Talk:Martin Luther

An event mentioned in this article is a May 25 selected anniversary.

Select Topics

Certain topics which arise repeatedly have their own subpages, to aid participants in the history and continuity of the discussion of those topics. Please post entries on these topics to the separate pages:

• Antisemitism and Luther
• Copyright of Luther's Works

Talk Archives

Previous Talk on other topics has been archived at:

• Talk:Martin Luther/archive 2003 July 10
• Talk:Martin Luther/archive 2005 Sept 19

( Talk:Martin_Luther/archive.1 has been emptied into other talk pages)

Suggestions for Rewrite of Luther Article

Thank you, Stan for the archiving!

To one and all interested:

Several of us propose to do a full revision of the article. This is an open invitation to one and all to join in the discussion of its strength and weaknesses. Come one and all!

--CTSWyneken 01:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I propose that the general outline of the article be retained: as it is objective and it covers the major segments of Luther's life. The aim is to keep it objective, accurate, and informative.

I would also say that the introductory paragraph is adequate, only the final sentence: "His marriage on June 13, 1525, to Katharina von Bora began the a [sic] movement of clerical marriage within many Christian traditions" might be amended to read "...many western Christian traditions" because the Eastern Orthodox Church continued to practice clerical marriage throughout ecclesiastical history up to that time. I removed the "the" in this sentence, which might let it stand as it is: "...a movement of clerical marriage within many Christian traditions"

--drboisclair 18:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... I posted here yesterday, but it didn't take... Yes, go ahead and make the change. --CTSWyneken 09:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Putting the article on a diet

I'd like to see us streamline the article, taking as much of the detail in it, especially the tangents, into other articles like 95 Theses, Diet of Worms, etc. The result will be easier to read, yet will fully tell the story. For example, the detail on the Diet of Worms would work nicely elsewhere, including the debate over "here I stand..." --CTSWyneken 09:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

This is advisable; however, you must consider that the pivotal importance of Martin Luther to history warrants an extensive article. The liberal use of internal links might facilitate more condensation. I agree with you about the "here I stand..." debate. This should be placed in the "Diet of Worms" entry.

--drboisclair 21:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Having spent eleven years in putting Luther's words on the internet, I'm in full agreement with the importance of having more than a few paragraphs on the doctor. What I'm looking for is not so much to eliminate events that we cover as to reduce the detail, as in the "here I stand" debate. I'd also argue the blow-by-blow I added originally is, in retrospect too much. I have the same problem with the Luther and the Jews section. On the other side, we do not discuss much of Luther's life beyond 1522... nothing about the table talk, nothing more than a quick mention of his marriage in the opening paragraph, and much more. So, I'm saying let's use a wider angle lens here and a close up in related articles.--CTSWyneken 02:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I tend to think an encylopedic length article in an encyclopedia of unlimited size, like this one, is appropriate. I'd hate to see this take a Drudge Report format (a page composed primarily of links to elsewhere) and I suggest that things like "here I stand..." belong primarily here, not in Diet of Worms. The Diet met every year, in different places, and settled multiple affairs of the Empire. As Lutherans, we tend to think the 1521 session was all about us, but it met for four months and Our Man was indeed on the agenda (but not until 2 and a half months into it), but so were other things and I would expect that the Diet of Worms article will eventually be expanded into (this being an encyclopdia) the other things that occurred there too.

I further think that one wanting to know about Luther should be able to be fully fed here, and that links should be for information upon the linked subject per se, not for the Lutheran connection to that subject. Thus Luther's time at the Wartburg should be covered here; the link to Wartburg Castle should be for information about other events in the castle (Tannhäuser, St. Elisabeth, usw) not for more Luther-related information.

I agree reorganizing the article for utility, and filling in gaps, and polishing language for clarity is good. But I'd hate to see detail disappear for reasons of space or brevity, because they are not really relevant limitations in an electronic encyclopedia. I hope things are added more than removed. Augmentation instead of purging. --StanZegel (talk) 07:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Save our Biographical Infobox

There is a move among the administration of Wikipedia to remove the biographical infoboxes comprehensively. I urge all to weigh in pro or con. The one in this article looks good and should be retained. This requires the timely attention of all, please. --drboisclair 21:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

InfoBox Conversion to avoid Controversy

In order to avoid the "Biography Infobox" controversy, why not make the Cranach painting of Luther into an image box like the Luther seal: one could then add the caption information. I think that the Cranach painting should be retained --drboisclair 19:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that's the way it started out. Let's just go ahead and do it. --CTSWyneken 11:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Diet of Worms

I thought the detail deleted today had been helpful: the date Luther's interview began, and a fleshing out of the context and major points of his most famous statement. --StanZegel (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear Stan:

This was a first pass (the hazzard of acting on the way out the door for church), just to get a feel for what it would look like. Please note that I moved the prior text to the Diet of Worms page. Feel free to add back some of the data. What I'm trying to avoid is the "play by play" and overdoing the explanitory notes. The balance I think we should be after is to hit the major details and descibe the event, but not burden it with background info not absolutely necessary to carry the account further. Take a look at several encylopedia articles in print and you'll see the kind of balance I'd like to see achieved.

--CTSWyneken 17:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The condensation done on this section is good. If there are other needed details in this section, they can be added in over time. drboisclair 18:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Exile in the Wartburg

When a moment presents itself, I'd like to thin out this section a bit. On the other side, a sentence on the Invocavit sermons is needed.

added a needed break for Luther's return to Wittenberg and at least two sentences on the Invocavit Sermons. If too long, feel free to edit.drboisclair 19:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I like the way it looks. When I get to thinning it, I suspect I'll leave it. The trick will be to keep the story line in tact, while taking out details that are not needed. --CTSWyneken 11:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Missing Events

I'd like to list here the things the article is missing at this point. Please add whatever you'd like. Feel free to write new text on these...

• Luther's Marriage and family
• The Table Talk
• Settled life in Wittenberg
• Luther's hymns
• Luther's role in the writing of the Augustana; the Smalcald articles
• Luther's preaching
• Some detail on Luther's death and funeral

Added detail on Luther's death, culled and condensed from Brecht, vol. 3.drboisclair 19:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Nice job, Pastor Boisclair! On a first read, it sounds really good. You've provided a lot of rich detail. The only question would be if there is a little bit too much. But I will be a good boy and leave it alone. --CTSWyneken 11:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Professor Smith, I would be honored if you would refine it where you feel necessary. Team work is a blessing.drboisclair 18:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Expanded Bibliography

I like the additions here very much. --CTSWyneken 11:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Luther's writings

Either there should be substantial discussion of his writing here or it should be merged in with the more historical section. I may try to do the latter unless anyone objects or wants to do it himself. As it is the secton is out of place, in addition to not being of the highest quality.

CSMR 04:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Welcome! I have no object to this. I have not gotten to this section at all. I'd prefer to have the last section resemble the Schaaf article linked in the online section. By the way, please put a little about yourself on your user page. To do this, click on your username, type a few lines and save it. It's good to know who a person is when we're all working together. --CTSWyneken 11:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The numerous edit entries

My apologies for the numerous edits in converting the infobox biography to an ordinary image with caption. I hope this is satisfactory. If not we could revert back to the infobox.drboisclair 10:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks good! Since I knew what you were up to, the number of edits was fine. It can be quite a pain to get an image to do what you wish, as I know all too well...

--CTSWyneken 12:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Deploring the vandalism

The price of a good article means that one has to have eternal vigilance against vandalism of any kind whether humorous, devilish, or angelical. Of course, you cannot let it bother you. You might find yourselves laughing as teachers do when they find that students have written silly things in the manuals on their desks!drboisclair 13:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

No More red internal links!

With the addition of Bartholomäus Bernhardi of Feldkirchen and Gabriel Zwilling as new articles I have removed all the red internal links to the Martin Luther article. drboisclair 03:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The anonymous addition of 95 theses nailing disclaimer

An anonymous editor added this to the section on the "Indulgence controversy": "[Note: According to Traditions & Encounters 3rd ed. Vol.2 Bentley/Ziegler, The nailing of the theses did not actually occur. This is merely a popular legend.]" I cut it and pasted it here. There is dispute on this point. Cf. Brecht, Martin Luther: His Road to Reformation 1483-1521 (vol. 1), p. 200. I have read and heard that the nailing to the castle church door was a legend; however, the theses were "posted" to Archbishop Albert of Mainz. You may wish to delete this anonymous reference along with my qualification. I believe that Philipp Melanchthon's biography of Luther states that it was nailed to the Castle Church door.

I thought it best to cut this anonymous reference and place it here. drboisclair 02:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

A full discussion of the issue is in the 95 Theses article. Brecht concludes, as I do, that both likely occured. He goes with sometime on or after Oct. 31. I see no reason why Oct. 31 as the date of the posting. It best explains how the work circulated so quickly. There's no evidence of the document going in the mail to a source that would leak it -- in German no less. In any case, the discussion is too much of a tangent here. As the keynote of a symposia on the subject said, "Whether they were nailed or mailed, they certainly were posted!"

--CTSWyneken 16:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the speed with which you addressed this issue. For this reason any other statements on this matter should not be placed in this article. drboisclair 18:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

A new proposed addition to the article on Luther's marriage and family

I have composed this section in line with the categories listed above as needed in the article. I think that we might add something about the extended family members who lived with the Luthers as well as the college students, but this is a beginning if it is acceptable. This could lead into a section on the Table Talk drboisclair 22:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC):

(caption) Martin Luther's marriage and family (caption)

April 8, 1523 Luther wrote Wenceslaus Link: "Yesterday I received nine nuns from their captivity in the Nimbschen convent." Luther had arranged for Torgau burgher Leonhard Koppe on April 4 to assist twelve nuns to escape from Marien-thron Cistercian monastery in Nimbschen near Grimma in Ducal Saxony. He transported them out of the convent in herring barrels. Three of the nuns went to be with their relatives, leaving the nine that were brought to Wittenberg. One of them was Katharina von Bora. All of them but she were happily provided for. In May and June 1523 it was thought that she would be married to a Wittenberg University student, Jerome Paumgartner, but his family most likely prevented it. Dr. Caspar Glatz was the next prospective husband put forward, but Katharina had "neither desire nor love" for him. She made it known that she wanted to marry either Luther himself or Nicolaus von Amsdorf (Nicholas v.A.). Luther did not feel that he was a fit husband considering his being excommunicated by the pope and outlawed by the emperor. In May or early June 1525 it became known in Luther's circle that he intended to marry Katharina. Forstalling any objections from friends against Katharina, Luther acted quickly: on the evening of Tuesday, June 13, 1525 Luther was legally married to Katharina, whom he would affectionately call "Katy." Katy moved into her husband's home, the former Augustinian monastery in Wittenberg. Their first child, a boy, Hans was born June 7, 1526. He was followed by Elizabeth, December 10, 1527, who prematurely died in August 1528; Magdalena, May 5, 1529; Martin, Jr., November 9, 1531; Paul, January 28, 1533; and Margaretha, December 17, 1534—three boys and three girls. Another of Luther and Katy's daughters would not reach adulthood: Magdalena died in her father's arms September 20, 1542.

--I would put this between "Return to Wittenberg ..." and "The Peasants' War." drboisclair 22:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I have added this paragraph with helpful emendations by Stanley Zegel. This could be built upon or edited. drboisclair 22:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Nicely done! --CTSWyneken 12:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Where the Luther marriage took place

Hey, Stan, I understood that the marriage took place indoors before a small group. I know that it was customary for marriages to be held at the church door in those days; however, I do not think that Luther's was. I will research. Do you have clear research on this. Cheers, Dave drboisclair 10:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Only my recollections from my visits there. I trust your research over my memory. The Luther wedding reenactment is a big annual festival in Wittenberg, so that may serve as a guide/confirmation. --StanZegel (talk) 11:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

And the festival's webpage says it happened inside the former monestery.--StanZegel (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Some days after June 13, 1525 they had a wedding celebration when perhaps there was a ceremony before the church door. The question is which church? All Saints or St. Mary's? drboisclair 22:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it would have been St. Mary's, the stadtkirche just off the marketplace, but it is worth researching. --StanZegel (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I recall the wedding proper being done quickly and quietly. Not everyone approved, not the least of all Phillip! He never got over it and saw it as a bit of slight. Well deserved from my reading! They did do a public announcement later, which is what the Stadt Wittenberg celebration reenacts. --CTSWyneken 13:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Luther's Mother

Was she really Margareta Lindemann, as the article presently says? Other sources say M. Lindemann was the grandmother, and M. Ziegler was the mother. Because those whose last names begin with a "Z" are often not given their just recognition in this world, if the mother was indeed a Ziegler, she should be given credit for it! --StanZegel (talk) 04:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Excessive Pov

This is a very, very Luther is good article. I put up an POV flag and someone took it down. This isn't WikiChurch or anything. Need major editing and I can't believe my Flag was put down. It doesn't make sense.

We've worked very hard at giving an NPOV here. Can you be more specific? What do you think is POV here? Perhaps we can adjust it...

--CTSWyneken 11:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Luther on Law and Gospel

I am proposing that a word(s) on Law/Gospel and a link to the article on Law and Gospel might be added to this section:

Luther's theory of grace The demanding discipline of earning academic degrees and preparing lectures drove Martin Luther to study the Scriptures in depth. Influenced by the call of humanism ad fontes—"to the sources"—he immersed himself in the study of the Bible and the early Church. Soon terms like penance and righteousness took on new meaning for Luther, and he became convinced that the Church had lost sight of several of the central truths of Christianity taught in Scripture—the most important of which being the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Luther began to teach that salvation is completely a gift of God's grace through Christ received by faith. {Luther's definition and reintroduction of the principle of the proper distinction between Law and Gospel safeguarded his theory of grace, which he believed to be the central message of Christianity.} drboisclair 00:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps "... by humanism's call ad fontes ("to the sources") ..." might be clearer? --StanZegel (talk) 03:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to adjust it, Stan. --CTSWyneken 12:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

David, I like your addition very much. I'm wondering out loud, now that I read it, if we have it in the right place. (I really don't know...) When did Luther start using Law/Gospel talk? I also wonder about the title, which sounds a little awkward to me... --CTSWyneken 12:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I share your concern about the chronology in putting the Law/Gospel insight in this paragraph that precedes "Indulgence Controversy"; however, it would not fit thematically in the later paragraphs. My rationalization for putting it in the "Theory of Grace" paragraph stems from the fact that there are elements that were already in that paragraph that may not have been chronologically before the "Indulgence Controversy." Law/Gospel distinction is very closely linked to Luther's doctrine of Justification by grace through faith, so this paragraph is the natural place for a reference to Law / Gospel distinction. We probably need to modify the caption a bit. I would suggest: "Luther's doctrine of Justification and proper Law / Gospel distinction". drboisclair 15:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Why don't we go to the simple title: "Luther's theology of grace" and insert the word: "later" in front of the Law/Gospel paragraph?

--CTSWyneken 18:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Luther and anti-Semitism

Discussion of this topic has its own talk page.

The indulgence controversy

Contrary to popular belief, Martin Luther never adequately understood the Catholic Church's teachings on indulgences. As a result, his inflammatory writings on the matter have caused much confusion, and have led many to imagine that the Church once handed out indulgences to the highest bidder, with no concern for true repentance of sins. This is, quite simply, a distortion of the actual Catholic doctrine, which was the same in the Middle Ages as it is today.

The whole controversy surrounding Luther and indulgences began when Pope Julius II decided to restore the beautiful Basilica of Saint Peter in Rome, originally built by Emperor Constantine. To help pay for the project, Julius' successor, Leo X, "proclaimed and Indulgence," which stated that anyone who might contribute to the restoration of the basilica, should receive, provided they make a sincere confession, remission of the "temporal guilt" associated with their sins - that is, the punishment they might receive in purgatory. This, of course, had nothing to do with future sins the contributor might make. As ever the Church carefully administered the indulgences, and allowed them only to those confessing humbly and faithfully.

Martin Luther's sermon attacking Leo X's Indulgence contained "no accurate reasoning, no grasp of the subject, but plenty of violent declamation." He personally attacked John Tetzel, who had replied soberly to Luther's charges in defense of the Church: "I laugh at your words as I do at the braying of an ass; instead of water, I recommend to you the juice of the grape; and instead of fire, inhale, my friend, the smell of roast goose."

(See the brilliantly documented "Facts About Luther" by Msgr O'Hare.)

• O'Hare, Patrick F. Facts About Luther. Rockford, IL: Tan Books and Publishers, 1987. ISBN 0895553228.

