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't burn witchcraft, so clearly he meant witches. I'd say it's pretty bad to translate "wanted to burn" for "would burn." SlimVirgin (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reason I didn't change it is that it's possible that, in medieval German, people said they "wanted" to do something instead of using a conditional. I doubt it, but it's possible. That's why I asked whose translation it was i.e. whether it was a professional, scholarly, published translation. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  That's what I was trying to say in the last. I should know better than to trust my sight reading of German. Anyway, I'm not sure where the translation came from, which is the bottom line, after all. --CTSWyneken 01:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It'd be good to see the context before deciding whether it's a subjunctive or the simple past. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: "Ich wollte sie lieber verbrennen" would make it subjunctive. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you wish, I'll pull the volume next week and post the full context. --CTSWyneken 12:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that would be helpful, thank you. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Witches

message: I asked before but didn't get a clear answer, would it be possible to cut the following sentence from the "Luther and Witchcraft" section? 
  
The persecution of witches and warlocks took place in Protestant as well as in Roman Catholic countries in Middle Europe during and after the Reformation, and not only Luther but John Calvin supported it. 
I ask because it seems rather like boilerplate and doesn't really discuss Luther.  I would also suggest that the reference to Exodus 22:18 be removed if Luther himself didn't comment on the passage.  Sumergocognito 04:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  question 

message: :Hello, all. Briefly, then, and addressed primarily towards CTSW, drbois, and slim. Your passion, energy, time, and effort which you bring to this article and Wiki in general is very impressive and commendable. I could never hope to, nor do I aspire to, be so dedicated.
:Watching this page in particular over the last few months has been quite instructive. As a graduate student with background in history, theology, and political science, taking this page and your conversations as a case study for the functioning and even the concept of Wiki has been fascinating. At the end of this semester, then, it seems worthwhile to contribute a few points arising out of reflection on this lengthy period of observation.
:Wiki is a particularly weak, if not impossible, format for social sciences and related fields where the scholarly task is primarily one of interpretation and argument based on the same continuous set of accepted and common data. When the whole thrust of a field is to say something new, to disagree with other voices, setting up a system which necessitates compromise and agreement seems idealistically foolish.
:No genuine scholarly discussion, particularly in these academic areas, can take place in a system where other scholars can erase one another's work, effectively silencing them (like shutting off a microphone or burning a book).
:Wiki, particularly this article, is a classic example of interest group politics taking place in a semi-academic context. Interest group theory states that in most cases it is not majority opinions and needs which will win the day in terms of influencing government policy, or writing an online democratic encyclopaedia, but rather each particular issue (or article) will attract and be dominated by a small minority group full of highly-driven and motivated people for whom the issue/article takes primary importance. These interest groups therefore exercise a disproportionate and often a defining influence over the government policy/article content over and against majority viewpoints and needs. This is the exact opposite of the NPOV principle held central at Wiki. And yet it is the driving force and clear reality for disputed articles like this one. Please note that I do not think that any of the main editors here are intentionally duplicitous or misleading; rather, that underneath your and my efforts to remain neutral and objective, and not form interest/advocacy groups, it is simply part of our human nature to do so. Our good intentions and best efforts can't help us escape the situation predicted by interest group political theory (sound familiar to those trained in Lutheran theology?).
:The only time that compromise and dialogue ever takes place in shaping government policy/article contents is when two passionate interest groups both approach the same issue/article with different perspectives but equal motivation and strength. Thus, in this case, students/professors/bureaucrats from one of the more conservative branches of American Lutheranism and a group of folks passionately concerned about genocide/Holocaust/anti-semitism/Jewish things in general. It's cute, and a little frustrating, to see you all try to work together towards a solution. And I wish you well in your efforts. I just do not have much hope, especially given the underlying political theory which, when applied to this context, predicts failure in the majority of cases.
:One final point: some editors on this page are very concerned about other editors' "qualifications" and background, and are very clear about their own background in an effort to privilege certain voices and discredit those of others. This seems to seriously undermine the democratic, cooperative, and equal values of Wiki. Rather, it serves to reinforce traditional scholarly hierarchies and dominant power structures which have long served to privilege certain voices (especially those which fall into any categories such as rich, old, white, Western, highly-educated, heterosexual, and male) above others. Wiki should be above and beyond that, as far as is humanly possible. Besides, we are all supposed to be relying on outside sources and scholars anyway, right? So what matters is who we quote, not who we are. It only matters who you are if you are trying to introduce original research... another no-no, right?
:Keep up the good work. I'm sure you will, whether I tell you to or not. Probably will delete this from the talk page 'cause it's too long or something, or off-topic. Oh well... I've only been observing for a few months and don't understand a lot on here. But at least accept this as a worthwhile critique of this page and Wiki in general, from the relatively fresh perspective of a very "young" Wiki-citizen who is in awe and amazed by what goes on here. Peace.--Apostlemep12 07:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An interesting post.  I dont have the time, nor the inclination (as I agree with much of what you have written), to write at length here, but I do have to question your assertion that the academic background of contributors is irrelvant.  This would be true if Wiki were to promote the equal presentation of minority views.  However, Wiki does not do this: it is enough that minority views are mentioned at a length proportional to their importance, without bias or having the article itself (as opposed to an external citation) form a judgment.  The more 'scholarly' (be it from formal academia or otherwise) the background of a contributor, the better they will have an appreciation of the whole field, and therefore it is to be hoped that, if they eschew their personal opinions, they will show much ability in both accurately paraphrasing sources and correctly weighting opinions according to mainstream scholarship. Tobermory 16:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General Observation

