Talk:Martin Luther

Archives

Suggestion

This article has been stuck for the past two years. I'd like to make a suggestion that may help move the article forward. In general a decent biography article can be derived from a small number of good sources (standard biographies). If the contributors would agree to, say, five biographies and only use those biographies as sources, then a well-balanced article may result. The encyclopedia is for the general interest of a reader. The idea is not to put forward one or another scholar's views on Luther. Comments? --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable, but it is ambitious. None of the biographies are unexceptionable, and biographies are not the best references for the theology. One cannot assume that this page is a biography of Luther, as such (but a page called "Life of Martin Luther" might be a good idea): it is a page on Luther, which means that his theology and his historical significance (some of it beyond his own imagining) should comprise leading elements of the text, in my opinion. I would like to see this page achieve "good article" status again, but FA may be a bridge too far. There are so many issues involved that the page can become unstable in short order. It can be heartbreaking when one's painstaking edits—and everything about Luther requires so much time-consuming research and care—get removed or trashed during disputes.

Articles about Luther's fellows might be a good way into the Lutheran reformation: it should be easier, and perhaps more fun, to bring articles on Melanchthon, Bucer, etc. up to FA.qp10qp (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I know the suggestion of limiting the sources will not make an exceptional article, but at least it will be something that we won't be embarassed about (well, at least I find it embarrassing that this one got into the 2007 Wikipedia selection for schools). If the number of sources were limited, then yes, the subsections like theology, Luther's thought, etc. will be weak. But at least an agreed set of sources should limit most disputes. --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The three volume one by Martin Brecht is seminal, comprehensive, and authoritative. Roland Bainton's biography Here I Stand is a classic. An older biography would be Julius Koestlin's, and perhaps a modern one could balance it off: there is Oberman's (Man Between God and the Devil), Todd's, or Haile's.--Drboisclair (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Oberman, certainly. A. G. Dickens, The German Nation and Martin Luther is essential. qp10qp (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Dickens is good because he like Bainton comes from a different religous denomination. Brecht, whom I take to be Lutheran, is recognized as comprehensive and exhaustive. Oberman's biography is slightly criticized by scholars, though Heiko Oberman was a first rate scholar, who knew the late Middle Ages in Europe like the back of his hand. He wrote a monograph on Gabriel Biel. There is also Heinrich Bornkamm, Luther in Mid-Career.--Drboisclair (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Oberman, definitely. Agree about Brecht and Bainton. Some further thoughts on this. I am a little worried about the feasibility of my own suggestion. An optimistic scenario might be 3-5 editors agreeing on using 5-7 good scholarly sources and collaboratively rewriting the whole article based solely on the agreed sources. The goal of getting a decent, but not perfect article on Luther that would equal and perhaps surpass Britannica's or Encarta's may be reached. However, the nightmare scenario occurs later when a few persistent editors arrive insisting on putting in their POV with citation supports from "their" sources. They might argue that the original editors are acting as a cabal, bring items up to RfC, Arbcom, etc.. How do we avoid the nightmare scenario? --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem. And the objectors may not be entirely unjustified, because there is a vast amount of scholarship and commentary outside the biographies. Wikipedia policy allows referenced academic material of all sorts, though it must be in proportion to the overall scholarship. But, with so much stuff out there, who is to judge what is in proportion to the overall scholarship? I do think "Life of Martin Luther" would be manageable, though, as a separate main article; after all, we have Shakespeare's life. qp10qp (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)I agree that that is the problem. My feeling is that the strength of Wikipedia is in the fact that it is built through the collaboration of everyone interested. I think that the fussing about it passing muster as a "featured article" causes the loss of important information. The skill of editors should be to mold the referenced data that is provided. I have been told years ago that Wikipedia does not need to be like Encarta and Britiannica.--Drboisclair (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the weakness of Wikipedia is that an article can be dominated by a single or a small coterie of editors who have the free time and the persistence to push their point of views or to drive decent editors away. No one wants to seriously work on this article now. OK, let's say that we work on a separate "Life of Martin Luther" article. That would still leave the "Martin Luther" article in a sad state. It will be a very poor cousin to other encyclopedias and Wikipedia loses credibility. Is there no way we can make a decent "Martin Luther" article? I am beginning to think not. --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I should think that the article Martin Luther itself would be the most logical (and best) place for information about "the life of Martin Luther." If we need to split anything out into a separate article, it would be more logical to split out "Theological ideas of Martin Luther" or "Disputes involving Martin Luther" or something of that sort (obviously, these are intended as sample article titles only).
WP:SUMMARY and MOS:BIO may be helpful. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be about taking anything away from this article. As Wikipedia grows, it's logical for full-sized "main" articles to emerge on aspects of a spinal article. Overlap is fine on Wikipedia, because it is not paper or book. I just think it would be more feasible to write a featured-standard pure biography than to bring every aspect of the present article up to featured standard. qp10qp (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, please do not misunderstand me. To repeat, I should think that the article Martin Luther itself would be the most logical (and best) place for information about "the life of Martin Luther."