(originally posted in the article, instead of on the talk page, 23:56, 3 November 2005 by IsabellasKnight)

With all due respect to the sincere Roman Catholic faith expressed in these paragraphs, this is simply an historical error. Martin Luther understood the concept of indulgences that they were the remitting or waiving by the pope of temporal penalties incurred by sins that are imposed by the church in its sacrament of penance. John Tetzel and his collegues did not disabuse their listeners of their simple belief that they were buying the forgiveness of sins, that indulgences were a plenary remission of eternal penalties. Luther at first did not advocate doing away with indulgences; he wanted them used properly. It was the Roman curia and the pope who blew things out of proportion by condemning Luther because he did not accept the novel concept that there was a treasury of merits gathered up of the surplus merit of Christ and the saints. This was vaguely set up in papal decretals of the then past two centuries 1300-1500. Luther encountering intransigent opposition began to investigate further into theology. This was what he was supposed to do as a doctor of theology. He was a teacher of the church, who was responsible to warn and instruct the church catholic on the true faith. I like to remember what Danny Thomas once said some 30 years ago about Pope John XXIII that if he had been pope in 1517 the Reformation would not have occurred. This may not be an historically accurate assessment, but it argues the need to get all the facts and sit down and dialogue. Allow the fresh air to air out the stale air in the church (aggiornamento). If the one who posted these paragraphs would examine the writings of scholarly Roman Catholic theologians like Fr. Harry McSorley or Fr. Daniel Olivier, he or she would have more insight to speak on these matters. Respectfully submitted IMHO, drboisclair 16:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Luther's bouts with diabolical visions

Moving this from article main page to here for discussion as likely to be controversial and currently unsourced.Gaff 23:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Luther was prone to have religious hallucinations. Several times throughout his life, he claimed to have had arguments with satan while using the latrine. Apparently, he had human waste fights with satan, and by being the superior thrower, he would usually win the fights and cast the devil away. Whether this was true or whether he was insane will never be known, but it is safe to say these were strange occurences that no doubt affected him throughout his life.(edit by User: 70.33.58.128)

Luther may have thrown a bottle of ink at a vision of the devil--they still show the ink stain on the wall--but he never threw fecal material at anything. This is sheer nonsense. drboisclair 00:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Is it?

For Luther the bathroom was also a place of worship. His holiest monuments often came when he was seated on the privy (Abort) in a Wittenburg monastery tower. It was there, while moving his bowels, that he conceived the revolutionary Protestant doctrine of justification by faith. Afterward he wrote: "These words 'just' and 'justice of God' were a thunderbolt to my conscience. . . I soon had the thought [that] God's justice ought to be the salvation of every believer. . . Therefore it is God's justice which justifies us and saves us. And these words became a sweeter message for me. This knowledge the Holy Spirit gave me on the privy in the tower."

"Well, God is everywhere, as the Vatican conceded four centuries later, backing away from a Jesuit scholar who had gleefully translated explicit excretory passages in Luther's Sammitche Schriften. The Jesuit had provoked angry protests from Lutherans who accused him of "vulgar Catholic polemics." Yet the real vulgarity lies in Luther's own words, which his followers have shelved. They enjoy telling the story of how the devil threw ink at Luther and Luther threw it back. But in the original version it wasn't ink; it was Scheisse.

That feces was the ammunition Satan and his Wittenberg adversary employed against each other is clear from the rest of Luther's story, as set down by his Wittenberg faculty colleague Philipp Melanchthon: "Having been worsted. . . the Demon departed indignant and murmuring to himself after having emitted a crepitation of no small size, which left a foul stench in the chamber for several days afterwards."

Again and again, in recalling Satan's attacks on him, Luther uses the crude verb bescheissen, which describes what happens when someone soils you with his Scheiss. In another demonic stratagem, an apparition of the prince of darkness would humiliate the monk by "showing his arse" (Steiss). Fighting back, Luther adopted satanic tactics. He invited the devil to "kiss" or "lick" his Steiss, threatened to "throw him into my anus, where he belongs," to defecate "in his face" or, better yet, "in his pants" and then "hang them around his neck."

A man who battled the foulest of fiends in der Abort and die Latrine was unlikely to be intimidated by the vaudevillian Tetzel.
William Manchester, A World Lit Only By Fire, The Medieval Mind and the Renaissance (Boston, 1992), pp.139-140

--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Mozart also made scatological references about himself, but we do not punctuate his beautiful music with flatulant bursts. This scholar is not a Luther specialist, and the primary sources adduced do not specifically say that Luther pelted his diabolic visions with dung. To say that the toilet is a place of worship is only partly true in that God is everywhere, even in filthy places, and the Christian is to pray without ceasing. To demean Luther's sense of the holy and worship is sickening and unbecoming of a scholar.

Luther is a hero with feet of clay. His genius he shares with few, his feet of clay he shares with us all. Luther labors under the disadvantage of being a famous genius, whose every communication has been stored by the world. I daresay that all of us have embarrassing secrets that we would keep hid. Unfortunately for Luther he does not have that luxury.

Luther's Table Talk is probably the source of this unsavory aspect of his life. It is probably partly to mostly true; however, Romanist polemicists have exploited and taken these aspects out of context in order to discredit Luther's message, which happens to be the true central message of Christianity in my humble opinion.

We can be like giggling children in delighting in toilet humor, or we can show respect for a great man. In the end, the fool we make of him we make of ourselves. IMHO, David R. Boisclair drboisclair 07:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

First of all, this is an encyclopedia article, not a book. We should put here only the most general information.

Second, simply because something is in a book doesn't make it true. What are the sources, written in the 16th Century for this information?

--CTSWyneken 11:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

William Manchester and Luther

I'll keep a running list of what I learn about this work under this title. The first thing I notice is that Manchester is a historian of the twentieth century, writing mostly about WWII. Medieval Mind is his only work outside that subject.

A review of the work in Word and World 14 (1994) no. 2:225-228 quotes the author's note from the work as saying: "Complete at last, this book is a source of pride, which is pleasant, though in this instance somewhat odd. It is, after all, a slight work, with no scholarly pretensions. All the sources are secondary, and few are new; I have not mastered recent scholarship on the early sixteenth century." p. xiii.

The reviewer says the work "displays a breathtaking lack of scholarship." and "obviously, the problems with this book are many. Events are sometimes related inaccurately. The conclusions drawn from particular events are often questionable. The presentation of facts is selective and biased. The method used is dubious. Someone interested in this period of history could find better books. It is hardly conceivable that one could find a worse book."

If you want to get into Luther's struggles, you need to find another work. read Obermann's Luther : man between God and the Devil and Brecht's three volume Martin Luther before adding material on this topic.

---

This book is not the first we hear about a preoccupation with what is called an "elimination theology": Osborne popularized this thinking with his Luther (play). I appreciate the work the above poster has brought to bear on this. drboisclair 14:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Featured Article?

Well guys, do you think this article meets the criteria for a featured article? Should we get an outside opinion on whether it is ready? --StanZegel (talk) 02:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

No, Stan, I don't think we're at all ready for prime time. We have to put the whole thing on a diet, add missing topics, as I mentioned above, etc. If David has the time, we might also get Bob Kolb's suggestions.

--CTSWyneken 11:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

ML & the Jews redux

I am sorry we have to go through this again. Recently we've had a long discussion that I thought ended with understanding and found a compromise. The current summary section misrepresents the content of Martin Luther and Antisemitism. Paul Johnson is a reputable Christian scholar. Why was his sourced quote removed? Even if there was "an anti-Christian pamphlet of Jewish authorship" (which one? just curious), I don't see how this can serve an excuse to calling for violence against entire Jewish communities. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Luther doesn't say which one, but in the beginning of the work he explains his reason for taking up his pen on the subject. Perhaps as I complete reading the entire 66,000-word work he'll be more specific, but I haven't run across the title of the offending tract yet. --StanZegel (talk) 14:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no problems with restoring at least the content of Paul Johnson's essay, or that of other responsible scholars, although I'd prefer to keep it a summary with a citation, rather than a quote. That avoids awkward copyright questions (which shouldn't be a prob with one this short, but I've known some authors object to being quoted without permission, even though we shouldn't have to, at least in the US. EU has a pesky moral rights clause....) We also need to remember we now have a full length sub-article on the subject and should keep the reference very short and in summary.

As far as the issue itself, I think we need to keep the discussion on the new article's talk page. --CTSWyneken 11:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I've adjusted the language in the main article to improve flow. The only thing someone might object to is the removal of the Johnson quote. I believe the substance of it is in the text and the citation provides the verification that someone respected view things this way. I have no objection to further tweaks, nor, if others feel the actual quote contributes something, to restoring it.

--CTSWyneken 12:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

This seems a good compromise, Bob. Because an entire article devoted to this subject now exists, the issue need only be alluded to here so that the reader becomes aware of it and can click to go to the separate article for any details and nuances. I think, in light of the separate article, the present section is still too detailed. --StanZegel (talk) 14:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

IMHO, the current version of the summary has a couple of problems:

1. "provoked by an anti-Christian pamphlet of Jewish origin" -- this phrase needs to be reworded or removed to make sure it can't be interpreted as if we justify calls to destroy/expel entire communities based on such "provocations".
2. I disagree with the removal of the one-line Johnson's quote - not because I added it, but I think it makes a very important point, and Johnson is far from being alone on this. In general, giving a book title and page number is not as convincing as a quote. See WP:CITE.
3. I would add a few words repudiating ML's views, such as 1994 Church Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 08:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Johnson's quote appears in the Martin Luther and Antisemitism article, so perhaps a further internal link should allow the reader to have fast reference to it. I have adjusted the line about Luther's motivating factors in writing his tirade against the Jews. Again, the church statements quite amply covered in the ML & Antisemitism article. This is my suggestion to Humus sapiens's suggestions above. drboisclair 12:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I have done some editing on this paragraph. I hope that it is helpful. I think that in the three internal links to Martin Luther and Antisemitism we are reinforcing the reader clicking it to read the whole story. drboisclair 12:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Elector John Frederick's Decree against the Jews 1536

Do we wish to draw attention to John Frederick's unfortunate decree against the Jews in 1536? drboisclair 12:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

as his answer to an anti-Christian pamphlet of Jewish origin

as his answer to an anti-Christian pamphlet of Jewish origin

Source please. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

because he deemed their denial of Christ to be blasphemy

Source please. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

please read the book. Its in the intro. Sam Spade 19:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Source please. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Source, from the opening sentences of On the Jews and Their Lies:

"I had made up my mind to write no more either about the Jews or against them. But since I learned that those miserable and accursed people do not cease to lure to themselves even us, that is, the Christians, I have published this little book, so that I might be found among those who opposed such poisonous activities of the Jews and who warned the Christians to be on their guard against them. I would not have believed that a Christian could be duped by the Jews into taking their exile and wretchedness upon himself. However, the devil is the god of the world, and wherever God's word is absent he has an easy task, not only with the weak but also with the strong. May God help us. Amen.

Grace and peace in the Lord. Dear sir and good friend, I have received a treatise in which a Jew engages in dialog with a Christian. He dares to pervert the scriptural passages which we cite in testimony to our faith, concerning our Lord Christ and Mary his mother, and to interpret them quite differently. With this argument he thinks he can destroy the basis of our faith.

This is my reply to you and to him. It is not my purpose to quarrel with the Jews, nor to learn from them how they interpret or understand Scripture; I know all of that very well already. Much less do I propose to convert the Jews, for that is impossible. Those two excellent men, Lyra and Burgensis, together with others, truthfully described the Jews' vile interpretation for us two hundred and one hundred years ago respectively. Indeed they refuted it thoroughly. However, this was no help at all to the Jews, and they have grown steadily worse.

They have failed to learn any lesson from the terrible distress that has been theirs for over fourteen hundred years in exile...."

--StanZegel (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Luther's harshness in this pamphlet was deeply deplored by his contemporaries.

This is obviously bunk, so I removed it. Sam Spade 19:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

This is not "obvious bunk". This is from the introduction to the translation of On the Jews and their lies: "Already upon its first appearance in the year 1543, Luther’s treatise caused widespread dismay, not only among contemporary Jews but also in Protestant circles. Melanchthon and Osiander are known to have been unhappy with its severity. Henry Bullinger, in correspondence with Martin Bucer, remarked that Luther’s views reminded him of those of the Inquisitors. And a subsequent document prepared by the churches of Zurich declared (speaking specifically of the treatise Vom Schem Hamphoras, published later in 1543), that “if it had been written by a swineherd, rather than by a celebrated shepherd of souls, it might have some—but very little—justification.” (American Edition of Luther's Works, vol. 47, p. 123).

I've re-written the section to conform with NPOV. I have a great deal of difficulty with the paraphrases of Luther's opinions used on this page, which I believe are inaccurate, so I have once again used his own words instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The relationship between Luther and the Jewish people is the subject of much controversy.

The article states The relationship between Luther and the Jewish people is the subject of much controversy. What is the source for this claim, particularly "much controversy"? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, this is getting out of hand. There is a separate article about the Luther/Judiasm topic, and all of the details, charges, counter charges, proof text, counter proofs and other lengthy exposition belongs there, not in this article. The summary in this main article is a summary to alert the reader that there is more at the linked elsewhere. Every detail put here seems to require more detail to support it. This article's discussion of the subject should be merely a couple of sentences to alert the reader to click elsewhere, and I will rewrite it to that effect later. Your attempts to put sources in every line has resulted in some incorrect attributions (he did not suggest the Jews be expelled because they would not convert, but because they would continue to reject Christ and thus blaspheme. That's not in the introductory sentences I supplied at your request, it is later in the work.) and made what should be a simple paragraph come in danger of exceeding the length and detail of the subarticle to which it is intended to point the reader. As I say, I'll compose a short summary later today or tomorrow as a substitute for something that has grown too large again. --StanZegel (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

---

The claim that it has been the subject of "much controversy" is, in my view, quite incorrect. It was mildly controversial when written, generally not commented on for centuries, viewed with much approval by the Nazis, and finally censured in the late 20th century by almost everyone. The only "controversy" at all is a mild academic one, carried on by a small number of individuals, as to whether it is "anti-Judaism" or "anti-Semitism". The summary itself is quite short, and your "summaries" inevitably seem to contain Luther-apologetic POV, which is why direct quotes are essential. Furthermore, if Luther did indeed decry the Jews for "rejecting Christ" and "blaspheming" (which, in fact, is merely another way of saying they refused to convert to Luther's faith), then that must be directly quoted - otherwise it seems that Wikipedia itself is making the charge. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep, all those quotes will go into the subarticle on the subject. As to whether it has historically controversial or not, I don't know, but that again is a topic for the subarticle. Placing things into historical context may be seen as apolgia, but it is essential to understanding the subject. I'm leaning toward just listing the On the Jews and ... in with the other works higher up in the article and making a link to the subarticle. --StanZegel (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Mr. Stan Zegel's proposal here. We should increase interest in the reader to look at Martin Luther and Antisemitism. drboisclair 15:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

---

If there is no evidence that it was controversial, then the statement doesn't belong on this "summary" page. An NPOV summary is both necessary and possible (and, in fact, exists now). The alternative is to restore the entire article to this page, which you removed in the first place. Continual attempts to minimize or remove any reference to this issue are simply not acceptable. Finally, if the paraphrases provided are inaccurate or POV (as they have in the past), then the actual quotes will have to stay. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Friends! This discussion, and the lengthy blow-by-blow belongs in the subarticle. Please take a moment to review other encyclopedia entries on the subject. A paragraph on the subject is long. We are endeavoring to put this article on a diet because it is overlong as is and because we still have gaps in the information about Luther.

Re: much controversy; Yes, indeed, little attention was paid to Luther's remarks until Hitler used them for his twisted purposes. Now it is highly controversial, as the discussion here should tell you. It is so obvious that it wouldn't need a footnote in a university paper.