message: I came across this article and was a bit suspicious of it's POV, from what I've read Denifle's criticisms of Luther are not taken very seriously today.  I remember reading this article on Catholic historiography of Luther [] a long while ago and thought it was quite interesting, I thought others here might be interested too.  Does Wikipedia have an article on the historiography of Luther?  If not, it might be a worthwhile idea.  Sumergocognito 18:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not as far as I know. Are there any other historiographies in the wiki that you know of? --CTSWyneken 19:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't look till just now, but yes there are a couple: Chinese_historiography as well as Historiography_of_science. Sumergocognito 21:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then it might be fun! --CTSWyneken 23:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Henry Denifle]] 

message: So far, we've made a lot of proposals. Here is the current version, which refuses to die, followed by several past and proposed versions ( #9's my favorite, simply because it's the most terse);
#Luther is also known for his writings about the Jews, in which he proposed that Jews' homes be destroyed, their synagogues and schools burned, their money confiscated, and their rights and liberties curtailed. Luther, Martin. "On the Jews and Their Lies," Trans. Martin H. Bertram, in Luther's Works (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971). These writings were given "full publicity" by the National Socialists in Germany in 1933-45.   (See Luther and the Jews below.)
#The Nazi's use of Martin Luther's harsh comments about the Jews to justify the "Final Solution" are frequently the subject of much debate and discussion. Some believe that Luther's anti-Jewish comments are not sufficiently acknowledged, while others believe that they are emphasized at the expense of recognizing his significant contributions to the history of the Christian Church and Western Civilization. (See Luther and the Jews below.) 
#Luther's later writings on the Jews displayed a special contempt, they were later used, in the twentieth century, by the  Nazis to justify the Final Solution.Egil Grislis, "Martin Luther and the Jews," Consensus 27 (2001) No. 1:64. 
#Martin Luther's writings on the treatment and handling of the Jewish people was used by the Nazi Regime to justify their persecution of the Jews.
#Martin Luther's writings against the Jews were used by the Nazi regime to justify their genocide of the Jews.
#The Nazis justified their genocide by citing Martin Luther's venomous words and recommendations for harsh treatment of the Jews.
#The Nazi Regime justified their persecution of the Jews by adhereing to Martin Luther's writings on the treatment and handling of the Jewish people.
#The Nazis justified their genocide by citing Martin Luther's venomous words and recommendations for harsh treatment of the Jews.
#His writings regarding Jews were used to justify their genocide.
I think 3 through 9 would serve the intro better than the current version, if for no other reason than they do the job with less words. - Mytwocents 04:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: So many ways to introduce MLOTJ