"It wouldn't be about taking anything away from this article." - Agreed.

"As Wikipedia grows, it's logical for full-sized "main" articles to emerge on aspects of a spinal article. ... Overlap is fine on Wikipedia" - Of course. As I said, IMHO the "spinal" article should contain the biographical information.

"I just think it would be more feasible to write a featured-standard pure biography" - IMHO a "featured-standard pure biography" should definitely be written, and it should be at Martin Luther.

Have a good one. - 201.37.229.117 (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with 201.37.229.117. The "spinal" article should contain the pure biography. The question is whether we should provide summaries of the "daughter" articles. Is it possible to not provide summaries at all (for the first instance) and put links instead in the "See also" section? That way the controversies can remain in the "daughter" articles, while the pure biography would remain non-controversial (hopefully). The "daughter" articles in the See also section would be "Theology of Martin Luther", "Luther and antisemitism", and maybe "Augsburg Confession". --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As an example, I just placed a link to "Theology of Martin Luther" now in the "See also" section. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I also spun out the Printing Press and Propaganda section that was recently added to the article. It is long and the topic is quite specialised, so it should be an article in itself. --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Dead link

Under Peasant's War, in the boxed "description" the citation, #78 is dead.. No axe to grind, just noticed the way anything that has anything remotely to do with Jews or Zionism has been chopped slashed revised,re-imagined etc. etc., It would be cool if random slanted un-referenced stuff could be edited, or verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shootingsparks (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 April 2008

There. I have fixed the dead link that the above editor kindly brought to our attention. As to antisemitism, the editor should look at the new Luther and antisemitism article. --Drboisclair (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Bogus stmt

This stmt is weird:

Because of the perceived unity of the medieval Church with the secular rulers of western Europe, the widespread acceptance of Luther's doctrines and popular vindication of his thinking on individual liberties were both phenomenal and unprecedented.[citation needed]

What? All perceived meanings I can attach to this stmt are factually wrong. F.ex.: if the Church represented some symbol of power and oppression, how come many kings and dukes and other men in power came to adher to Lutheranism? (Citation certainly needed). How come Luther rejected the peasants position in the peasant wars? The driving force behind the Reformation was something else, not some kind of early liberalist revolution - probably much more like economical and political conditions at the time. Said: Rursus ☻ 10:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC) [[Media:Insert non-formatted text here]] == Headline text == I PROVE THIS ALL WRONG

Martin Luther/Protestant Reformation

This man was a revolutionary innovator who challenged the pope one on one and made him look foolish. He wrote down all of the church's faults, which is called the 95 thesis, and put it on the doorway of a church in Whitenburg, Germany. Then someone who would later become a follower to Martin copied down this document and transmitted it throughout all all of Europe. The pope saw this document and was extremely dissapointed in Martin Luther. Martin was banished and labled a heretic. Soon after the pope wrote the Edic of Worms which stated that no one was allowed to feed or house Martin Luther. While Martin's population grew so did the Protestant Reformation. Martin taught that your faith was all that you needed to be saved and that the bible was the only infailble teaching. With these teachings he formed the Protestant church which is loyal only to Bible and not to the Pope. While in hiding Martin Luther wrote the bible in the vernacular. Which was never done before. After about a year the church met with its representatives and changed ideas and teachings based on what Martin taught. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.158.79.248 (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This page is for discussing how to improve Wikipedia's article about Martin Luther, not for airing one's personal opinions about him. —Angr 17:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Martin Luther was not the first to write the Bible in vernacular. Nearly 700 years before him in the 9th century, Cyril and Methodius (missionaries to the Slavs) translated the Bible into what is now called Old Church Slavonic. Of course, that language has gotten old and hard to understand in modern Russia, so in 1654 Patriarch Nikon had it translated into what is now called Church Slavonic (and he did so rather forcefully). And of course there were many others long before them who translated the Old Testament to Greek, way before Russia ever started to be Christianized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.181.54 (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge

I think that Hans Luther (15th century) should be merge into the Martin Luther#Birth and education section, which already has the photo and some information on him. First, Hans is non-notable alone and is only known for being Martin's father. Most of the information can be easily merged to the Martin Luther article. The same goes for Margarethe Luther, though that is a little longer. Reywas92^Talk 16:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering that Wikipedia is an unabridged Micro and Macro pedia I would oppose this action as there is research and information on Luther's father that would justify having an article in its own right.--Drboisclair (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I would oppose this particular merge as well. This article has a tendency to get a little bloated as it is, no reason to add more to the plate. Pastordavid (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason the abridge the information, only merge. It would only be a few sentences and would not bloat much further, as much is redundant. As it says "best known as the father...," this could be deleted at AFD anyway, as WP:NOTABILITY is not inherited. The external link is about Martin anyway and contains very little information about Hans. Reywas92^Talk 19:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose; I generally approve of this kind of action to get rid of (arguably) nn bio articles, but this is a great big article and we should be fighting to keep it concise. Splitting off (arguably) nn bio articles to trim down the size of this article is a worthy action. Tempshill (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering that every line in Hans Luther (15th century) mentions Martin, and that there is currently only a brief paragraph which is already largely duplicated in this article, it seems reasonable to redirect the Hans article here, at least until information pertaining to Hans in his own right can be added. --MPerel 17:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you are admitting that it is a nn bio, then shall I bring it to AFD? I see zero notability other than the relation, and if it shouldn't be merged, then it should be deleted. I will agree with MPerel. Reywas92^Talk 17:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't researched myself, but Drboisclair says above there is information available to warrant an article on him, so I'm not sure it should be deleted outright, just redirected until it can be expanded. --MPerel 17:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I will redirect both now, allowing for recreation. Reywas92^Talk 00:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess that it is up to some of us to recreate the article if we find the data; however, I opposed this action for the still pertinent reasons: 1) Wikipedia should be both a Micro- and a Macro- pedia and 2) the bloated nature of the Martin Luther article itself. Well, Reywas92, you got what you wanted, so let it go at that.--Drboisclair (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Theology

Where is the theology? As much as I've perceived, he was a pragmatically oriented semi-mystic (extroverted, some literalist tendencies, some academical criticism tendencies, but generally practical and oriented towards ordinary peoples' spiritual development). Said: Rursus ☻ 11:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Eucharist and Hypostatic Union

The statement that Luther "affirmed the doctrine of Hypostatic Union" is unnecessary and misleading. Both Luther and Zwingli affirmed this doctrine, and to attribute it only to Luther leads one to believe that Zwingli denied it. This is not NPOV. 210.193.237.146 (talk) 00:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Martin Luther isn't anti-Catholic

Just because he did try to reform the Catholic Church doesn't mean he's anti-Catholic. He never intended to be that way at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanejwb (talk • contribs) 15:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

On Christian Liberty

When I typed "On Christian Liberty" into the search box, I was redirected to the Martin Luther article, although I later found there is a page for this, On the Freedom of a Christian. Can an admin fix the redirect? AaRH (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Pastordavid (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Indulgences

Indulgences have nothing to do with the forgiveness of sins or the obtaining of salvation, but the removal of temporal punishment due regarding sins already forgiven. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm

The section makes it sound as if it is Catholic doctine that salvation can be bought or has anything to do indulgences:

"Roman Catholic theology stated that faith alone, whether fiduciary or dogmatic, cannot justify man[33]; and that only such faith as is active in charity and good works (fides caritate formata) can justify man.[34] These good works could be obtained by donating money to the church." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doregnob (talk • contribs) 04:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Controversial?

I don't want to disagree or anything but don't you think that saying "his legacy remains controversial" at the end of the opening paragraph beside the point? Yes he said things people didn't agree with IE about the jews, at the same time he is more know for the things like the Lutheran church that people do agree with. To me it seems that if you end the paragraph with "his legacy remains controversial" it says he was great but he did this and this and this wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.158.217 (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

This whole article is wrong. It doesn't even mention his "I have a dream speech"! Instead it says he was white? This article has been really badly vandalised! 202.67.74.151 (talk) 01:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

You are looking for this article: Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.. Thank you for your time, MatthewYeager 01:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

---

"Father of Protestantism"?

Well, he may be so regarded in the Germanic states and in the USA, but in England, and those nations who trace their cultural inheritance from England, shouldn't John Wycliffe, (who predated Luther by more than a century), be more suited to that title?

68.228.208.191 (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)