As far as quotations go, they should be used sparingly, if at all, in encyclopedias. Again, there is an active legal dispute over the publication of quotations from copyright protected work. (heard of Google Print?) Some argue that the heart of a work cannot be copied without permission at all. I think there's a weak argument for that, but we should be very careful in the use of direct quotes, IMHO. We certainly shouldn't quote Johnson in both articles. So, the question should be: is the quote so vital that a paraphrase cannot carry the point at all? I'd suggest: No. Let's leave it out here. --CTSWyneken 04:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

There is absolutely no copyright issue whatsoever with using quotations from works. The current issue is not with the Johnson quote, which StanZegel has already removed from the text, but with the other quotes, which Stan now proposes to remove from the text as well, along with every other piece of information about Luther and the Jews, aside from a link to the sub-articles. I repeat, Wikipedia articles summarize sub-articles in the main text, they don't just link to them. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding pedantic, I think that two issues, substantive and formal, are getting conflated here and thus leading to unnecessary counterproductivity. Here is, as I see it, the formal problem. It is well established, through a host of policies, foremost among them Wikipedia: Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No original research that the views of editors are irrelevant to the contents of an article. The reason (at the risk of sounding pedantic) I remind yous guys of this has to do with the word "controversial." There certainly are "controversial" topics, and Luther's attitudes towards the Jews may be controversial. The sentence in question is, "The relationship between Luther and the Jewish people is the subject of much controversy." Here is the problem: it does not make clear, controversial among whom?. I raise this point because in my experience sentences like these often find there ways into Wikipedia articles when there has been a lot of contention among editors. And I believe that this is entirely inappropriate and a violation of our policies. That the question of Luther's anti-Judaism of anti-Semitism is a controversial matter among contributors working on this page, I have no doubt. But remember, editors views do not go into articles. The only thing that matters is controversies among scholars and between Jews and Protestants. This is my "formal" point: we can say that it is a matter of controversy only if the controversy is "out there," not in here.

This leads us to the substantive question. Is there a lot of controversy among scholars? This is far from my field, but as far as I know, the answer is "no." I think that most scholars acknowledge that at a certain point in his career it became evident that Luther was anti-Jew, and that this anti-Jew stance included problems he had with both Judaism and Jewish people. I also think that most Jews and Lutherans acknowledge this. I certainly remember that when the Lutherans (whatever the organ of that movement was) in effect apologized for Luther's anti-Semitism, it was a very big deal. And I was a little kid, it is not like I read the New York Times front to back every day. Like most kids I was pretty ignorant of most current affaires except for the big deals, like our losing Vietnam, Watergate, landing on the moon, and Lutherans apologizing. Anyway, that the Lutherans would apologize and that this made Jews happy signals to me that both Lutherans and Jews agreed that Luther had made many anti-Semitic remarks, i.e. there was no controversy over this.

If an editor wants to claim that I know little of the matter and that in fact there has been a lot of controversy out there (outside of this talk page, outside of Wikipedia), fine. But: show me the sources. Right now the article provides the name of one scholar, and refers to some primary sources. This to me is prima facie evidence that the topic is uncontroversial. If it were really controversial, I would expect a long list of people (scholars and leaders of the Lutheran Church and maybe even some Jews) who took one side, and a long list of people (scholars and leaders of the Jewish community, and maybe some Lutherans) who took another, irreconcilable side. I woulod expect reference to other signs of controversy: floor fights over contentious resolutions at meetings of Jewish and Lutheran religious leaders; the publication of a scholarly book that was widely attacked; a debate in an academic journal involving several scholars unfolding over several issues of the journal. To me these are all signs of controversy. Lacking them, I see no controversy. Slrubenstein | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 15:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

You have a good point. I will take the step of removing the unsubstantiated statement. drboisclair 17:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

If you want to take the word "controversial" out of the article, you can. But it does not change the point that it is very controversial among scholars. Take a look at the quotes and the links on the sub-page, which give just the tip of the iceberg of the debate to the level of polemics on this issue. Opposed to Johnson's book is Uwe Siemon-Netto.The Fabricated Luther: the Rise and Fall of the Shirer myth. Peter L. Berger, Foreward. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1995. If you wish, I could produce a very long list of opinions on all sides of the issue. In addition, I am a published Church historian who has put quite a bit of time into studying Luther. drboisclair has a graduate degree in the field itself. Both of us are in direct conversation with Luther scholars on a regular basis. We do know what we're talking about.

--CTSWyneken 21:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Now that the intro sentence to the Luther and Antisemitism section of the main article has been deleted, we need to replace it with something. The section as it now reads is without transition and indication as to why we're bothering. Since I've taken a crack at it, only to be told I do not know what I'm talking about, will someone else take a crack at it?

--CTSWyneken 11:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, what exactly are they disputing? Whether or not he was anti-Judaic/anti-Semitic? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The dispute is over whether Luther possessed a hatred of Jewish people by race, in other words, that he was anti-semitic, or whether he opposed Judaism as a religion and all those who believed and practiced it, in other words, was anti-judaic. One side marshalls On the Jews and Their Lies, the other his kind personal behavior towards opponents in trouble and his occaisonal kind comments about Jewish people. --CTSWyneken 21:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I see. How about "Luther has been accused of Anti-Semitism primarily in relation to his statements about Jews in his book On the Jews and their Lies, though it has been argued that Luther was expressing Anti-Judaism rather than Anti-Semitism." I only ask because that's exactly what I wrote as the first sentence of that section, two weeks ago. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

As far as information goes, the first sentence as is, the one you propose and the one I've written in the sub-article are fine. The problem is style. If this were turned in to me as a college paper, I would note to things: one, is that it is abrupt. In tone, it is like starting an article in the second paragraph. (at least to my ears) Second, I'd tell them to avoid passives, The purpose of my now-deleted prose is to tell people why we're discussing this, a.k.a., there is a debate about it. That gives proper transition to the matter. This is not hugely important to me. So, as long as the text is NPOV write what you wish. What suprised me is that someone who would think this as not controversial. --CTSWyneken 12:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I've taken a shot at rewording this intro. Does this work? --CTSWyneken 11:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

While Luther's supporters are disheartened by Luther's harsh words towards the Jewish people and others, they argue that Luther's words were motivated by Judaism's rejection of Christianity rather than hatred of Jews as a race. -- I hope you do realize that if the Jews embrace Christianity, they won't be Jews anymore. Let me rephrase it: Jews were required to convert (in other words, disappear as a distinct religious group) to be tolerated. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that you are missing the distinction between Jewish as an ethnicity and Judaism as a religion. Tkleinsc 13:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter: Jews are ethno-religious group. They rejected ML's calls to abandon the faith of their fathers, while ML rejected their right to keep it and called to convert the Jews by any means, from "love" to violence. I think the word "race" came into the picture as a consolation: for ML supporters to feel better that they are not racists, and for Jews that the pogroms and expulsions were carried out on strictly religious basis. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 20:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The point here is not to argue whether or not a Jewish person ceases to be a Jew when he or she becomes a Christian, the point has to do with what scholarly detrators and supporters of Luther believe. The Lutheran and Protestant defenders of Luther do make this point. The reader is free to make up his/her own mind about the issue. If you can find another way to say this, please feel free to edit it. I don't think it can be done without making their point go away. --CTSWyneken 04:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I like the last revision; it makes the prose clearer. --CTSWyneken 04:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Martin Luther and the Jews - the summary needs rework

The summary needs rework. Here are some points that need to be addressed:

• Many 21 century scholars accuse... - this sounds like "in the climate of political correctness of the 21st century, they unjustly accuse". Why the 21st century only?
• (see, Paul Johnson A History of the Jews, 1987, p. 242) - noone is going to "see" that.
• While Luther's supporters are disheartened... - all of them? Since when? Source please.
• ...they argue that he was motivated by Judaism's rejection of Christianity rather than hatred of Jews as a race. - see the previous section. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 12:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

No, dear Humus, the new article on Luther's relationship with the Jews already has two links to it from this article, making this whole section now redundant and ready for removal, so further work on it will just go to waste. The battleground has been shifted elsewhere, with traffic directed to it, so that's where it makes sense to concentrate your efforts, because this one is going away soon. --StanZegel (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The section is neither redundant nor will it be removed. Sections that are hived off from an article are always summarized in the main article, and the summary that was in there was reasonable and NPOV. This facet of Luther will simply not be censored from the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Please see the second comment of Jayg under section The relationship between Luther and the Jewish people is the subject of much controversy above. The words of Luther were largely forgotten until Hitler dreged them up in the Twentieth century. The twenty-first century comment is another way to say: it is being discussed right now. It avoids the need to repeat everything in the subarticle.

For the disheartened comment, see the blow-by-blow in the subarticle. It began with Luther's best friend in 1543 already. Again, the focus is on the contemporary... well, I've been criticised for using controversy... debate. If you want to add many to those who accuse and many to his supporters if you are uncomfortable with this generality. I do not think it necessary, since every Lutheran I know IS disheartened.

Here I agree with Stan that very little should be said at all about the ... discussion of Luther and the Jews. We need enough to direct interested parties to the subarticle and no more. --CTSWyneken 01:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with StanZegel's proposal to provide a cursory summary of the Martin Luther and Antisemitism article here and several links to it, and removing the material that is presently here: it is simply repeated in the Martin Luther and Antisemitism article. There we can work out a proper presentation of this issue. I agree with CTSWyneken that every Lutheran I know is dismayed by this horrible tract of Luther. We speak as insiders of the Lutheran Church. Those who point out that advocating a pogrom against the Jews is antisemitic are correct in my view; hence, I believe that Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies is antisemitic. You can call it antijudaic, but it goes beyond the pale of simply polemicizing in a religious vein. Certainly Luther saw himself in the role of prophet speaking his God's judgment against opposition to the gospel of Jesus Christ, which he believed gave him license to speak as he did. He spoke equally if not more harshly against Roman Catholics, Anabaptists, and Turks. All opposed to the gospel of Jesus Christ as he understood it were of the devil. We see that although Luther advocated distinguishing "the kingdom of the left hand" (the state) from "the kingdom of the right hand" (the church) he certainly did not believe in a separation of the two as we do in 21st Century America. Religious pluralism would have been another world to Luther. I believe that Luther could have accomplished more for the gospel as he understood it if he had sought a higher road. We do not want to whitewash, but we want to be fair. We also want to construct an article in keeping with Wikipedia's laudable principles. drboisclair 03:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The point is not to provide several links to the article, the point is to provide a useful enough summary here so that people understand the issue, with a link for people who want more information. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Summary -- it is customary for a WP article to have a brief summary of its subarticles. Sure, we should be fair and neutral and express opinions of reputable scholars not our own.
• "He spoke equally if not more harshly..." -- the following paragraph is from James Carroll's Constantine's Sword, p.426 (the highlight is mine):

Luther's biographer Richard Marius comments on this perception of Auden and others who laid the Nazi pathology at Luther's feet: "Although the Jews for him were only one among many enemies he castigated with equal fervor, although he did not sink to the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition against Jews, and although he was certainly not to blame for Adolf Hitler, Luther's hatred of the Jews is a sad and dishonorable part of his legacy, and it is not a fringe issue. It lay at the center of his concept of religion. He saw in the Jews a continuing moral depravity he did not see in Catholics. He did not accuse papists of the crimes that he laid at the feet of Jews."

• Disheartened: -- I can provide an evidence that refutes this sentence. To be encyclopedic, I think we should say "most modern supporters..." or something like that.
• I hope the term "battleground" refers to our collaborative editing and nothing more. As I said elsewhere, my goal is not to mar ML's name or to encourage Jewish internalization of victimhood, but rather to improve encyclopedic coverage for better understanding and mutual reconciliation. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've made an attempt to compress and copyedit the summary:

1. replaced "21st century scholars" with "today's scholars"
2. replaced weird non-quotation of Johnson with an even shorter quote from MacCulloch's 800-page The Reformation
3. it's OK to say "Jews" instead of "Jewish people"
4. removed irrelevant "race" remark -- see above
5. disheartened, but... -- see above
6. removed "as a response" -- this sounds like a blame game.
7. final sermon - he argues for their conversion again, so I thought this doesn't add much to the topic. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 12:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, Humus, you have indeeded shortened it. Somewhat in the same manner as taking out the "N" shortens "NPOV." That is a prime example of why the issue is now a separate article -- so that a fair and balanced presentation can be made -- because there is no way to fairly summarize such a complex topic in only a sentence, and more than a sentence would be disproportionate in this article. This POV "summary" is not helpful. --StanZegel (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The Martin Luther and Antisemitism article deals with more than its present title, and is no longer really a subarticle of this one. It is an article on its own, althought it should be renamed Martin Luther and the Jews, in which Antisemitism and Antijudiasm are topics. --StanZegel (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

All articles about Martin Luther are sub-articles of this one, or should be. That's the way Wikipedia works. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I am ready to discuss the edits one by one. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 01:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I think we're getting much closer on this one. I think we should move both quotes to the sub-page, since this is a summary. There may be some room to condense language further, which I could also attempt. I'd keep in mind, of course, trying to summarize both sides of the debate. I'm thinking of also moving the first paragraph to the last, if it will work stylistically. Then I think we should evaluate its placement within the article as a whole. Does this work for everyone? --CTSWyneken 10:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I am strongly against [re]moving the quote. Length-wise, it is nothing to talk about. One short quote makes a very important point much more authoritatively than any editorializing (which does not belong in a serious encyclopedia anyway). ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that a quote from the other side, then, is needed. I fear that if we go down that path, we end up duplicating the work in the subarticle. This is supposed to be a summary, so I'd like to keep the quotations in the subarticle.

Do you know of other wiki summaries of subarticles that have them. In my experience in the non-electronic world, summaries rarely do. --CTSWyneken 16:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Here are a few good reasons NOT to remove quotes: WP:CITE, WP:NOR and WP:V. Please provide reasons to remove the one-line quote.

Other articles: all over WP. Search for "said" and "writes" in History of England, for example.

I wonder, what "other side" are you talking about? Please note that I left the phrase about "disheartened" Luther's supporters. Frankly, I think we should have mentioned the "disheartened" Jews instead. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I will check them.

The reason for not having the quote in the summary is we have a page full of them on the Martin Luther and the Jews page. It would be good to have this one there as well. It is not the inclusion of citations in an article, per se, that I'm questioning (even though standard encyclopedias do not do this or even so much as footnote) It is in a summary of a subarticle. The point in having a subarticle is to keep main articles to a manageable size.

The "Other Side" is those who see Luther as "anti-Judaic." There's also a book I have yet to read that reexamines Hitler's use and mis-use of Luther. The author may well have a different perspective than the quoted scholar. My point is that, if we start throwing around quotes, this summary will grow, defeating the purpose of a summary and of the subarticle.

I suspect Jews are a great deal more than disheartened about Luther's comments. Perhaps we should say that, and that other Christians are not happy about it either. But then, the text grows...

So, you make my point. In fact, I'd prefer to reduce the size of the summary even further, if we can find a way to do it and remain NPOV. If you can find another way to express the Lutheran reaction to Luther's words and the charge of anti-semitism that fairly relfects their viewpoint, please suggest it.

Please note under topics above that I'm convinced the whole article needs to be reduced. I'm concerned that a casual reader will not bother with it because of its size. So, if this issue can be resolved, I can go back to putting the whole thing on a diet. This is especially critical, since the whole of Luther's story has yet to be resolved.--CTSWyneken 15:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Having checked the History of England, is see only one quote in a in one subarticle summary. There is a precedent, allebeit small, for doing this. Do you know of others?--CTSWyneken 15:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The Wiki policies you've quoted are very interesting. It is comforting to know I've been proceeding in this fashion. On the point of the quotation in the summary: we certainly have all we say documented in the bibliography at the bottom of the page and in the subpage. I'm not saying these quotes are unworthy of being shared, just they should be on the subpage. I'm looking to summarize the content of the subarticle here and roll out the documentation in detail in the subarticle. --CTSWyneken 15:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we could remove the sentence about Luther's followers being disheartened or another which would remove the need for the quotation. However, I think that we would need a quotation like that of James Kittelson that in his opinion Luther's writings on the Jews were not Antisemitic. In a way the quotation as it stands piques the reader's interest to read more. The good thing about coming to a common understanding about this article is that once it is formed, then all of us can defend it against mutilation. drboisclair 10:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

BTW, should we perhaps change "racial" to "ethnic" in the sentence "In his 1523 essay That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew, Luther distinguished between the religious and racial aspects of the Jews, reminding his followers that Jews were related to Jesus by blood." This would be more accurate anthropologically. To say that the Jewish people are a different race than other peoples was a myth spawned by Hitler. Of course, leaving it in speaks to the Antisemitism debate. drboisclair 10:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Let me say that I personally admire ML as a revolutionary who influenced the entire Western civilization for centuries ahead, but he was only a human and a product of his time.

I understand the quote mentioning Kristallnacht makes some uncomfortable. Please reread the quote in question: note its size and substance. It doesn't say anything about Anti-Semitism or Anti-Judaism (have we resolved this already?) The quote is one-line long, it is ludicrous to even talk about the length.

Several similar (if not harsher) opinions by other reputable scholars can be provided by request. We haven't even mentioned the opinions of Jewish historians on the subject. We can compare the events of Kristallnacht against ML's 8-point program. Unless you can prove that many reputable scholars hold an opposite opinion, the quote should stay. You may remove all the editorializing though. See also WP:RS. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

It really isn't relevant whether I'm comfortable with the Kristalnacht quote or whether I think the historian can make the case for the direct connection between Luther's views and the event. I give him the benefit of a doubt on that score until I've examined the evidence. I have no problem with the quote moving to the subarticle, nor with quotations from Jewish historians, Catholic historians, or reputable historians of any type. I'm not trying to dodge this issue and I strongly believe you're not in it to destroy Luther.