message: It is redundant to put Luther is two antisemitism catagoies. Since there is no disagreement that his remarks are a part of the history of antisemitism, but some disagreement in the scholarly literature as to whether to describe his views as anti-judaic rather than anti-semitic, the antisemitism is the better of the two.
Please do not add the second catagory without a new consensus here. --CTSWyneken 15:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Jpgordon. Martin Luther is a prime candidate for that category. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How is it not redundant? --CTSWyneken 15:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And in the poll you conducted recently, Humus and Doright also felt that cat was appropriate. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has already been discussed, and the category was on the page, so it's you who ought not to be removing it without discussion, CTSW. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And then off again. And Drboisclair, Rekalov and I believe StanZegel have spoken against. Such is hardly consensus. Let's wait for others to comment before changing something that had been status quo for months. --CTSWyneken 15:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: StanZegel hasn't edited regularly since February and was only turning up to revert so I'm certainly not going to include his opinion toward any consensus. Ditto with ptmccain. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What policy or guideline lets you do that? You start that game and then I'll object to Doright and Pesher and others. All editors should be welcome. Attacking people based upon their qualifications is counter the spirit of wikipedia. --CTSWyneken 15:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: StanZegel isn't an editor anymore. He was turning up to revert only because you or one of the others were asking him to, but otherwise made no contributions to the encyclopedia. Everyone else commenting here is a regular editor. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: As jpgordon explained above, Luther was not only influential in the history of anti-semitism, but he was clearly anti-semitic in his own right (although some Luther scholars prefer to describe his brand of anti-semitism as "religious anti-semitism", or even "anti-Judaism").  Thus he belongs in both the Anti-Semitism category, as an important topic of anti-Semitism, and the anti-Semitic people category, as an anti-Semitic individual. Jayjg (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I also agree with jpgordon, SlimVirgin, Jayjg, Jbull, and others, plus nearly 100% of all scholars.   CTSWyneken, Please demonstrate intellectual honesty by ceasing your erroneous claim to be supported by an existing consensus.  You do this habitually (e.g., here too).  Plus, Drboisclair’s deletion and sock puppetry  does not a consensus make. Doright 16:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, that was my nephew who acted against better knowledge, thank you. Drboisclair 01:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Placing someone into this category without specific scholarly warrant is an action that violates WP:NOR. It robs the reader of making that determination for him or herself. It is appropriate for those who have been labelled as such universally, like Hitler. As it stands it trashes everything else famous people have done. We are constantly accused of writing this article to give the Lutheran Church's version of it. The counter danger also must be avoided: giving the Jewish faith's version of it. I think that it is helpful that Jewish editors join with Christian or other editors in writing this article. For Wikipedia it is expected. Humus has suggested that there be a structure to these "Antisemitic" categories. Luther is no more an anti-semite than any other ancient or medieval Christian writer. It is more clear that Luther's writings On the Jews, Against the Sabbatarians, and Von Schem Hamphoras could be considered anti-semitic, but that he should be classed with Hitler is unreasonable. Why can't there be some benefit of the doubt left here rather than vilifying famous people? Drboisclair 01:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with what CTSWyneken said earlier. While Luther was obviously an anti-semite, so where most of the people of his time, and it is Very redundant to put Luther into two anti-semitic categories. As to including that Luther was an anti-semite in the introduction, I would disagree. While he was an anti-semite, it was not the main purpose or the most noticable thing that Luther did, especially in comparison to the 95 Thesis. Thetruthbelow(talk) 01:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His anti-semitism was exceptional, though -- we've been told that the response to "Jews and their lies" was revulsion; he wasn't your run of the mill Jew-hater, but one who had sufficient visibility to be an influential Jew-hater. Indeed, it's not the main point of his historical record, but he certainly fits in both categories. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antisemitism Catagories 

message: We also need sources for: (1) "Thanks to the printing press, his pamphlets were well read throughout Germany, influencing many subsequent Protestant Reformers and thinkers, and giving rise to diversifying Protestant traditions in Europe and elsewhere." And (2) "Protestant countries, no longer subject to the papacy, exercised their expanded freedom of thought, facilitating Protestant Europe's rapid intellectual advancement in the 17th and 18th centuries, and giving rise to the Enlightenment."
The first isn't really a problem, but the second is arguably false, so it needs a good source if it's to stay. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since the material is not from me, I'll have to do some digging. I do remember someone making both of these arguments, however. Perhaps you could help by reviewing a few biographies of Luther. --CTSWyneken 21:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ptmccain has supplied a reference for the unproblematic point, and has removed the contentious claim, which I doubt anyone would have found a good reference for, so it's probably best left out. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good enough, then. --CTSWyneken 01:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Slim, I've been working from the Chicago Manual of Style, with which I'm most familiar. It that format, notes do not invert the author's name, but bibliographies do. So, a footnote for a book would begin: Roland H. Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther A bibliography entry for the same work: Bainton, Roland H. Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther Since I was under the impression that Wikipedia doesn't choose one sytle over another, why is it necessary to change notes that do not invert author names? --CTSWyneken 01:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't necessary, and you're right that WP doesn't mandate one style over another. The reason I put surnames first is because the references section i.e. the list of sources (is that what you're here calling bibliography?) should be in alphabetical order with surnames first. It's then easy when adding inline citations in the form of footnotes to cut and paste these into the text, so when I'm writing, I tend to leave them both in the same format. But that's just my preference; you're welcome to do as you see fit, and if you prefer the other style, I'll leave them in future. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! In CMA, the sources list would be inverted, for exactly the reason you mentioned, but the notes should be natural order. It has punctuation that a parenthetical would have. I'll adjust it to that form, since that's the format with which Boisclair, Mc Cain, I and I supect a few others, are most comfortable. --CTSWyneken 01:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Form 

message: Why do many of the editors on this talk page consider Martin Luther's main contribution to be the spread of anit-semitic ideas? I have learned that he was a reformer, a man who was sick of people who could "Buy their way into heaven", yet from what SlimVirgin and others say, his greatest contribution was On the Jews and Their Lies, and not his 95 thesis's and other works. While he was an anti-semitic, that was not the main part of his life, rather it was to disband from a corrupt church and to form his own based upon his and his followers ideals. CTSWyneken, myself and others have tried to figure out why so many describe him first as an anti-semite, then as a reformer. Being Jewish myself, I understand the horrors of anti-semitism, but honestly, this man was more of a liberator of religion than a condemmer of a group of people. Thetruthbelow(talk) 01:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article doesn't say that was his main contribution. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article itself does not say that, but the comments on this talk page do. Thetruthbelow(talk) 01:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference between the article and the talk page, though, is that on the talk pages we air our points of view and work toward a consensus as to what is in the article. The article is to be NPOV. The talk page shows the mulling over and debate that goes into the construction of the article. The article is what we say, hopefully, together. --Drboisclair 02:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am glad to hear Slim make that point. --CTSWyneken 02:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question? 