My concern is not over a one sentence quote overlenghthening the article. (although, it is amazing how cutting three words here, two there can streamline a piece). My concern is that a summary will begin to lengthen to the extent where it duplicates the subarticle. As the above indicates, we will end up adding at least one more, for I agree with David that counterbalance is needed here. That having been done, your point is well taken that we should quote a Jewish scholar. But, having done that...

The trick, IMHO, is to keep the main article about Luther and the subarticle about the interpretation of his words and their effects to this day.

The purpose of the subarticle is to prevent this issue, loaded with emotion, from overwhelming the whole Luther article. So, I'd still like to move the quote. If you are unwilling to do so, I'd recommend finding a broader quote from the subarticle, adding David's Kittelson quote, or take a counter-quote from this Siemon-Netto passage:

Of course, it was the Jews, not the Germans, who suffered the kind of fate Luther predicted for them—and worse. But does this make him the Nazis’ progenitor, as his detractors assert? Clearly not. Most of Luther’s anti-Jewish diatribes were forgotten until anti-Semites dug them up in the 20th century. To suggest that Lutheran theology turned Germans into Nazis is a false charge that simply cannot be substantiated by the facts..

But I fear the article will start saying: "C'mom and feed me..."--CTSWyneken 13:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I know there is continuing controversy here, over a difficult topic. For what it is worth, the current version (the timestamp of this comment minus two minutes) looks pretty good to me. Personally — I mean, this is not something I would want to get into an argument over — I would delete the sentence about most Lutherans feeling disheartened, which is vague and unsourced. Instead, I would quote one or two official Lutheran statements recanting Luther's anti-Semitism. Recanting or retracting or apologizing is a stronger statement than "disheartened" and in my opinion more meaningful — and of course it can be backed up with a verifiable source.

As to the discussion above: from the point of view of Jews, whether they are persecuted because of their race or their relion may not really matter to them, and I certainly do not think that this is relevant to this article. But whether Luther's antagonism towards Jews is motivated by, or takes the form of criticisms of, their race or their religion does seem to me to be important. This is not an arbitrary distinction and which one Luther appealed to at which time tells us something about the times in which Luther lived and the evolution of his thinking — two topics that are quite relevant to this article.

As to the link between Luther and Nazis, well, I think every scholar studying the Holocaust believes that 19th and 20th century anti-Semitism has roots in Christianity, whether the Gospel according to John or certain writings by Luther — but they also see anti-Semitism as such to be a modern phenomenon with other causes. Put another way, Luther's anti-Semitism (and/or anti/Judaism) was both the reflection or product of his time, and also contributed to the general culture of Protestant Europe (I would say the same about Hitler or Ghandi: their evil (or goodness) was both something they learned from their environment and something they contributed to their environment. In other words, I do not think this is a very controversial claim). The question is, how to express this as succinctly as possible and in accordance with our NPOV policy.

It appears to me that most contributers are differing over matters of degree and wording. In general and in principle I agree with and support everything Jayjg has recently written here. This article must have a summary of the linked article on Luther and the Jews. The summary has to comply with NPOV, and it has to be as brief as possible without sacrificing any major point of the linked article.

Despite weeks of controversy I see a lot of good will on all sides. I am certain that with time, patience to mull over different changes, and open discussion we will end up with a satisfactory summary pretty soon, Slrubenstein | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 00:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiment of the above comments. I do think we're now on the same wavelength, more or less.

I still want to ask: do we need any quotes here at all to summarize the subarticle? If so, why? If we take the quote as stands out and the "disheartened" sentence, does it fairly represent the content of the subarticle, or not?

If some folk still think we need a quotation, I'd propose the following changes: Substitute the current quote with one that says: 'Luther was Antisemitic.' Then we'll have Dave Boisclair add the Kittelson quote that says: 'no, he was anti-judaic.' Then we delete the disheartened line and all agree to revert any changes made to the summary unless argeed upon by all on this talk page.

What think ye all?

--CTSWyneken 13:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Slrubenstein, especially in regard to both the current content and the "disheartened" phrase. The article from 1906 ed. of Jewish Encyclopedia is one example contradicting the statement that "Most of Luther’s anti-Jewish diatribes were forgotten until anti-Semites dug them up in the 20th century." ←Humus sapiens←ну? 08:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Slrubenstein as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I can do without the "disheartened" line, if you all can do without the quotation. This line was intended to provide a transition into the topic when it began with an abrupt launch into the topic. Now that it is at the end, it is no longer necessary. It's intent was to show the view of contemporary view of Lutherans and, if we must keep a quote, is not needed if we have a counter balancing quote.

Re: the article in the Jewish Encyclopedia, please do summarize it in the subarticle. It is an important part of the subject which is to set forth data about Luther's views, its context and the way these comments have been received through history, their influence and their meaning. The article is weak in the times between the end of Luther's life and the Nazi era.

So, to me, the remaining issue is: should we by-pass quotations in the antisemitism vs. antijudaic debate, resulting in the smallest possible summary, or should we put one from each side in?

So, friends, which way do you want to go? --CTSWyneken 14:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I have a feeling we are going in circles. What are you trying to counterbalance? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

No circles at all. In fact, I think we're close to resolution.

What I mean by counterbalance is what I've said earlier -- their is a charge that Luther was antisemitic. There is a reply that he was not, that he was antijudaic.

If we include a quote with the charge, NPOV requires a quote from the other side. So, I'm proposing we cut the quote and the disheartened sentence and let the summary carry the content and the subarticle the detail.

If this is not agreeable among us, I'm proposing trading out the current quote for one that says "Luther was antisemitic" and another that says "no, he was not." We would then kill the disheartened quote. --CTSWyneken 03:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Please correct me if I misunderstand. If you are arguing for the removal of the quote by MacCulloch, I insist that it is tiny and crucially important and therefore should stay. As for AS vs. AJ: why introduce controversy in the summary? I think we should replace the "disheartened" text with a short quote by ELCA and move on. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 04:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Two reasons to remove the quote:

MacCulloch should go because it introduces a new issue. It charges that the Nazis were inspired by Luther's work to Kristallnacht, which is not even in the subarticle. This one is, if possible, even more disputed. To use it alone is to violated clearly NPOV.

By taking up a charge not in the subarticle, it ceases to be a summary.

My proposal is that should we keep quotes, that they address the main issues in the subarticle.

But you still have yet to tell us why it is crucial to add a quote in a summary of a very well documented subarticle. I need something more than It's vital since I can assert it's not I've given reasons having to do with the function of a summary and a subarticle. What reasons do you have?

re the disheartened line, I don't see a purpose in having it anymore at all. If you'd find it important in a historical article to have the opinion of contemporary Lutherans, then the LCMS statement and the WELS statement should be in play. But, in the current form of the article, I don't think we need anything like it at all.

So, in short, I still would like to have a good reason to have a quote at all in the article. If you have none, then I recommend we simply drop quotes here. The subarticle has plenty. If you must have a quote, I'll not go along with MacCulloch for the above reasons. Pick one that summarizes the whole subarticle and let's ask drboisclair to quote Kittelson in reply. --CTSWyneken 11:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe my liking of the MacCulloch quotation is for the wrong reason. It is provocative and to the point. Have it there along with the Kittelson quotation that is also succinct and thought provoking to get the reader reading more on the subject. I must say that this editors' debate has inspired me as well as others to do our research in order to be fair to all concerned. I think that courtesy is much valued and appreciated among scholars and editors. We have enough to deal with with the vandals who like sacking us as they sacked Rome in 455 A.D. Best wishes. drboisclair 19:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The MacCulloch quote is brief and to the point - without it, 2/3 of the paragraph is a defence of Luther's statements about Jews, which is hardly reasonable, given that they are basically indefensible. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

MacCulloch introduces a new charge left unanswered in your version. It is very POV. Current edition is to the point, summarizes the subarticle and is balances the main charge with a response from Luther's defenders. I still think the quotes are unneeded. But, if we must have quotes, I cannot accept MacCulloch, for it distorts the whole article, esp. if it is left to stand alone. --CTSWyneken 01:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I have added the Kittelson quotation for balance giving his scholarly view of Luther in this matter too. drboisclair 22:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

This section is too long. Please continue at #The way the summary stands. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 01:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits of concepts of indulgences and sacrifice

An editor recently removed "a good deed offered to God" in the discription of the Eucharist as sacrifice. This phrase is precisely what the term "sacrifice" means. The RC Church believes that the Eucharist is something that the church offers to God to propitiate Him for the sins of the living and the dead. In recent years it has clarified itself to point out that the Eucharist is the church's participation in the one sacrifice of Christ, but that was not clearly held at the time of Luther. The phrase is needed to define what "sacrifice" means. Also the editor added the term "forgiven" to sins confessed that are the subject matter of indulgences. This may be a modern view of the RC Church, but it was not the position of the RC Church of Luther's day. "Absolution" or "forgiveness" conferred by the priest on the penitent was merely the reduction of the eternal penalties of his sins into temporal penalties, which were then dealt with either by satisfactions, time in purgatory, or indulgences. Forgiveness was contingent upon the completion of satisfactions for the temporal penalties. The RC Church may have modified their stance in the present day. drboisclair 03:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Drboisclair. I'm responsible for those edits. My objection to "a good deed offered to God" was that it seemed to trivialize the Eucharist. A "good deed offered to God" could be Saint Therese of Lisieux giving her best smile to a nun who was getting on her nerves, whereas the teaching of the Catholic Church is that the Mass is Calvary made present in an unbloody manner. I disagree that it wasn't clearly held at the time of Luther. I have the three-volume edition of The Faith of the Early Fathers (William A. Jurgens) in front of me, and there are many early quotations showing that the Eucharist is the sacrifice of Calvary. I'm pretty sure I've also seen that in Saint Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica, and in the two-volume Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, edited by Norman Tanner. (Only Volume One would predate Luther, but still.)

I'm not keen on your recent edit saying that the Eucharist is "something people offer to God rather than something they receive from God". Yes, it's a sacrifice to God, but it is also something that we receive from God. I have removed that part of the sentence.

I've also tried again to clarify indulgence. You said in your edit summary that "forgiveness implies no penalties". I don't think that is the case. A mother can hug a contrite child after telling him that he won't get any pocket money for the next four weeks. Absolution is not just converting eternal punishment into temporal punishment. You can be validly absolved from venial sins, which do not incur eternal punishment. Valid absolution removes guilt, reduces punishment, and brings grace, for example, help in struggling against a particular sin to which one has an inclination. I removed "certificate". It may be true that certificates were issues; nevertheless, the certificate was not the indulgence, and an indulgence can certainly be granted without the certificate.

I hope you found my recent edit clearer. Regards, Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 13:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Your most recent edits have clarified matters. It is good to get collaboration from all in this project. Of course, you must remember that the Council of Trent was after 1517, and some of the things nailed down in it for Roman Catholics were not nailed down then. When I get a chance I will check my St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica out of interest and my personal reference. Please, when you want to make major changes, though, (which you haven't) you might share them with the rest of us before making them. Thank you and blessings, D. Boisclair drboisclair 15:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Streamlining, Checking

I vaguely remember this comment being challenged as authentic:

After disregarding Luther as "a drunken German who wrote the Theses" who "when sober will change his mind,"

and also one not in the article by Elector Frederick:

"You will see that the Pope will not like this"

Does anyone have a source for them?

I'd also like to delete, if there are no objects, the details below, in interest of saving space:

and he even began to think that Antichrist ruled the Curia. He had already asserted at least the potential fallibility of a council representing the Church, and repudiating what he held to be the abuse of the practice of excommunication on the part of the pope, he was led by his concept of the way of salvation to hold that the Church in essence is the congregation of the faithful, a view foreshadowed in the thought and writings of John Wycliffe, Pierre d'Ailly, and Jan Hus.

interpreting the transubstantiation of the bread as the transformation of the faithful into the spiritual body of Christ, that is, into fellowship with Christ and the Saints through the reception of the True Body and Blood of Christ Jesus Himself. The Eucharist is, moreover, for the forgiveness of sins. Christ is known to be found in the elements of bread and wine in this meal because he has promised to be there; the words "This is my body" are spoken by the Lord, and what God says happens, just as light came to be when God pronounced his fiat in Genesis. Because of this understanding of the Eucharist,

Enough for now. 8-) --CTSWyneken 14:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Would also like to delete the following:

However, looting expeditions and outrages against the Church on the part of armed bands of noblemen and their henchmen continued, motivated by greed and a desire not to pay debts incurred by borrowing from the Church. One such was led by Nickel von Minkwitz against the Bishop of Lebus, Georg von Blumenthal. Minkwitz stormed the episcopal residence at Fürstenwalde, and the Bishop had to escape in disguise.

A similar attempt to kidnap the same bishop was perpetrated in his other See at Ratzeburg.

Luther resented Germany's domination by the Catholic Church, and these nationalist feelings may have motivated the Reformation to some extent. During the Peasants' War, Luther continued to stress obedience to secular authority; many may have interpreted this doctrine as endorsement of absolute rulers, leading to acceptance of monarchs and dictators in German history. --CTSWyneken 14:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The way the summary stands

I commend the editors who have constructed the paragraph on Martin Luther and the Jews in this article. I think that a consensus has been achieved that satisfies the NPOV, etc. I congratulate you, gentlemen and ladies, for your good editing. The article is doing well on its diet. Now, of course, we must have eternal vigilance against all those Vandals. We will not sleep, Vandals! drboisclair 19:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I can not promise not to sleep.

On the serious note, with all due respect I strongly object to CTSWyneken's latest changes. One thing is to quote a Christian scholar's uncontroversial passage from a 800-page monograph. Yes, uncontroversial: did any serious historian object that LM's 8-point plan was a blueprint for the Kristallnacht? I hoped to avoid this but if you still insist that it is controversial, here is a reminder what we are talking about:

1. Burn synagogues
2. Destroy Jewish homes
3. Take away Jewish holy books
4. Forbid rabbis to teach
5. Forbid Jews from traveling
6. Restrict occupations available to Jews
7. Forced labor
8. If the above fails (Jews do not convert = won't disappear), expel them

OTOH, Telushkin's "the most anti-semitic writings produced in Germany until the time of Hitler" may be discarded as a strawman, because there were Adolf Stoecker, Heinrich von Treitschke, Wilhelm Marr, etc. The quote is from a book popularizing history and literacy, and naturally it contains some shortcuts.

Do you remember why the Johnson's quote was moved away from main article? This entire quote shuffling is disturbing. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 02:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

My question, Humus, is: Is the paragraph as it stands at the time of this post that I am posting now OK? I would urge you to put more information about this in the Martin Luther and the Jews article. We should really in extenso deal with the issue there. My proposal would be to leave the summary as it is at this very moment. What is your view? Having both quotations piques the readers interest to look at Martin Luther and the Jews. There, we need as much material on this as we can reasonably put into it. drboisclair 02:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes (thanks for asking, David); I would add a short quote from ELCA or some such source of your choice. The ML&J needs additional info and some rewriting. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 02:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Would such a quotation be necessary in your opinion, considering the putative design to put the article "on a diet" figuratively speaking? drboisclair 03:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I could live without it. In general, I prefer quotes of reputable mainstream views, tables, numbers and bulletpoints. I hope my efforts are taken as intended, in good faith. Thank you. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 04:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

First, let me say, that I'm unhappy that Jayjg began editing this section without finishing our dialog. I felt that the only option left was to edit out the quotes. He restored them. At that point, the quotes were unbalanced. So I fixed them. Now you have restored them, again, without discussing them. While you have a right to do so, I find this bad form.

You may recall that I've been arguing for no quotes. This is a summary. You are welcome to add the quotes to the subpage. Tables, graphs, etc.

Next, you seem to have missed my point about MacCulloch. The quote does not reflect the substance of the article. This is supposed to be a summary. The Telushkin quote was the best I could do in a hurry. This is a very busy time at a graduate school library. If you'll check, you'll notice I never had trouble with the Johnson quote per se.

On the content of the quote, I have a lot to say about it, but, frankly, it is not my place or yours to argue the merit of a scholar's opinion or to promote one over the other in this encyclopedia. We are to present both sides. If you wish to see just the beginning of what scholars say in reply, see the subarticle, where some of the counter argument is made. Read the Siemon-Netto article also for a summary of his book The Fabricated Luther. There are many others on both sides. Remember my fears about the summary growing? Here we are.

My agrument has always been there should be no quotes at all in the summary. I've given endless reasons for this. On the other side, I have not seen any reason given other than because I say so.

Why must there be quotes in a summary at all? --CTSWyneken 12:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Here are a few reasons: WP policies of WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR.

Need more? Whether it is your intention or not, uncorroborated editorializing is not as convincing as a quotation from a reputable Christian scholar. The content of MacCulloch's quote is very much mainstream. Moreover, since it states plain fact, why does it even need "counterbalancing"? Of course there were plenty of ML's apologists in the last 550+ years (and clearly not enough critics of his "tolerance" of the Jews for 490 years), but to present their views as neutral in 2005 would be a violation of NPOV.

Siemon-Netto ("Anti-Semites are racists..." is just another self-serving and self-consoling apologist, though mild. Here are a few of the strawmans he sets:

• "the Nazis’ progenitor..." - One thing is indirect influence and another to be a the progenitor.
• "Most of Luther’s anti-Jewish diatribes were forgotten until anti-Semites dug them up in the 20th century." - wrong, c.f. Jewish Encyclopedia of 1906.
• "To suggest that Lutheran theology turned Germans into Nazis is a false charge..." - of course it is a false charge, that is how strawman works.

To reiterate: ML advocated violent destruction/expulsion of entire communities, he was not interested in intricacies of Judaism, so when ML is called merely anti-Judaic, a source must be weighed.

Yes, this is a summary section. It doesn't mean that a tiny but authoritative quote must be whisked away.

The subarticle will be edited/expanded. As you know, WP aricles are not set in stone, they are open and evolving, so "does not reflect the substance" is another ridiculous argument. I hope my latest edits of the subarticle made the relevancy a little clearer.

I must note with irony that the initial reaction of some editors here, as well as repeated attempts to sweep facts and quotes under the rug, whitewash or set a strawman arguments are disheartening. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 03:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The policies you quote are not relevant to a summary. A summary, at least in the real world, sum up the main points of what is summarizes. I don't think that wikipedia has changed the meaning of that word, has it? The point is to give enough of the content so that the reader knows if they want to read the subarticle.

Please note that all of the quotations you've all suggested are now in the subarticle. I will expand with opposing views as time permits. When the article grows, the summary can grow. We still do not need quotes here. THe section is dependent on the subarticle.

It is your point of view that MacCulloch is plain fact. Siemon-Netto, also a Ph. D. in History, who studied under Peter Berger (not exactly a conservative) and under many of the leading scholars in Luther studies, who also is a journalist who covered the building and the falling of the Berlin Wall, the Viet Nam war and many of the events of the Cold War and the years following, thinks otherwise. His book details this with full documentation. The article is cited because it is online and the book is not. The article, therefore is a summary. The documentation is in the book. Who are you or I to judge in an encyclopedia who is mainstram. To flat out pre-judge anothers views and to slander them in not NPOV at all. I did not slander MacCulloch. I suggest you do not slander Siemon-Netto, whose family resisted the Nazis.

Note that I did not say that Siemon-Netto's comments are neutral. They take a side in a debate, just as MacCulloch does. If MacCulloch goes in, then I'll insist so does Siemon-Netto. If you, then, insist on another quote, in goes one from the other side. What then becomes of the summary?

There is no whitewash here. Everything that has ever been in the main article is now in the subarticle and more. Since you have just dropped by here, you may not have noticed that I have been editing this article for over a year. I did not touch a word in the section other than to prevent promotion of a copyright violation.

I also expect civility from you. I have not belittled your arguments, questioned your motives, called you or others names. I expect the same respect from you that I have shown you.

So, in short, I do not accept your argument that MacCulloch is NPOV. He is most certainly POV. Do you have something else? --CTSWyneken 03:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• The policies you quote are not relevant to a summary. - is this a new policy? Proof please.
• are now in the subarticle - as we both know, the majority of our readers won't bother to open it. Especially with such a favorable summary.
• When the article grows, the summary can grow. - sorry, that is not how WP works.
• I do not accept your argument that MacCulloch is NPOV. He is most certainly POV - I challenge you to compare the 8-point plan and what happened on Nov. 10, 1938. Please do tell us the result.
• you have just dropped by here, etc. - Please refrain from personal attacks and focus on an argument not a person. Regards. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I will examine a wide range of articles, when time permits, looking for evidence of quotes in summaries, so far, with your help or that of others, I've seen only one in one of several in the History of England article, I believe. I will also look for the policies on summaries and subarticles. Can you demonstate a policy that says quotes must or should or even are good to include in summaries.

How do you know that people will not click through? In my general experiece with links on the net, people do click through. The email I've received over twelve years of offering text on the internet demonstrates they do this in general. I do not know that this pattern does or does not continue here, but I think we can expect that those interested in the topic will do so. In addition the general wiki philosophy that this is not a paper encyclopedia encourages as many articles and, I believe, subarticles as well.

My view or yours on the facts do not matter, as you have repeatedly argued by citing policies on quoting. If someone charges Luther with causing the Holocaust or making it possible, and other scholars dispute that conclusion, by definition both are POVs. In this case, NPOV is to quote or summarize both.

If you took the just dropped by here note as a personal attack, I apologize. It was intended to point out that your attack on my character, that of a scholar and other wikipedians was not true. So, I'd ask you to refrain from personal attacks as well. --CTSWyneken 11:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll get back into this later when I have some time, but I think it is important to remember that while some may want to go out of their way to force into the reader's mind at every opportunity that Luther had to be a horrible person because of some remarks about Jews, the place to tar and feather him is in the article on that subject. As long as there are links (and there are now three links from this article to Martin Luther and the Jews), there is no need to start the attack here. Readers more interested in Luther's thoughts about the Jews than his work in translating the Bible will easily be able to find the red carpet to that article. As for Luther, he spent less time thinking about Jews than he did about Christ, the Bible, Theology and other things more important to him. This redundant summary of another article is already about as long as the section on his translations of the Bible. I think even the shortened version by CTSWyneken is too detailed, and I wonder why there is even (other than advocacy for a POV) a "summary" on this topic at all, when there is none on any of the other See Also entries. This topic should be no different. --StanZegel (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I want to urge brevity in the summary. Wouldn't it be in line with NPOV simply to state the thesis (some scholars accuse Luther of Antisemitism in his relations with Jewish people) and the antithesis (other scholars disagree) and have them go to Martin Luther and the Jews for the full presentation with extensive quotes? The less said, the more people will want to look at the other article. Please let us come to a consensus here. Perhaps the answer here is simply to provide links in this article to the other article without the summary. I think that the summary is helpful. Doesn't the summary as it now stands present enough of the material pro and con to obviate the need to expand it? drboisclair 15:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Why MacCulloch quote is important

Perhaps I should explain why I consider the quote by MacCulloch so important to be in the summary.

• If there is some special exemption policy for summaries, I'd like to know it. Our guide is WP:RULES.

Nothing on this page refers to quotations, or any of its subpages refer to quotations. It mentions and encourages citation, but even at that does not insist on it. Is there a policy that requires quotations?

Please note the section above on data from articles with subarticles and summaries. I intend to expand them. So far, the evidence is that the prevailing practice is not to include quotations in summaries. --CTSWyneken 04:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Coming from an authoritative Christian scholar, a brief quote is much more convincing than editorializing or a reference.

I will do a little research on MacCulloch. I have only your word that he is a reputable scholar and that this work is well-regarded. I'd give you the benefit of a doubt, were that you were not staking so much on it. --CTSWyneken 04:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with those who consider the quote "to the point": in one short line it gives the essense of ML's 8 policies, avoiding superfluous accusations or excuses.

Without the quotations, we avoid these problems. --CTSWyneken 13:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

---

• You may consider this issue minor or unimportant. IMHO, a serious encyclopedic article on Luther is incomplete without outlining the 8-pt plan.

The Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia Vol. 16, 261-264, includes only the following words on Luther and the Jews: "he felt burdened by the resurgence of the papacy and by what he preceived as an attempt by the Jews to take advantage of the confusion among Christians and reopen the question of Jesus' messaihship. Apprehensive about his own responsibility for this situation, he wrote a violent polemic against the Jews, as well as polemics against the papacy and the radical wing of the reformers" --CTSWyneken 04:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• I insist on mentioning an indirect relation between the 8-pt plan and the Kristallnacht in the article (a subarticle can go deeper). Nowadays, people are busy, they won't click on (or print out) most links.

Why? The charge is not outlined in the Holocaust article at all. It is a highly contested conclusion, as the subarticle points out. --CTSWyneken 04:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• The subject of this discussion reminds me of the importance of the printed word. Despite of our minor differences here, I strongly believe in good faith. We should preach/practice tolerance toward the other as a part of education and reconciliation. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 00:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly why I'm not trying to hide Luther's very violent, unacceptible rhetoric. Also why I've promoted a subarticle to do the conversation and its related debates justice. --CTSWyneken 13:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Humus, don't you think that the MacCullouch quotation gives the impression that Luther is directly responsible for the Kristallnacht and the Nazis? Why not the Johnson quotation or the Telushkin quotation? Quoting it in that succinct manner may give the reader the impression that Luther wanted such a manifestation like the Third Reich. His program in "Von den Jueden ..." was used by others over 400 years after it was written. Quoting from MacCulloch obscures the fact that others 400 years later used Luther's writings. It must be put in context, which is done in the ML and the Jews article. drboisclair 00:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't think "a blueprint" implies direct responsibility. I don't think that today's Lutherans should feel responsible for his plan at all, as long as they denounce it as a part of his legacy. We should point out that ML was a medieval man who lived 400 years before 1938.

I think it is important to briefly outline the substance of his plan: it was not an abstract hatred but a detailed plan of actions. We all (the humanity) are hurt because such a plan (not necessarily his, but similar) was indeed implemented. Had we (the humanity) raised the awareness of (and stood against) the hate speech earlier, numerous lives would have been spared. I strongly feel it is our common responsibility today. The Johnson's quote works also but I think it is not as precise. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 01:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Wanting to make a charge or accusation in a prominent place, afraid that the spin will be missed because "people are busy, they won't click on (or print out) most links" and thus see it in its proper place, is a misuse of Wikipedia. Such an argument is a confession of trying to push a POV. Whether Luther liked or disliked Jews really doesn't matter very much in the big picture, but if you want to wallow in it, the subarticle is the place to fight it out, where the battle of scholarly quotations can take place. If you are afraid that people reading this article won't be as interested as you seem to be in your contention, well, too bad. But this is not the place to try to prove your point. There are plenty of places in this article that give anyone who cares about it a chance to go to Martin Luther and the Jews, and for those who just don't care to do so, that is their choice. No one is suppressing the three links that are already here to the topic, but we don't need to repeat the arguments here because every point you try to raise here to push your POV then requires a counter-point. That's why we have the other article, and this summary is already too detailed. If one is working on the Martin Luther article in good faith, then I would expect to see entries in other parts of the article too: expanding info on his translation of the Bible, more about the Catechisms, his theology. If one spends all of his time on only one aspect, then that seem to me prima facie evidence of a POV agenda, and the bad faith that such an editor exhibits, in my opinion, needs to be dealt with in an appropriate manner. --StanZegel (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

---

One other argument against the inclusion of the MacCulloch quotation is that it is irrelevant to Luther himself, which is the subject of the article. MacCulloch is giving his own POV as to the 20th Century use of Luther's treatise. It would be similar to putting a quotation in the article about Niccolò Machiavelli about the manner his work "The Prince" was used, for example, by Benito Mussolini. Luther's work "On the Jews ..." was used by the Nazis as their blueprint of the Krystallnacht. Luther did not conceive of a Krystallnacht. To accuse Luther of coming up with the "blueprint of the Krystallnacht" is a gross anachronism. Whether or not any of his writings were used by persons in the 20th Century is irrelevant to this article. It might be relevant to an article on Antisemitism, Nazism, or Medieval Antisemitism. It would be germane to the ML and the Jews article or an article on the treatise in question, but not this article. The quotation also intrudes another topic into the summary, which makes for further point counterpoint as Stanley Zegel has pointed out above. Besides, the summary by its nature should be of a general character. It would be redundant to place the quotation here and in the ML & t J article. For these reasons and for the reasons that CTSWyneken and Stanley Zegel have adduced I oppose inclusion of the MacCulloch quotation here. Please think about these valid reasons against inclusion. Let the debate be joined where it needs to be: in the Martin Luther and the Jews article. Respectfully submitted, drboisclair 05:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I am sorry to find this discussion deteriorate. I find SZ's comments unacceptable ("wallow", "afraid", "spin", etc.) The absence of calls to civility is duly noted.

• Luther's biographer Richard Marius (already quoted above): "Luther's hatred of the Jews is a sad and dishonorable part of his legacy, and it is not a fringe issue. It lay at the center of his concept of religion. (the highlight is mine)
• Why would Church bodies explicitly repudiate it if it wasn't a part of his legacy?
• Practically every biography article includes the person's influences, and properly so. We can't cherrypick only those we like. Sorry, "20th Century is irrelevant to this article." is original research.
• Of course there is no need to repeat the same link 3 times. Assume good faith and click Edit.
• Let's try to collaborate and find a creative way out. I would get rid of some text (the word pogrom does not reflect the substance exactly) in favor of the quote I consider important. CTSW, could we try 2 short quotes (MacCulloch and Nietto?) as you offered earlier. Regards. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 12:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Humus, you did not quote the full sentence I wrote: "Whether or not any of his writings were used by persons in the 20th Century is irrelevant to this article." This is a correct logical deduction. If it is original research, then it betrays the fact that you cannot compose something like Wikipedia totally devoid of original work or research. I would imagine that it would be original research to make judgments about material to include and not include in an article, yet if you did not make those judgments the article could be a million megabytes long. We are talking about who Luther was and what Luther did, not what 20th Century people did with what he did, especially if they did something new or novel with his works. You pointed out that the use of the word pogrom might not be appropriate. Well, the use of the MacColluch quotation would not be appropriate because it presents his POV about what 20th Century people used Luther's writings for: that is not relevant to this article, and it can be misconstrued as saying that Luther planned the Krystallnacht and provided its blueprint. This is contrary to the clear understanding that Wikipedia wishes to foster IMHO. It is also not a general statement that would be appropriate to this summary. It offers one specific POV that defeats the purpose of the summary. In my opinion the other quotes in this summary do the same thing. Why not leave the summary as it is and be done with it? Let's work on the Martin Luther and the Jews article. Respectfully submitted, drboisclair 14:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Resolution of Martin Luther and the Jews Summary Debate

There has been quite a bit of passion here, making it hard to come to some sort of resolution. We have all been at least somewhat jumping to conclusions, even while responding to the other sides' attacks on our own character. So, I'd like to propose a way to get us to a resolution:

* We freeze the version of the article in the form it was in yesterday.

* We all cease using inflamitory rhetoric. Any such language will be ignored and no reply given at all to the arguments in that paragraph.

* We archive the discussion of this subject from this point backwards to its beginning. (please, no one do this until at least all of Humus, drboisclair and SZagel weigh in here)

* It would help if everyone identify their credentials on their user pages, so we know whom we are working with.

* I believe precedent in and outside of Wikipedia are important. Let's see what the lay of the land is.

* We take a time out from the discussion of the issue itself and use the time to do research. I've gathered together below what I've done over the past few days. Please feel free to add categories and accumulate data. I'd especially appreciate brief quotations from the guidelines, rules and policies of Wikipedia as they apply to the matter of creating subarticles, summaries and the inclusion of quotations.

* I will draw no conclusions from this data here for a week or so and request you all do the same.

* When we come back to it, I'd like to start with the issue of why or why not we should include quotations in this summary? Then we can see if we can come to a consensus as to whether or not quotations should go into this summary. Then we go on to which details summarize the issues involved fairly. If we've decided to quote, which ones are the best at conveying this? If not, we edit the language of the paragraph to express both viewpoints.

So, fellow editors... Is this a good plan? --CTSWyneken 14:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I feel that it is a good plan. I wonder if we should perhaps delete the entire summary until then and just have the caption and the link to the Martin Luther and the Jews article. As it stands the summary will draw fire, so until we have done some thinking as CTSWyneken has suggested let's leave it completely blank. drboisclair 15:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

A pause is agreeble to me, and I concur with drboisclair's thoughts on elimating the summary in the interim. --StanZegel (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

We may self-impose a moratorium (a week of reflection is fine with me). WP is open and collaborative project (unfortunately, still many substandard articles) and our only guide is WP:RULES. If we are unable to resolve a conflict here, we should follow WP:DR. As others said earlier, the summary doesn't go anywhere. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 09:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Good then! Would someone archive this discussion above this proposal? As far as the rules go, of course. Please add any paragraphs you find relevant from the rules to the data section on rules and guidelines below. I also think that we can resolve these issues to a satisfactory place if we consider each issue objectively. If you don't mind, I'd like us to consider one issue at a time. If we do this, at the very least we will understand each other. --CTSWyneken 16:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Research Relevant to the Summary of Martin Luther and the Jews

Wikipedia Policies, Guidelines and Suggestions

WP:RULES

Excerpts

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Its goals go no further.