message: I've begun to conform our citations to Chicago Manual of Style, per Talk:Martin Luther#Citation Form. I've noticed to things it will take a bit for me to fix. If someone gets there first, go for it. If not, I'll get to it as time permits.
# We're missing the date for the Manns book. I've marked it No Date (N.D.)
# We're missing the pagination of the quote from On the Jews
# We're also missing the cite for the last line of the last paragraph in the intro. I think this was McKimm, if I'm not mistaken. I've put the fact tag on so we don't miss fixing it. --CTSWyneken 13:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Housekeeping 

message: Thanks Slim, David, Paul for helping with the citation cleanup and additions!
I'm opening this section since at least four of us are working on it. See also Talk:Martin Luther#Sources, Talk:Martin Luther#Citation Form, Talk:Martin Luther#Citation Housekeeping Please feel free to list observations below:
# For the Weimar Ausgabe and Luther's Works, Chicago Manual of Style requires the first reference to a work to be full. In our case, we will want the full title of the work of Luther, the full title of the set, place, publisher, date, pagination. At the end, we would say: "Hereafter cited in notes as WA" or LW. From then on, the volume, page convention can follow in stead of the full reference. --CTSWyneken 15:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Will do. It was my flag. --CTSWyneken 21:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Housekeeping 2 

message: It would be my impression that the issues causing this article to be flagged for lack of neutrality have been pretty much talked out and talked through and the most frequent contributors to the article seem satisfied with the form of the article at present. While we may not agree with how things are said, it would seem we can all live with it, with some give and take here and there. I would respectfully propose that the neutrality flag be taken down. The issues that seem to have given us the greatest heartburn are sufficiently addressed in the article. Luther's writings against the Jews are duly noted, and re-noted. Opinions about the importance of those comments for Nazi Germany have also been sufficiently expressed, and reflected, in the notes here that refer readers to various treatments of the subject. That's my .02 worth. --Ptmccain 21:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Will do. It was my flag. --CTSWyneken 21:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to Take Down the "Neutrality Disputed" Flag? 

message: The source of the quotation of Luther saying, "You must have no pity for witches ...," Weimar Ausgabe 22, 782 ff. is nonexistent: volume 22 goes only to page 499. I am replacing the reference with a citation requested flag. I will investigate the other references. If these are found to be lacking, I propose that this entire section be removed as unsourced. --Drboisclair 15:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, David! The folks at St. Louis Concordia can run a search for you, since you have the German phrase. They can tell you quickly if it is in WA and where it is. --CTSWyneken 16:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doright reverted it out of hand, which is uncalled for. I have had to revert back the problem. I am going to the seminary to do research on this matter. I suspect that it should be removed as unsourced. We do not have access to the study referred to. I ask that the request for citation not be reverted. --Drboisclair 19:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are sixty copies of the study in US libraries. I've sent for it via ILL. --CTSWyneken 19:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have completed the revision of this section. --Drboisclair 20:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good.  Nice work. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 20:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work, Dr. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with the Luther and the persecution of witches section 

message: BTW, Doright has summarily reverted all of the work done by CTS, PtM, and me. This should cease as it is a violation of WP:CIVIL. --Drboisclair 19:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  David, he just isn't worth the time to engage or bring charges against. I'd recommend to do as I do and ignore him. --CTSWyneken 19:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is not much else one can do. --Drboisclair 19:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BTW Doright cavalierly reverted all of the work done 