Avoid bias. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing differing views on a subject factually and objectively.

Respect other contributors

NPOV

Excerpts

Articles should be written without bias, representing all majority and significant minority views fairly. This is the neutral point of view policy.

Fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct.

Articles without bias describe debates fairly instead of advocating any side of the debate. Since all articles are edited by people, this is difficult, as people are inherently biased.

Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view is correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Presenting all points of view says, more or less,

A good way to help building a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to wikipedia, and then cite that source. This is an easy way to characterize a side of a debate without excluding that the debate has other sides. The trick is to find the best and most reputable sources you can. Try the library for good books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources. A little bit of ground work can save a lot of time in trying to justify a point later.

The only other important consideration is that sources of comparable reputability might contradict. In that case the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches of the same topic exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources. And, when available, give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner.

Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:

You won't even need to say he was evil. That's why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.

WP:RS

What follows is a description of Wikipedia's best practises. Many articles may fall short of this standard until one or more editors devote time and effort to fact-checking and reference-running. (See efforts to identify reliable sources.) In the meantime, readers can still benefit from your contributions, bearing in mind that unsourced edits, or edits relying on inappropriate sources, may be challenged at any time.

There are many ways in which factual errors can be introduced into reports. Keep in mind that some articles are about characterizing the various factions in a dispute. This means that you will be looking for reliable published reports of people's opinions.

• A fact is an actual state of affairs, which can be an historical event, or a social or natural phenomenon. To say of a sentence or proposition that it is true is to say that it refers to a fact.

• An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group holds a certain opinion is a fact, and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group holds the opinion.

• A primary source provides direct evidence for a certain state of affairs. This may mean that the source observes a state of affairs directly, or that they observe indirect evidence of it. In other words, a primary source is a source very close to the original state of affairs you are writing about. An example of primary-source material would be a photograph of a car accident taken by an eye witness, or a report from that eye witness. A trial transcript is also primary-source material. Wikipedia articles may rely on primary sources so long as what they say has been published by a credible publication. For example, a trial transcript has been published by the court. We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a credible publication. See Wikipedia:No original research.

• A secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources. A tertiary source usually summarizes secondary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source.

When reporting facts, Wikipedia articles should cite sources. Tertiary sources like reputable encyclopedias, such as the Encyclopædia Britannica, as well as reputable specialized encyclopedias such as the New Grove and the Dictionary of National Biography, contain a wealth of reliable information. Older editions such as the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica often have fuller articles than current editions on some subjects, though there is always the danger that the information is outdated.

If suspect sources have references, follow them. If there are no references, or if the references provided are insufficient, you may need to do additional research, or reconsider the reliability of the report.

When reporting that an opinion is held by a particular individual or group, the best citation will be to a direct quote, citing the source of the quote in full after the sentence (see Harvard referencing) or using a footnote. If there is text, audio, or video available of someone expressing the opinion directly, it is preferable to include or transcribe an excerpt, which is allowed under fair use.

Evaluating sources

• Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or the Socialist Workers Party. Groups like these may be used as primary sources only i.e. as sources about themselves, and even then with caution and sparingly.
• Were they actually there? Be careful to distinguish between descriptions of events by eyewitnesses and by commentators. The former are primary sources; the latter secondary. Both can be reliable.
• Find out what other people say about your sources.
• Have they reported other facts reliably, including on different subjects? Cross-check with what you already know.
• Are the publications available for other editors to check? We provide sources for our readers, so they must be accessible in principle, although not necessarily online.

Evaluating secondary sources

• Have they used multiple independent primary sources?

History

Historical events are difficult to verify. We must rely on people's memories, recorded accounts, and physical evidence to reconstruct it. Evidence and factual accounts contemporary with the events are valuable because there are fewer steps separating them from reality. On the other hand, their authors are more likely to have been involved in the events, and therefore to have a particular point of view. Indeed, the evaluation and judicious use of primary sources is a major part of the craft of history.

Summaries and overviews of history require interpretation and analysis, finding patterns and attributing causes. Sometimes later historical analyses of this kind are more reliable, because the passage of time allows more scholarly debate, more reflection, and decreases the likelihood that the historian was personally involved in or attached to the events that he or she is analyzing.

Sometimes, historians try to discern the reasons why such or such decision was taken, or the real intents of such or such leader. While there may be some material clues supporting such claims, in general, they should be considered as speculation, not as fact.

Beware false authority

Would you trust a plumber to fill your cavities? Likewise, you should probably not trust someone who has a Ph.D. in plant biology to tell you about quantum mechanics. Just as actors in TV commercials don white lab coats to make viewers think they are serious scientists, people with degrees in one field are not necessarily experts in any other. Watch out for false claims of authority.

Try to use sources who have degrees in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions. The most reputable have written textbooks in their field for the undergraduate level or higher: these authors can be expected to have a broad, authoritative grasp of their subject.

Biographical Articles that analyze the significance of their subjects

Petrarch No mention of how his works are used in the present.

Erasmus Although there is mention of the RCC’s disappointment with him, there is nothing about his works being used by present day activists (Much about legacy)

Thomas More Point of interest: Marius considered him a fanatic. There is nothing that speaks of a writing of his used by a present day group. (Much about legacy)

William Tyndale There is much about his legacy, but nothing about a contemporary use of his works.

John Colet a little on his legacy, but nothing about his works being used by contemporaries to further their ends.

Martin Bucer Martin Bucer before 1543 had written a derogatory book ‘’On the Jews’’ in 1539, which had caused him to be regarded by the Jews as their chief antagonist among the Protestant Reformers up to 1542. Nothing in his article about this work or about its use in modern times.

Johann Eck He wrote a book against the Jews known as Refutation of a Jew-Book (Ains Juden-buechlins Verlegung), but there is nothing about his antijudaism let alone no mention of the use made of his works in the modern day.

John Calvin mention is made of a discussion of his doctrine of double predestination in a movie “Hardcore” but nothing about the use of his works in the modern day.

Huldrych Zwingli Nothing on any of his writings being used in the modern day

Nostradamus notable exception: the use of his works is noted in the article.

William Farel Nothing about his writings being used in the modern day.

William Shakespeare As you might guess, the information on him is so vast that other articles are referenced that discuss modern use of his work. Luther should be a parallel to Shakespeare in the manner in which his article is set up. We could use the Shakespeare article as a guide in setting up the main Luther article. Shakespeare's article is brief and loaded with internal links. drboisclair 20:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I consider ML to be one of the most influential figures in the history of humanity, on par with Kant, Marx and Paul of Tarsus. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Dave, Humus, I'm glad you are benefitting from this exercise. However, please do not analyze at this stage. If we stop data gathering to weigh all this, then we will be drawn into debating the final form. In other words, the sooner we analyze, the more likely we are to engage emotionally again. What I'm looking for is data on what other articles do. That way, we can consider what the rest of the encyclopedia is doing. Please feel free to add other articles to this list. What I'm looking for is to have you ask: does it consider the significance for the figure it writes about? If so, does it weigh the signficance of the subject's writings? Feel free to include other questions, too... --CTSWyneken 16:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Luther and the Jews in Encyclopedias

Collier's Encyclopedia, Academic American Encyclopedia, World Book Encyclpedia do not mention Luther's views of the Jews at all.

The Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia Vol. 16, 261-264, includes the following words on Luther and the Jews: "he felt burdened by the resurgence of the papacy and by what he preceived as an attempt by the Jews to take advantage of the confusion among Christians and reopen the question of Jesus' messaihship. Apprehensive about his own responsibility for this situation, he wrote a violent polemic against the Jews, as well as polemics against the papacy and the radical wing of the reformers" --CTSWyneken 04:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Americana has the following on the subject: "Luther's later life was fraught with unending controversies with the Catholics and with the radicals in his own camp. He grew more harsh toward the Papists, the Jews, and the "fanatics." 17:859-862.

Encyclopedia Britannica, with the longest article, says the following: "Among his last writings, Against the Anabaptists, Against the Jews, Against the Papacy at Rome, Founded by the Devil, the most violent is the last, coarse and angry, but sitll defiant." Macropedia vol. 23:305-313.

Survey of articles with summaries of sub-articles

The article United States has 30 subarticles, 29 of which have summaries, one of which does not. No quotations are made in these summaries.

The article History of England has 12 subarticles, 12 summaries, in which there is one quotation and one citation.

The article Judaism has 21 subarticles, depending on how you count it, all have some summary, in which there is one citation.

The article Christianity has 2 subarticles, 3 summaries and no quotations or citations in them.

The article Islam has eight subarticles, eight summaries, three quotes from the Quran in the Allah summary and three citations in the demographics summary.

The article Holocaust has ten subarticles, ten summaries and three quotes in two summaries. --CTSWyneken 21:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Scholarship of Richard Marius

Biography

Obituary [1]

Luther (Lippencott, 1974)

Page number where Luther's views on the Jews are discussed: 233-243

Evidence given to support opinion:: None. The book is not documented beyond an extensive bibliography at the end of the work.

Counter arguments cited and addressed: fair representation of other side and reasoned replies to those positions.

Martin Luther: The Christian Between God and Death (Harvard Univ. Press, 1999)

Quote found at: 482

Evidence given to support opinion:: None. This book, unlike his first, is documented extensively, however.

Counter arguments cited and addressed: None to this particular point, although he does cite and fairly address other viewpoints in an earlier chapter.

Notes: Differs with MacCulloch on Luther's responsibility for the Holocaust. "Luther never organized any campaign against the Jews, and, as Heiko Oberman has said, despite the ferocity of his tirades against them he never renounced the notion of coexistence between Jews and Christians. But the fact that Luther's hostility to Jews was not the same as modern anti-Semitism does not excuse it." p. 380

Scholarship of Siemon-Netto

Biographical details

UPI Religion Editor. [2]

Interview with Christianity Today [3]

Vitae [4]

Fabricated Luther

In the Bibliography of Carter Lindberg, The European Reformations Blackwell, 1996, p. 430.

Cited as authority in Mark C. Mattes. Role of Justification in Contemporary Theology Eerdmans, 2004, p. 90, note 20.

Review in First Things [5]--CTSWyneken 22:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Scholarship of Diarmaid MacCulloch

Biography

Professor at Oxford [6][7] [8]

The Reformation: a History

National Review [9]

About.com Agnostism/Atheism group [10]

Page number where quotes are located: 666-667

Evidence given to support opinion:: None

Counter arguments cited and addressed: None

It is more dreary than I thought

Folks, we were going to return to this discussion after a week. I realize it is only a couple of weeks till Christmas so if you are taking a vacation, I understand. Meanwhile I did a little homework. I must confess, the result (follows below) is even more upsetting than I expected. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 12:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

ML's influence on the Holocaust

• Samuel W. Mitcham: Why Hitler?: The Genesis of the Nazi Reich ISBN 0275954854, 1996
  • (p.81) "Martin Luther... has been called the spiritual godfather of Nazism."
• Michael Burleigh : Ethics and Extermination : Reflections on Nazi Genocide
  • (p.172) "[Goetz] Aly and [Susanne] Heim... concluded 'accepting insanity or hatred of the Jews going back to Martin Luther as grounds for the Holocaust is less disturbing than such as coolly thought out justification of genocide'" (referring to Helmut Meinhold)
• James Carroll: Constantine's Sword
  • (p.366) "Any examination of the civilizational roots of the Holocaust must take into account the impact of the Reformation, and of Martin Luther's own attitude..."

Kristallnacht

• Martin Luther 2002 DVD from the Lion TV/PBS Empires: feature "Luther the Villain" (I can provide the sound file upon request - 1.2MB OGG)
• Mark Edwards. Pres. Emeritus, St. Olaf College
  • "... Luther is implicated in the Holocaust, even though he was not a racial antisemite; he was a Christian antisemite, and his anti-Jewish writings are reproduced by the Nazis right on the Kristallnacht... Luther represents the best of the Christian tradition and the worst."
• Michael A. Mullett, U of Lancaster
  • "... Luther's anti-Judaism had crossed over into kind of proto-antisemitism... he's not now opposing just the Jewish religion, but the Jewish people as the bearers of the Jewish religion. He is blaming the Jews for being Jews."

"Die Juden sind unser Unglück"

• Randall L. Bytwerk: Julius Streicher: Nazi Editor of the Notorious Anti-Semitic Newspaper Der Sturmer ISBN 0815411561, 2001
  • (p.65) Quoting Heirich von Treitschke: "Even in the most educated circles... One hears as if from a single mouth: The Jews are our misfortune". Von Treitschke's words, echoing similar comments of Martin Luther three centuries earlier, were to become Julius Streicher's motto, gracing the bottom of nearly every front page of the Sturmer."

Jews have had no more future as Jews

• Heiko Oberman: The Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Age of Renaissance and Reformation, 1984
  • (p.46) "The basis of Luther's anti-Judaism was the conviction that ever since Christ's appearance on earth, the Jews have had no more future as Jews."
• Erwin W. Lutzer: Hitler's Cross: The Revealing Story of How the Cross of Christ Was Used As a Symbol of the Nazi Agenda 1998, ISBN 0802435831
  • (p.137) (A letter from pastor Riechelmann to a newsapaper editor): "We will fight alongside of you and we will not give up until the struggle against all Jewry... had been brought to the victorious end, in the Spirit of Christ and of Martin Luther."

Luthertag

• Richard Steigmann-Gall: The Holy Reich : Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945 ISBN 0521823714, 2003
  • (p.138-139) "Nazis commonly cast themselves as both revolutionary and an extension of the German past: The Luther Day celebrations provided a perfect platform through which to communicate this dual message. The Nazi involvement in the Luther Day was certainly an act of political appropriation, but it would be a mistake to explain it away as a misappropriation or a feigned affection for a historical personality for whom they had no real feeling. As Heiko Oberman points out, "The Nazis did not have to discover or create Luther as a German national reformer - he was already there, rifle at the ready.""' Protestants as well had long made Luther into both a religious revolutionary and nationalist hero, as both a guarantor of German heritage and beacon for Germany's future. During the festivities, a great many people spoke with a rhetoric almost identical to the Nazis'. A typical example was an article in the Chemnitzer Tageblatt, which stated: "The German Volk are united not only in loyalty and love for the Fatherland, but also once more in the old German beliefs of Luther [Lutherglauben]; a new epoch of strong, conscious religious life has dawned in Germany." The leadership of the Protestant League espoused a similar view. Fahrenhorst, who was on the planning committee of the Luthertag, called Luther "the first German spiritual Fuhrer" who spoke to all Germans regardless of clamor confession. In a letter to Hitler, Fahrenhorst reminded him that his "Old Fighters" were mostly Protestants and that it was precisely in the Protestant regions of our Fatherland" in which Nazism found its greatest strength. Promising that the celebration of Luther's birthday would not turn into a confessional affair, Fahrenhorst invited Hitler to become the official patron of the Luthertag. In subsequent correspondence, Fahrenhorst again voiced the notion that reverence for Luther could somehow cross confessional boundaries: "Luther is truly not only the founder of a Christian confession; much more, his ideas had a fruitful impact on all Christianity in Germany." Precisely because of Luther's political as well as religious significance, the Luthertag would serve as a confession both "to church and Volk."
  • (p.185-186) "...official statement issued by seven Lutheran state churches in December 1941, which flatly rejected those "Protestant Jews" who had been at the heart of the doctrinal dispute between Confessing Christians and DC. Fondly recalling Luther's command that Jews should be banished from German lands, the statement went on to claim that 'From Christ's crucifiction to the present day, the Jews have fought against Christianity...'"

ELCA's declaration

• "Lutherans belonging to the Lutheran World Federation and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America feel a special burden in this regard because of certain elements in the legacy of the reformer Martin Luther and the catastrophes, including the Holocaust of the twentieth century, suffered by Jews in places where the Lutheran churches were strongly represented."

Notes

I think a part of the problem is that books/encylopedias, etc. older than 1983 do not mention the problem. So far, I tried to rely on non-Jewish sources. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 12:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Humus! I appreciate the notes and will check the sources to see what we can make of their scholarship. Some names, like Obermann, are respected, so there's hope we might get some actual evidence cited. My time opens up a bit next week to New Years.' I'll also find the date of the above Encyclopedias. Almost all are no older than the 1990s, I believe.

Would you do me a favor and look for in the Wiki rules to subarticles and summaries? I'd like to have quotes from them in front of us when we begin to discuss what to do with this section. I haven't stumbled on to them yet.

I understand that Hanukkah begins also December 25th this year. Have a joyful celebration this year! --CTSWyneken 16:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, all the best to you and yours as well.

As I said earlier, the WP:RULES is our only guide and if there are special rules for summaries, I'd like to know them. Here are a couple more quotes as if we need more. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 09:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• William L. Shirer: Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich (ISBN 0671728687, 1990)
  • (p.236) "It is difficult to understand the behavior of most German Protestants in the first Nazi years unless one is aware of two things: their history and the influence of Martin Luther. The great founder of Protestantism was both a passionate anti-Semite and a ferocious believer in absolute obedience to political authority. He wanted Germany rid of the Jews and when they were sent away he advised that they be deprived of "all their cash and jewels and silver and gold" and, furthermore, "that their synagogues or schools be set on fire, that their houses be broken up and destroyed... and they be put under a roof or stable, like the gypsies... in misery and captivity as they incessantly lament and complain to God about us" - advice that was literally followed four centuries later by Hitler, Goering and Himmler." (the footnote disclaims that the author is a Protestant)

• The Holocaust : Origins, Implementation and Aftermath (ISBN 0415150361, 2000, edited by Omer Bartov) - Raul Hilberg: The destruction of the European Jews
  • (p.31) "The picture of the Jew we encounter in Nazi propaganda and Nazi correspondence had been drawn several hundred years before. Martin Luther had already sketched the main outlines of that portrait, and the Nazis, in their time, had little to add to it. We shall look here at a few excerpts from Luther's book About the Jews and Their Lies. In doing so, let it be stressed that Luther's ideas were shared by others in his century, and that the mode of his expression was the style of his times. His work is cited here only because he was a towering figure in the development of German thought, and the writing of such a man is not to be forgotten in the unearthing of so crucial a conceptualization as this. Luther's treatise about the Jews was addressed to the public directly, and, in that pouring recital, sentences descended upon the audience in a veritable cascade. Thus the passage:

Herewith you can readily see how they understand and obey the fifth commendment of God, namely, that they are thirsty bloodhounds and murderers of all Christendom, with full intent, now for more than fourteen hundred years, and indeed they were often burned to death upon the accusation that they had poisoned water and wells, stolen children, and torn and hacked them apart, in order to cool their temper secretly with Christian blood."

Appearance problem with article

We need technical assistance to help the article as it appears. There is an enormous space that appears after the caption "Luther's early life". As you can see I have been trying different formatting changes without changing the text, but to no avail. There is still a large space that occurs after "Luther's early life" caption. Please help! drboisclair 23:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I have made the first portrait, the coat of arms, and the picture of Luther's birthplace smaller, and that has seemed to help the "space" or lacuna problem after the first caption: "Luther's early life"; however, this may not be acceptable, so assistance on this would be appreciated. drboisclair 00:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess that it is back to normal now. Maybe it was a glitch in my computer. drboisclair 00:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Streamlining, Checking Redux

Does anyone mind if I execute the edits listed under the section labeled Streamlining... above? --CTSWyneken 10:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no objections. drboisclair 16:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Martin Luther: Humanist?

I saw that somebody listed Martin Luther under the category "Humanists." Was Martin Luther a Humanist? I don't think so. Comments? -- Jbull 22:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Some argue yes, others no. Early on, Luther adopted a lot of humanist (in the sixteenth century sense) philosophy. He came to part company with many, who didn't want to go as far as he did and who had a anthropocentric view of life, while his view was firmly theocentric. Does that help? --CTSWyneken 03:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Can a theocentric leader with no notable interest in non-religious ethics or pre-Christian philosophy really be considered a Renaissance humanist? Certainly Luther was an admirer of Erasmus' early work, which attacked the Catholic Church's rituals and peasant superstition, but I am not aware of Luther going beyond that to an overt humanism. In fact, Luther's faith in personal divine inspiration and his rigid theological interpretations are almost anti-humanist, aren't they? -- Jbull 03:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Not in the 16th Century sense of the term. For the most part, early Humanists had a firm belief in "ad fontes," return to the sources. In religious matters, they gravitated to Luther's emphasis on the return to Scripture. The came to respect such sourses as revealing God's will. It is the age of the Enlightenment with its rationalist creed to reject all that did not make sense to them, that began a rejection of theocentrism. --CTSWyneken 00:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact that 16th century humanists were attracted to Luther's interpretation of scripture does not mean that Luther was himself a humanist, does it? --Jbull 01:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it demonstrates that Luther's theology was not anti-16th century German humanism. What makes Luther, at least early on, a humanist of this sort was that he employed humanist methods, gave greater respect to common people, spoke much of the dignity of individuals, spoke like a humanist, acted like one, used their tools, etc. Much of this remained in common with them, even thougth he went further than they did in many respects. Without study, I can't make the argument much better; it's been awhile since I visited this question.

What makes you think he wasn't a humanist? --CTSWyneken 16:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess I'm using a stricter definition of humanist than you are. Luther did go back to Greek and Latin sources in his translations of the Bible, which I admit is in line with the humanist ad fontes ethos. But I thought that huanists also showed an affinity for classical literature and philosphy, embraced intellectual freedom and focused on maximizing human happiness rather than the hereafter. The doctrinare, intolerant, provincial Luther showed none of these traits. You cite his "greater respect to common people." Greater than what? Greater respect how? When did Luther speak of the dignity of individuals outside of his polemics against the Roman Catholic Church's hierarchy? How did he act like a humanist? Besides his translations of the Bible, what Humanist tools did he use? --Jbull 22:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Luther also showed quite an affinity for classical literature, Roman, Greek and Christian. Early on, he also expressed an appreciation of intellectual freedom. While you have a right to your opinion, I see Luther quite a bit differently than "doctrinare, intolerant and provincial" Probably the quickest way to demonstrate this is to refer you to Luther's words themselves: especially "Freedom of a Christian," "to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation," and "A Prelude on the Babylonian Captivity of the Church." I also can recommend to you several books on the subject of Luther and Humanism, if you'd like. --CTSWyneken 02:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The young Luther may have appreciated intellectual freedom (especially when he was challenging the prevailing orthodoxy himself), but he also supported the execution of blasphemers and "heretics" who disagreed with him and encouraged the banning of books like Esmer's translation of the Bible. Far from supporting intellectual inquiry, Luther held that "Reason is the whore of the devil." Though he came to prominence at the same time as scholars like Erasmus and More who studied classical literature, I have seen no evidence that Luther did the same.

Luther was a powerful advocate and a brilliant theologian, but he was no supporter of free speech. Recommendations of books on the subject of Luther as a Humanist would be welcome. Thank you. -- Jbull 03:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll look for a few for you. Re: Emser -- Luther charged that the man had more or less reprinted Luther's Bible, altering only the places that departed from Papal orthodoxy, changed the glosses and reprinted it under his own name. If I thought that to be true of a book I wrote, I'd want it burned, too.

On the execution of heretics, etc. note that over the top rhetoric was a part of 16th century debate. Most of Luther's opponents had language that called for the same. Unlike Luther, some actually carried it out. No doubt Luther himself would be burned at the stake, had a Papal emissary gotten hands on him.

On "Reason is the whore" line, you can find also statements of highest praise for reason in Luther. Just about every word he wrote or said was written down, quoted and published during his life time. To understand what he was trying to say and the point his students took from it, you need to go beyond the rhetoric.--CTSWyneken 11:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Luther and Humanism Works

Spitz, Lewis William, 1922- Luther and German humanism. Aldershot, Great Britain ; Brookfield, Vt., USA : Variorum, 1996.

Junghans, Helmar. Der junge Luther und die Humanisten. Göttingen : Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985.

Tracy, James D."Humanism and the Reformation" in Reformation Europe : a guide to research St. Louis : Center for Reformation Research, c1982.

Grossmann, Maria. Humanism in Wittenberg, 1485-1517 Nieuwkoop : De Graaf, 1975.--CTSWyneken 14:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the recommendations. -- Jbull 15:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Admin warning

No one is allowed to censor Wikipedia. Do not remove "scatological quotes" from the article on the grounds that modern readers wouldn t understand the context. If these quotes prove that Luther was a vulgarian, so be it.

Wikipedia should not endorse or opposed any Point Of View, so we should balance these vulgarisms with scholarly analysys which denies that Luther was a vulgarian, if that's the problem.

And all the other lengthy policy quotes are not necessary. I've been here 4 years, I know the policies fairly well by now. Just follow them, and help each other make an accurate and neutral article, please. Uncle Ed 23:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you are talking about. Could you please give an example?

As far as I know, no one has suggested that Luther was not vulgar. The issue at hand is summarizing a sub-article on Luther's attitude towards the Jews. The goal is to keep it short in the main article and expand in the subarticle with all points of view.

It is exactly to write a balanced, accurate and NPOV article that we are gathering the information above. While you may be familar with all the policies, some of us are not. Having extracts from them will help when we turn to the matter of writing well. Is that against policy? --CTSWyneken 01:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Admin warning unheeded Censorship Continues

Working as a team, censorship by CTSWyneken, Drboisclair, StanZegel continues with increasing boldness. What can be done to limit this conduct? Repeated misconduct has been documented. For example, here. [[11]]. They even stalk me to ensure their censoring is complete. For example, here. Whitewashing when they entirely delete the example of historical whitewashing given by Dr. Robert Michael who is a 1997 recipient of the American Historical Association's James Harvey Robinson Prize for the "most outstanding contribution to the teaching and learning of history" [[12]].

favor

I have just added a new section to Judaism and Christianity on "love." It is just a stub of a section, hopefully others will add more about the Jewish notion. But I know that my characterization of the Christian notion is at best wildly incomplete. Perhaps among the contributors to this page there are some who could go over it and add whatever additional material, detail, nuance, explanation they think necessary. I am very concerned about not misrepresenting, or doing justice to, the Christian point of view. I also added a long quote from Maimonides to the section on Heaven and Hell; in fact, I did a rewrite a week or two ago. I know the Jewish position is well-represented but again I am concerned that in the process the Christian view may appear misrepresented or at least underrepresented. So, I'd be grateful if someone checked and made sure the Christian view(s) are accurately and sufficiently represented. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, SL. I'll take a look if time permits. (something it doesn't often do in December!) --CTSWyneken 11:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I want to make sure the article is NPOV compliant. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

At this moment, it is admirably so. --CTSWyneken 19:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Luther and Salvation by Grace

"Luther began to teach that salvation is completely a gift of God's grace through Christ received by faith."

Last time I looked, the Catholic Church taught "that salvation is completely a gift of God's grace through Christ received by faith" too.

...?

To the anonymous commentator. It would be helpful if you would sign your contributions. Also, could you provide a quotation from the 16th Century church that demonstrates that Luther's opponents taught this? --CTSWyneken 21:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Not to speak for the anonymous commentator, but didn't the Council of Trent deal with the issues of grace and justification in 1547, in Canon I of its Sixth Session?

CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

Jbull 22:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, the infamous Canons of the Sixth Session. The later Canons negate that it is by grace (given) through Christ received by faith:

CANON XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.

This is not the only one which is antithetical to the claim of salvation "by grace, (received) through faith (given) for Christ's sake". -- EmperorBMA|話す 09:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Canon XII was just defining "justifying faith," to make it clear that mere confidence that one was justified was not sufficient, as discussed further in Chapter IX of the Sixth Session:

But neither is this to be asserted,-that they who are truly justified must needs, without any doubting whatever, settle within themselves that they are justified, and that no one is absolved from sins and justified, but he that believes for certain that he is absolved and justified; and that absolution and justification are effected by this faith alone: as though whoso has not this belief, doubts of the promises of God, and of the efficacy of the death and resurrection of Christ. For even as no pious person ought to doubt of the mercy of God, of the merit of Christ, and of the virtue and efficacy of the sacraments, even so each one, when he regards himself, and his own weakness and indisposition, may have fear and apprehension touching his own grace; seeing that no one can know with a certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God.

A more thorough treatment of faith and justification is given in Chapter VIII of the Sixth Session:

And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.

Jbull 17:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

A distinction can still be viewed. From Luther's definition of faith:

Faith is not what some people think it is. Their human dream is a delusion. Because they observe that faith is not followed by good works or a better life, they fall into error, even though they speak and hear much about faith. "Faith is not enough," they say, "You must do good works, you must be pious to be saved." They think that, when you hear the gospel, you start working, creating by your own strength a thankful heart which says, "I believe." That is what they think true faith is. But, because this is a human idea, a dream, the heart never learns anything from it, so it does nothing and reform doesn't come from this `faith,' either.

Instead, faith is God's work in us, that changes us and gives new birth from God. (John 1:13). It kills the Old Adam and makes us completely different people. It changes our hearts, our spirits, our thoughts and all our powers. It brings the Holy Spirit with it. Yes, it is a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn't stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever. He stumbles around and looks for faith and good works, even though he does not know what faith or good works are. Yet he gossips and chatters about faith and good works with many words.

Faith is a living, bold trust in God's grace, so certain of God's favor that it would risk death a thousand times trusting in it. Such confidence and knowledge of God's grace makes you happy, joyful and bold in your relationship to God and all creatures. The Holy Spirit makes this happen through faith. Because of it, you freely, willingly and joyfully do good to everyone, serve everyone, suffer all kinds of things, love and praise the God who has shown you such grace. Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire! Therefore, watch out for your own false ideas and guard against good-for-nothing gossips, who think they're smart enough to define faith and works, but really are the greatest of fools. Ask God to work faith in you, or you will remain forever without faith, no matter what you wish, say or can do.

If one is to trust in God's grace, God's grace cannot be removed. When one sins, it is not grace, but faith which is damaged. If it is grace which provides faith and grace which works salvation in man, then God cannot remove grace, but rather it is faith which man removes from himself. Faith is upheld and strengthened by the means of grace of the Word and Sacrament, means by which faith receives God's grace. Therefore, returning to the original quote, Luther teaches salvation is completely a gift of God's grace through Christ received by faith. The above Canons can be roughly equated to saying "you can be saved by grace through Christ by faith, but you can't know about it, even if you have faith". That is expressly contradictory to saying that salvation is by grace through faith completely because it claims "you can't be sure..." Doubt cannot be construed as faith, nor trust in God's unction grace. -- EmperorBMA|話す 19:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

There are a few observations I'd like to make. First of all, is the article is about Luther, and, in this case, what he taught, not directly about what the Catholic Church teaches today, or what it taught at the Council of Trent, although it is close to his lifetime.

I'd have to review the scholarly literature and primary resources again, so correct me if I'm wrong. What I've understood is that the Roman Church taught that salvation comes to those who combine faith and works. For Luther, it comes from faith alone, which holds on to God's grace alone for the sake of Christ's merit alone. The conflict between these views is why there was an irrepairable breech between Luther and Rome. --CTSWyneken 20:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

CTSWyenken--I only cited Trent to provide a 16th Century source of Catholic doctrine as you asked for earlier. (Though, of course, Trent was a reaction to Luther.) I defer to your description of Luther's beliefs.--Jbull 20:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Jbull. There was no offense taken here. I hope that my comments were taken as simply informational, not even defensive, really. I've been working on getting my tone of voice into these posts, but all I get is a clack with I push the keys! 8-) --CTSWyneken 01:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

CTSWyenken--I took your comments as you being helpful and informational, as you have been consistently. Merry Christmas!--Jbull 17:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Appreciation for Humus edits

I want to express my appreciation for the edits of the Luther and the Jews paragraph on the part of user:Humus_sapiens. It is very helpful. drboisclair 21:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Need for the removal of the subcategory:Revolutionaries

Luther was not a political revolutionary. I believe that including him in this subcategory is misleading and should be removed, and I have done it. Labeling Luther a "revolutionary" betrays a cursory knowledge of him and his writings. drboisclair 13:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe Luther was a revolutionary in the best sense of that term. If every self-styled revolutionary had Luther's success, they'd be thrilled! Luther revolutionized the Church and the approach Christians should take to Scripture. While his "revolution" (granted, "reformation" is indeed the better word) was first theological, and only secondarily (or maybe peripherally) political, he certain revolutionized the Church and the world, like few others in all of history. I will defer to my Lutheran brethren, but I really think that Luther was a great revolutionary...again, in the best, truest sense of the word. KHM03 15:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Would it be possible to establish a Reformer catagory? --CTSWyneken 15:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Protestant Reformers...Luther's already there. KHM03 16:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Copyright of Luther's Works Topic Updated

Fellow editors:

I've put all the current information on the copyright of Martin's Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies into the copyright topic page. For future reference, I'll put anything new I discover there and will answer questions about the status of this and other works at that location. --CTSWyneken 16:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Where does Luther's statement that all Jews should be murdered go in the article?