message: Who is he exactly, and are his views representative of those of the Roman Catholic church? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody is claiming his views are "representative of the Roman Catholic church" ... stop your game playing here Slim. You are simply being obnoxious.--Ptmccain 05:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It is perfectly acceptable to quote scholars, give me a break. State your qualifications for making any such value judgements on this page.--Ptmccain 06:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Opinions don't belong in intro. Stick to facts. And take your patronizing attitude somewhere else thank you. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 07:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quoting a world-class Luther scholar is not "opinion" -- it quoting standard recognized scholarship. How about you state here what qualifications you bring to this discussion?--Ptmccain 07:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need to post resumes here to edit, nor does one need to be Lutheran to edit the Luther page. Civility, however, *is* required. And it is better editing style to address scholars' opinions in the article body, not the intro.  The intro should contain brief facts. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 07:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, upon reading the two intro versions, the original flows better with the order being 1) main notable item about Luther inspiring Reformation, 2) contribution to church, 3) contribution to Western civilization, 4) negative aspect of legacy. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 06:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The change is just fine. You are being obtuse, or playing games.--Ptmccain 06:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it wasn't just fine.  You obviously didn't reread it for flow or you would have noticed the duplicate sentence and the missing image as well as the choppy flow. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 07:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could easily have removed the duplicate sentence without dumping the other material. The image issue was not my doing. I don't know how to fix that kind of thing. You are being duplicitous.--Ptmccain 07:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you even actually read what I did?  I *did* fix your duplicate sentence, fixed your missing image, and rearranged the flow as well as retained your other material, and all I got was nastiness from you for my effort trying to help you.  I won't bother next time. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 07:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: And...the seal image is missing in Ptmccain version. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 06:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Get your facts straight. A vandal decided to play games previous to my edits. Again, you are game playing.--Ptmccain 06:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You introduced the messed up image here. There was no vandal. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 16:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You just reverted back your version with the missing image.  Stop it. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 07:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: A fourth problem with the Ptmccain version was the duplication of this sentence: "Luther's call to the church to return to the teachings of the Bible led to the formation of new traditions within Christianity and to the Counter-Reformation, the Catholic reaction to these movements. "  I fixed all these issues.  --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 06:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An error easily taken care of without a revert, and you know that.--Ptmccain 06:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And there was no revert, I carefully edited to fix your mistakes and include some of your changes, but I won't waste my time next time. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 07:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no "careful editing" on your part. You just did a hatchet job on the introduction, again, pushing your obvious agenda and far from NPOV. You did not include my changes, you wiped them out. Check the history. --Ptmccain 07:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: MPerel, Well done!  Doright 06:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doright, state your qualifications to offer any opinions here.--Ptmccain 06:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peter Manns

message: Does anyone know who maintains adherents.com?  SlimVirgin (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Offhand, no. It is listed as a top site by the Wabash Center Guide to Internet For Teaching and Learning in Theology and Religion. This guide is supported by the Eli Lilly Foundation and is listed by the American Theological Library Association as a link off their Union Catalog's home page. --CTSWyneken 15:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We probably shouldn't use it as a source if we don't know who maintains it. It could be a personal website. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll do some inquiry. It wouldn't likely be in the Wabash Center Guide, however, if it is a personal site. --CTSWyneken 15:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a quote from "Adherents.com" it is no more, and no less, "authoritative" than Wikipedia. "Adherents.com is an Internet initiative and is not affiliated with any religious, political, or educational organization. Adherents.com is the 2nd most frequently visited general religion site on the Internet, with an average of 13,500 unique vistors per day. Adherents.com began hosting a small number of clearly marked ads on 24 January 2006. Prior to that time, Adherents.com had no affiliation with any commercial organizations. Advertisers have no control over this site's content." They retrive data from a host of other statistical sources on religion, etc. and gather it one place. May I ask why you, "Slim," seem so ... well, frankly...so obsessed with the Luther page? As I looked through a lot of pages you claim to have contributed to on your discusssion, including also those you claim you have a major hand in, they are replete with missing citations, facts asserted without documentation, etc. and I can not find any indication you are so concerned about the minutiae of where commas go in references on these pages. Is there some reason for this behavior on your part when it comes to the Luther page? Somebody recently observed to me that you appear to have quite a double-standard going when it comes to the Luther page, as opposed to the pages you edit. Oh, by the way, did you get my message to you on the website that mentions your activities on Wikipedia? I found when it when I googled on "SlimVirgin" and wikipedia. I thought you would want to know. I would appreciate your response to these questions "Slim." Thanks. --Ptmccain 16:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, whether adherents.com is more or less authoritative than WP is irrelevant. It has to be a reliable source or we can't use it, and if it's a personal website it doesn't count as reliable. It's worrying that there's no indication on the site of who writes and maintains it; or if there is, it's not obvious. Secondly, anyone who knows me as an editor knows that I care about citations. I'm not making any exceptions for this page at all. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You really pay this much close attention to the pages you claim as your own on your discussion page? That's interesting. I haven't noticed, but it's nice to hear.--Ptmccain 16:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding your statement, "Somebody recently observed to me that you appear to ...", I would hope as a reverend you are not the sort who listens to such malicious, uninformed gossip. There's nothing wrong with SlimVirgin asking whether a particular resource meets WP:RS standards, as it assists in bringing up the quality of this article.  And yes, SlimVirgin is very meticulous in any article she is involved in, insisting articles meet higher quality standards, as we all should be if we care about this project. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would hope it is, but I have had my concerns. Time will tell if my concerns are unfounded. --Ptmccain 23:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know what Ptmccain I have honestly had it with you. I have tried to sit back in the past when you made your claims about the "jewish cabal", and the various attacks you have made on SlimVirgin and MPerel and countless others, but now I just can't hold my tongue. I have to tell you that from your dialogue with SlimVirgin that you have been very dismissive, arrogant, and mean. Wikipedia is about editing, improving, and collaberating on articles, but yet again you have managed to turn it in to a soap opera. I am not trying to offend you or upset you, but I have to say that it is time that you took a good look at your past and current dialogue with everyone on this talk page, and reflect on how you have acted. You a good editor, Ptmccain, but you let your emotions carry you from the point of civility. Thetruthbelow(talk) 00:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you like me to show you examples? I'm sure I can find an ample amount. Thetruthbelow(talk) 00:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are trying to pick a fight, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to get into that. I'm sure you have better things to do with your time. I know I certainly do. I'm sorry if I have offended you.--Ptmccain 00:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am certainly not trying to pick a fight with you, rather I am trying to prevent one in the future. I appreciate your apology, but I think that others are deserving of it (such as SlimVirgin) more than me. Thetruthbelow(talk) 00:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Adherents.com appears to be the website of one individual, Preston Hunter, a computer programmer in Texas",  however, it is apparently widely endorsed by universities, journalists, libraries, and religious organizations, including Harvard University, The Courier-Journal's "The most useful Web sites for reporters", Humbul Humanities Hub, The Internet Public Library, University of Wisconsin, American Academy of Religion religionsource.org, The Claremont Colleges, The Morgan County News, to name a few. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good research. "Adherents" is basically a clearing house of published statistical research. It is not original research, but pulls together in one place surveys and other statistical information generated by various groups. I've always found it to be extremely helpful, and useful, apparently, as you discovered, a few others have as well. <g> The big question in my mind though is, "Will this pass the Slim 'it ain't good, until I say it is good' test"? <g>  --Ptmccain 23:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the bigger question is, does it meet the WP:RS standard, and I'm not 100% sure it does, due to this clause which states, personal websites "should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website."  The reason given is that "they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work."  However, I would argue that since so many academic, journalistic, and library sources apparently rely on and endorse this site for research, this seems to establish its credibility as a reliable clearing house of published statistical research, as you say, and it does not appear to be the website owner's original research.  On that basis I think it indeed meets the WP:RS standard. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 23:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you Jayjg . That is what I was upset about. Thetruthbelow(talk) 01:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source query 

message: Slim, the Lutheran World Federation citation was in Chicago Manual of Style format. Your changes make it out of compliance with that standard. Since I've been trying to move all the citations here in compliance with that standard, I'd appreciate it if you put it back in that form. --CTSWyneken 15:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Accessed isn't spelled with one c; we don't write May 18. 2006; and there's no need to place everything in brackets. Does the Chicago MoS do any of these things? SlimVirgin (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Typo fix is fine. I'll check the full date form in CMS. In footnotes and endnotes, parentheses go around the imprint and the access statement in CMS. Monday I hope to go back at correcting our notes form. On the date form, do you have a refence to the Wikipedia style guides that states a preference on how we report dates? --CTSWyneken 15:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't, sorry. It'll be somewhere in the MoS. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked the Chicago MoS, and I'd say it's excessively fussy for Wikipedia. Surname first in bib, but not in footnotes; no parentheses except in notes. The WP article on it says it's "all but vestigial." WP tends to use APA or MLA, but I don't really mind. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It can be very picky, I agree. But I do this kind of thing a lot, since it is a standard used by a lot of humanities folk here. I'm happy to bring the format here into compliance with it, but I wouldn't insist on it for others. Basic facts of publication, when available, is sufficient. --CTSWyneken 17:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punctuation changes in citation 

message: I see that Luther has been labeled and categorized as an anti-semitic person IN HERE. Seriously, is there ANY consensus OUTSIDE of Wikipedia on this matter?? As I have said repeatidly, I am NO expert, not even remotely on this guy but it seems that editors have RECENTLY made this a done deal not open to discussion. Well maybe its open to discussion, but forget trying to remove him from that category now. This is why I have a problem with this category...Did he get "voted" into it? Who voted him in based on what?? Again, I DON'T know that Luther ISN'T an anti-semite but we/I/you should be 110% sure of it and not influenced by our emotions or backgrounds or agendas if thats possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Threeafterthree (talk • contribs) 
:I didn't sign this?? Sorry --Tom 17:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Vote"? Wikipedia is not a democracy. There seems to be something of a consensus, though not a strong one, that one could not write "On the Jews and Their Lies" without actually believing what it says. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completly with you Jpgordon, for the amount of hatred that is in that book, he must have believed at least half of what he said, which would still make him a very big anti-semite. Thetruthbelow(talk) 21:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone has their POV on this question. I personally hate the anti-Judaic writings of Luther. I agree with Roland Bainton that he should have died before he wrote them. Maybe all of us can learn by his mistakes. On his last journey from Wittenberg to Eisleben, when the wind changed direction to blow in his face, he blamed it on the Jews. He was old and sick then, but, I know, that was no excuse. The other part of the story is that there was much more to Luther, some of it very good, but everyone has their POVs. Drboisclair 23:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for making that point Drboisclair. When I said I agreed with Jp, it was about Luther's anti-semitism.  But I also have said in past conversations, even on this talk page under the heading Question that Luther was a great man with a few flaws. Thetruthbelow(talk) 23:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luther is an [[Anti-Semite]] 

message: Question: I've noticed that people, most often with only an IP address listed, have vandalized this page with some frequency, inserting silly words, or obscene remarks. Are these generated by a bot, or are people actually coming here and inserting this kind of thing intentionally? --Ptmccain 19:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  People actually come by and do this. To put it mildly, there are few things that irritate wikifolk more than the scribble kiddies. Some articles get it more than others. We have quite a few editors and admins that watch over this page to clean it up. Happily, they do this enough that I'm often not fast enough to bag the revert myself. 8-) --CTSWyneken 19:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have noticed on some other pages unregistered users are locked out of editing them. That might be a good move to make here, since it seems the vast majority of the vandalism comes from unregistered users. For intance, SlimVirgin locked out unregistered users on the "Palestine" article. How can that be done here?--Ptmccain 02:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This can and has been done, but admins do not like to leave semi-blocks up indefinitely. --CTSWyneken 10:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Newbie Question about Vandalism

message: I have removed the category of "revolutionary" for Luther. It is unhistorical. In fact, Luther strongly opposed political revolution, e.g. his writings against the peasants in the Peasants' Revolt (1524-1526). If anyone else would care to weigh in on this, I would be glad to hear more on this. Having said that, one could say that what Luther taught and what grew out of Luther's work was "revolutionary" in a derived sense. --Drboisclair 19:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Revolutionary category 

message: Why is it that people suddently have decided to start reducing the size of notes? This is not a book, it is an on-line resource. I don't see any good reason for reducing the size of notes, and every good reason for keeping them at full size. It sure makes for easier reading. I would really appreciate it if folks would stop tinkering with the note size. Thanks. --Ptmccain 12:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I second that. My old eyes are getting feebler. 8-) I know how to change my browser settings, but we can't expect other to know. --CTSWyneken 12:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When does repeated changes to make the notes smaller fall under the category of "vandalism"?--Ptmccain 22:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The repeated changes to make the notes smaller will fall under the category of "vanalism" only after falling this, this and this to the category of "vanalism". I have absolutely no idea why you havent nicely asked not to change the fontsize to small in my talk page. Instead you decided to vandalise my page? Interesting! While there isnt any specific rules about the typography of Notes/Reference section in WP:MOS, MediaWiki_talk:Common.css has a css div class references-small. The name suggests that this is intended to use in such sections and I honestly do not believe using this class to reduce the font-size of such sections would ever be considered vandalism? Its also widely being used regardless of any written policy. Since we dont have any written policy and some agree that we should leave it up to the individual authors of the articles, I have no interest in making it smaller again, on this article. The repeated action on this article wasnt deliberate. Thank you --Oblivious 22:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The request not to make the notes smaller has been made here, politely, yet you have now twice done it. Please stop. There is absolutely no point, or sense, in reducing the size of the notes on this page. Thanks for your commitment to stop doing this.--Ptmccain 23:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Paul, please use User talk pages, and not user pages themselves, for your comments. Since you are new, you may not realize that folks do not take kindly to changes made by others on their user pages proper. --CTSWyneken 23:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, good point. I thought I was making an edit on his talk page.Sorry about that.--Ptmccain 02:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This did not look like an attempted talk page comment, adding a derogatory image, changing his user page to say "* His major contributions are to be expected in Maldives-related , and making notes smaller in the page on Martin Luther." and blanking out other parts of his user page.  Vandalizing a user page is unacceptable behavior and this isn't the first time you've done it.  --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 07:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Oblivious, forgive us if we're a bit touchy here. This page has been through -- vigorous debate-- here recently and we're a bit jumpy. Yes, text size is not mentioned in any of the rules. But simply because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. I've been half tempted to increase sizes to 14pt to make it easier to read, but suspect that'd annoy folk. Here there are at least two of us that really do not like small text at all. So, please tell us, why do you want to do this? I suspect it isn't so that you can strain my eyes. 8-) --CTSWyneken 23:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  CTSWyneken my man! you put it like I want to reduce them. *Sigh* May be you dint see the part, in my previous response, about css class created in MediaWiki:Common.css that is to be used with Note/Reference sections. Such classes are created in the aforementioned style sheet only after geting approval in Wikipedia:Village pump. So its not me and my desire to change it, its being done all over wikipedia by many wikipedians on many articles for sometime! --Oblivious 23:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I picked up on that. But just because a capibility is provided does not mean it must be used. There are many examples of pages out there with large text notes and some with small. It appears that at the moment, then, it is to be left up to individual editors. In this case, two of us do not want the small text. So, since you do not want it, two of us here do not want it, why not leave it alone? --CTSWyneken 23:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe I already have, in my first response :) --Oblivious 23:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'll say this for Oblivious. He has an apt user name.--Ptmccain 02:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Ptmccain that was completly uncalled for. I have to say that you are the first "father" that I have heard of that smears people's reputation, such as SlimVirgin's, or makes fun of people, such as Oblivious, for no reason at all. You should be ashamed. Whether you agree with him or not is no reason to make fun of him. Thetruthbelow (talk) 03:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a "father" -- don't you have some homework to do or something?--Ptmccain 04:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  First off, are you not a reverend? If not, then your user page is faulty. And for your information, school is out, so no, my homework is finished. Talking about homework, have you ever researched anything you've posted on wikipedia, becuase your quality of writing has been disgusting. Was this the type of response you wanted in response to your needlessly mean comment. Thetruthbelow (talk) 05:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I have had enough of this. Ptmccain, you have driven me to the point of wanting to take a wikibreak. Maybe after some time things can calm own and we can co-exist without any problems. Goodbye to all, Thetruthbelow (talk) 05:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Paul, I second the motion. Please do not go after other editors. I know that others have attacked you since you arrived, but responding in kind does not help us develop good articles. Also, aside from disagreeing with us, and constantly making a change we don't like here, Oblivious has done nothing at all. TheTruthBelow has also done nothing more than ask you to lay off. He's also new and also shows potential to be a good editor. So, can we give these folk a break? --CTSWyneken 10:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, sounds like a good idea to me. Thanks for the justified correction, CTS. I'll work on this and do better. I can see that I've come roaring in to Wikipedia like a bull in the china shop. That was inappropriate, and I apologize for that.--Ptmccain 11:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Apology accepted. absolvo te. --CTSWyneken 13:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's nice of you to offer him an indulgence, but...don't you think the apology to and forgiveness from should be to/from the offended parties (i.e. Oblivious and Thetruthbelow in this incident)? --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 00:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would also be appropriate, yes. It's a long story, but I'm responding to Paul as one Lutheran pastor to another. Public rebuke, public confession, public absolution. How he responds to others is for him to pursue from this point on. I don't expect understanding of non-Lutherans on this one. --CTSWyneken 02:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Huh? Did I miss something?  So what we have here is a case of a person being attacked since they have arrived and now merely responding in kind? No wonder we have such a hard time agreeing on what scholars have written about Luther or even reporting what he actually said.  Suggesting that this is merely responding in kind does strike me as odd.Doright 00:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks, my feelings exactly. Take care.--Ptmccain 14:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Everyone, I wasn't offended by Ptmccain's actions and his responses because I figured that he is relatively new and (I assumed that he is) unfamiliar with policies like WP:CIVILITY and WP:NPA. An appology is certainly not required because I dont have any hard feelings in this matter. This is wikipedia and you edit in good faith and thats its :) and thanks for everyone who tried to resolve a simple inflammatory-looking simple dispute.  --Oblivious 12:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making Notes Smaller 

message: The quote seems to be pulled from Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume VII. Modern Christianity. The German Reformation. . --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! That's helpful. I've heard other initial comments by the Pope and others, so I think we should be careful. I'll source it myself when a moment permits. My favorite is the one said of Frederick the Wise: "You'll see that the Pope will not like this." --CTSWyneken 14:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have provided the support from Polack. It may be helpful to get the primary source on this.--Drboisclair 23:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Located it. vol. 7, p. 99, and have put it with the Polack reference.--Drboisclair 00:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drunken German 

message: Just today Garrison Keillor on today's The Writer's Almanac noted that the Edict of Worms was on May 26, Wikipedia lists it on May 25 is the date of the Edict disputed/ambigous in anyway? If so, that should be mentioned in the relevant section, no?
http://writersalmanac.publicradio.org/programs/2006/05/22/#friday
:: Good eye! Bainton has the edict dated May 6 and issued with the consent of the Diet on May 26. I know of no controversy, but will check a few other sources as time permits. --CTSWyneken 13:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date for the Edict of Worms 

message: I see wikiquote:Martin Luther has a number of quotes of Luther's on reason, often (if not always) disparaging it. However, this article makes no mention of such a stand. Why is this? It would be interesting to see the reasoning thoughts behind Luther's beliefs concerning reason. Johnleemk | Talk 17:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, for two reasons. ;-) One, it simply is not a major theme in Luther's writings. Two, quotes from Luther often do not take into account more than the sound bite. The executive summary of Luther on reason is that reason must remain a servant to God's Word and never its master. In Lutheran dogmatics, we call this the distinction between the ministerial use of reason (the first of the two)-- good -- and the majesterial use of reason (the second) -- bad. When Luther speaks negatively of reason, it is in its majesterial use and when he speaks of it highly, it is in its ministerial use. --CTSWyneken 18:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luther on Reason