"We are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them." On the Jews and Their Lies.Doright 20:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Verified. 47:267. --CTSWyneken 01:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

"...and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin)." Is this an example of Blood libel against Jews?--Jbull 01:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Luther has bought into these false charges and assumes them as fact here. This is one of many examples in this book where Luther did not rise above his times, as many of us which he had. --CTSWyneken 12:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• (a) What's the original German? (b) If he said "slay", we use "slay" or a synonym. "Murdered" (though accurate) is an interpretation. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Page number please. Better yet, even if the quote is accurate, produce book and page number of a scholar who views this as Luther seriously recommending genocide. Until then, no change. --CTSWyneken 20:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• • The quote is cut and pasted from the universally cited english language translation published in the universally referenced Vol of "Luther's Works," which you can link to here [[13]]and read for yourself. One of the links even provides very informative footnotes from the translator. Hope this helps. Just cut and paste the quote into a search on the page and you can get the page number if you want it. Regards, Doright 21:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Luthers program for the Jews also calls for "pain of death." What is the synonym for that? It also calls for "pain of loss of life and limb." What is the synonym here. At some point a synonym becomes a euphemism. It must be called murder, i.e., killing motivated by malice. It is clear Luther is at a minimum expressing malice and it is equally clear his statment is calling for killing. IMHO, the only was to justifiy not calling it murder is to take the position that the call for killing is justifiable homicide. Regards,Doright 21:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Below is another place you find Luther calling for the murder of Jews. It follows the syllogism: All thieves and usurers should be executed by hanging. All Jews are thieves and usurers.Therefore, all Jews should be killed.

"They are nothing but thieves and robbers who daily eat no morsel and wear no thread of clothing which they have not stolen and pilfered from us by means of their accursed usury. . Thus they live from day to day, together with wife and child, by theft and robbery, as arch-thieves and robbers, in the most impenitent security. For a usurer is an arch-thief and a robber who should rightly be hanged on the gallows seven times higher than other thieves."

On the Jews and Their Lies. Also,check out [[14]]Doright 21:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Where does he say, "murder"? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Jpgordon, Since you can now see for yourself that I have accurately quoted the Luther source, you do seem to agree that the quotes call for the killing of Jews. Am I correct in this? I guess your point of not addressing my above reply is that maybe you're saying it is proper to use the term murder, only if one's calls for the killing of innocent people is accompanied by their explicit use of the term "murder." Is that correct? Do you agree that the quote calls for the "slaying" or killing of innocent people?Doright 22:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

This issue is not whether or not Luther's words in this tract (and others on the Peasant rebellion, the Turks, the Pope and his supporters, the Anabaptists. etc.) are harsh, vile, venomous and worthy of condemnation. This has been said by all parties. In fact, it is in the carefully negotiated summary/intro.

The question is whether he said the words quoted above and if he did, if he was recommending the murder of all Jews. Since a previous citation from these infringing sites (See copyright topic page) inaccurately transcribed the translation of Martin Bertram, (using race instead of Bertram's word people), the texts cannot be trusted. I will not use them. Until I can check the physical printing next week, therefore, I will not accept it as accurate. If it proves accurate, I will pull the German version and check the original.

Assuming for the moment that Luther did write these words, is he actually recommending genocide or using hyperbole, which he does often throughout his writings? If he is, then why is it not in his infamous eigth point plan?

In summary, if the quote proves accurate, I'll support it in the body of the Martin Luther and the Jews article. Until a fully cited quote from a scholar is produced that suggests or even charges that Luther was recommending the murder of all Jews, I will view it as POV. In all the reading I've had to do in Luther scholarship on this subject, I've not seen a single claim to that effect. --CTSWyneken 21:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

CTSWyneken, You say, "... in Luther scholarship on this subject, I've not seen a single claim to that effect." Really? In fact you, working as a team with Drboisclair, and StanZegel you have censorded numerous times exactly that scholarly claim cited here from "Luther's murderous program for the Jews." [[15]]. It says, "Many have denied that Luther advocated death for Jews. These people have NOT read "The Jews and Their Lies." [2]"

As requested here is a scholar who views this as Luther seriously recommending mass murder of Jews. Here are Dr Michael’s impeccable credentials [[16]] Dr. Michael says Luther “urged mass murder of Jews.” The below material is directly quoted from Dr. Michael where he repeatedly says “Luther clearly stated that all Jews should be murdered.”

“In "On the Jews and Their Lies," Luther clearly stated that all Jews should be murdered. (emphasis added) "We are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them." Hans Hillerbrand, "Martin Luther and the Jews," in James Charlesworth, ed., Jews and Christians (New York 1990), 132.

Luther implored the German princes to follow a cruel policy, actually carried out four hundred years later by a modern German "prince," Adolf Hitler. Both Luther and Hitler advocated the destruction of Jewish religious culture, the abrogation of legal protection, expropriation, forced labor, and expulsion of the politically defenseless Jews. Luther also urged mass murder of Jews.” (emphasis added)

Luther's program for the Jews asked the princes three times to kill Jews who resisted. (emphasis added) His third and fourth steps mention "pain of death" and "pain of loss of life and limb." His fifth step advises the authorities to deprive the Jews of safe passage once they have left their ghettos. Another passage of "On the Jews and Their Lies" indicates that Luther saw the necessity of killing at least some of the Jews: "I wish and I ask that our rulers who have Jewish subjects exercise a sharp mercy toward these wretched people . . .. They must act like a good physician who, when gangrene has set in, proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone, and marrow. Such a procedure must also be followed in this instance. Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them, as Moses did in the wilderness, slaying three thousand lest the whole people perish. [They are a] people possessed . . .." “

“A sermon of 1539 argued that "I cannot convert the Jews. Our Lord Jesus Christ did not succeed in doing it. But I can stop up their mouths so that they will have to lie upon the ground." The language is ambiguous, but it implies a death threat. The imprecise language allowed people of good will to believe that outright murder was not being proposed, while at the same time this kind of language permitted them to "speak about the unspeakable," the mass murder of Jews.” (emphasis added)

ref: Martin Luther. Dr. Robert Michael, h-antisemitism 25 May 1994.Doright 02:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yawn. Have you nothing better to do with your time? The article is clear on Luther's views; this dead horse you continue to flog is starting to go to pieces. Argue that the language is too strong or too weak --- just keep it concise, and keep it an argument. -Rekleov 02:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I will check Dr. Michael's published article at the head of this quote list when I get into the library Monday. The H-Antisemitism post, however, is not a juried forum. It is an email list. In fact, I had a civil conversation with Dr. Michael on that very list on this topic about 12 years ago. You are, of course, free to quote me or the other one or two people on that forum that do not agree with his opinion on that subject. But then again, it is not a juried, scholarly publication, just a conversation among scholars. --CTSWyneken 03:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Our library doesn't have a copy. I'll send for one via interlibrary loan. --CTSWyneken 00:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Rupp, On the Jews... and "Murder All Jews"

Gordon Rupp in Martin Luther: Hitler's Cause -- or Cure? London: Lutterworth Press, 1945, pp. 78-79, translates the following passages from On the Jews...:

"We must indeed with prayer and the fear of God before our eyes, exercise a sharp compassion towards them and seek to save some of them from the flames. Avenge ourselves we dare not. Vengence a thousand times more than we can wish them is theirs already."

and

"Forbid them the buisness of usury and take from them all the silver and gold they have stolen and robbed as a result of this practice and use it for the maintenance of truly converted Jews and the old and infirm among them."

It appears, if the above "slay" quote is accurate, that it is vile, hyperbolic rhetoric and not a recommended course of action. Although I find these words shameful in the words of a reformer, they are not a call to genocide. --CTSWyneken 22:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• You are obviously merely stating your POV. Where does Gordon Rupp say, "it is not a recommended course of action?" I've already provided above the reference to the Historical Association Award winning scholar that says you are wrong. And in fact riducules such an absurdity, by saying anyone that maintains your position has not even done the reading.Doright 02:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Please note the words above are not Rupp's but Luther's. In this case it is Rupp's translation.

As for Rupp's conclusions:

Luther's antagonism to the Jews was poles apart from the Nazi doctrine of "Race"."

"Luther is a small chapter in the large volume of Christian inhumanities toward the Jewish people." (Rupp, p. 75)

"But, as the reader will remember, the fighting of a civil war does not equal beheading of Anabaptists, nor does that equal the exile of Jews, which Luther demanded. Where is the evidence that Luther demanded a pogrom or wholesale executions?" (Rupp, p. 76)

"Luther was not recommending personal violence." (Rupp, pp. 78-79).

"It all falls very far short of the Nazi anti-semitism with its doctrine of Race, with its mass extermination." (Rupp, p. 79)

So, therefore, the consensus built summary/intro should stay as is. If I can verify the quote that started this current flurry, I am content to let it appear on the Martin Luther and the Jews page. --CTSWyneken 03:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Brecht on On the Jews and Murder All Jews

Martin Brecht, in his magesterial three volume biography Martin Luther tr. James Schaaf. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993, 3:341-346, disagrees with Dr. Michael. Brecht spends five pages summarizing and analyzing On the Jews He does not mention the passage from On the Jews quoted above. He does, however, say: "What Luther really intended was the expulsion of the Jews, not their deaths." (p. 344)--CTSWyneken 11:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

According to Luther scholars like my own professor Dr. Norman Nagel: Brecht has "read Luther through" and one can rely on Brecht for reliable information. Brecht is very critical of Luther and his work "Von den Juden und Ihr Luegen", but he is accurate. Brecht does not justify or defend this work by any means. drboisclair 15:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Graham Noble on On the Jews and Murder All Jews

Graham Noble. "Martin Luther and German Anti-Semitism." History Review (2002) no. 42:1-2.

No matter that [Luther] sought, in his own terms, to save the Jews not to exterminate them, that he had no notion of the pseudo-scientific eugenics which underpinned Nazi anti-Semitism, or that he depreciated physical violence against them -- Martin Luther offered in his writings a historical and intellectual justification for the Holocaust, which the Nazis took pains to exploit." p. 2.

--CTSWyneken 23:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed edits: Point well taken

Luther's anti-Jewish rhetoric and doctrines are often described as "anti-Semitic"^[17] or "anti-Judaism"^[18]. Luther expected that a clear and direct presentation of the Christian gospel to the Jews would convert them, but when his efforts to persuade the Jews to accept Christ as the Messiah failed, he became embittered and recommended harsh persecution of the Jews within the German territories. Four centuries later, the Nazis, though their philosophical roots were primarily pagan, cited his pamphlet On the Jews and Their Lies (1543) to justify their attempts at genocide. Since the 1980s, numerous Lutheran church bodies and organizations have formally disassociated themselves from these writings and the views concerning Jews held therein.

Find below my reasons for these proposed changes (at least some of them). Reasons for the other, small changes should be obvious. If not, I will be happy to give them.

• abandon the faith of their fathers is clearly a POV statement, as Luther would certainly not have argued that that is what he was hoping they would do; quite the reverse, really, as he saw Jesus as the fulfillment of their faith.
• though their philosophical roots were primarily pagan: this is a point that must be made when Godwin's Law comes into play, especially in this context. They wanted no part of Luther's theology, or of the theological underpinnings of his arguments vs. the Jews in Germany; rather, they only wanted the exterior anti-Jewish support.
• begun a process, etc.: odd, odd wording. Is there an official process for this to be done? -Rekleov 23:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing your proposals here to be discussed. I am happy with the language as it was when we finished the collaborative edit, but have no problem with the adjustments, save one. Since we're supposed to be neutral, and not all people accept Jesus as the Christ, I would change the word "Christ" for the name "Jesus." Others may have concerns, though, so I'd like to hear them out. --CTSWyneken 01:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Looking at it again, I think an even better way to balance the first statement would be to say --- content-wise, and not as a final statement --- "when his efforts to persuade the Jews to accept Jesus as the Messiah failed, efforts the Jewish population understood as a call for them to abandon the faith of their fathers". Just a thought. -Rekleov 01:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"Abandon the faith of their fathers" is clearly a NPOV way of describing it; he wanted them to abandon the faith of their fathers, and adopt Christianity. He wasn't claiming that Christianity was the faith of their fathers, was he? As for "though their philosophical roots were primarily pagan", this is a brief summary, and contains enough apologetics for Luther already. Finally, "numerous" is an exaggeration - as far as I can tell there are three. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not NPOV --- that's why I suggested changing it in the first place. From Luther's POV, they would not be abandoning "the faith of their fathers", but having that faith come to completion, as they would see that the messiah they were still looking for had already come. Thus one side saw it as a call for abandonment, while the other saw it as a call for acceptance. Declaring either of these as NPOV would, thus, be mistaken. To establish NPOV in this case is to recognize that each side had a wildly differing view of the matter at question. -Rekleov 03:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, each side had a wildly different POV; perhaps Luther thought they would be "completed" (though in reality this is a 20th century concept), and the Jews thought they were being asked to idol-worship. Nevertheless, Wikipedia cannot ignore reality; whatever Luther thought, the fact was he wanted them to convert from Judaism to Christianity, and that fact is perfectly NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Quote

Stan, you're replacing a direct, cited quote with a paraphrase of your own, which is odd. Do you have anything against the quote? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Slim, there has been careful negotiation in good faith amongst editors for several weeks on the precise wording here, which is currently acceptable to both sides. Regardless of whether I think I could improve it, I wouldn't without first submitting the proposed change on the talk page and getting concensus. I simply reverted whatever-it-was-you-changed back to the "treaty language" so that the whole issue does not need to be dealt with again. Perhaps your change was already suggested and declined during the negotiations, I don't know, but I suggest that if it wasn't, you first place it on the talk page and get a concensus before making any change to this area. It is a minefield.--StanZegel (talk) 03:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Stan, thanks for your response, but I'm not party to any prior agreement. It's always better to quote than to paraphrase when the issue is in dispute, and the quote is relevant and cited, and should therefore be allowed to stay. See WP:V. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Slim, I'm sure that those who are more active in this area will see this and take note of your thoughts and consider them. I don't know what the quote was (as I said, I'm simply reverting everything to the treaty language) but if it involved a translation or nuance, direct quotations may be misleading without larger context around them. Perhaps that is why the negotiators agreed on the language they did. I'm not going to try to unilaterally override their concensus, and I'm sure you wouldn't want to disrupt the harmonious cooperation of opposing scholars either. It would be best if you are the one to revert your change back to the treaty language while your change is being considered. --StanZegel (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Stan, I just arrived here so I know nothing about any "treaty language." This is a wiki. All I saw was you trying to insert that he "recommended harsh persecution" instead of that he "wrote that Christians were 'at fault in not slaying' Jews," which is somewhat stronger than "recommend[ing] harsh persecution." It's important not to insert your own words for his.

However, if you have doubts about the accuracy of the quote, that is another matter. Do you? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Slim, if you want to take the attitude that you can edit away the language that those who work on this page almost full time have carefully crafted, and you are aware of the fact that the language has been reached as concensus but choose to ignore their cooperation and substitute your own words, then you must not take offense if your changes are summarily reverted to the community concensus. I am not one of those who spends most of his time working on this page, but I am respectful of those who do and would not presume to change their work and will help preserve it against vandalism. As to the specific quote, I think what you have tried to substitute is a POV out-of-context quotation. That is why the others have settled upon the wording they have. Please give them the respect you would like to receive. If you want to see a change, discuss it with the community first. They are reasonable in seeking NPOV. In the meanwhile, please demonstrate your good faith by reverting your edit. --StanZegel (talk) 04:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I can only repeat: if you have a specific reason to doubt the accuracy of the quote (perhaps due to translation or context), please say (but be specific), but otherwise a quote from Martin Luther is clearly more appropriate than your own paraphrasing, no matter how many editors agree with it. We have to edit within policy, and that is not negotiable. See WP:V and WP:NOR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is a nice example of the Luther "consensus" building thatStanZegel refers to. It is copied from here.[[19]]

"Yes, it is a problem, and I think the best way to deal with these high school kids with such bad attitudes is to ignore and not respond to them. Perhaps in a few years they may acquire some maturity, but in the meanwhile they are not worth the time to explain why their edits are reverted and their baiting is ignored. We all have more valuable things to do than allow ourselves to be held hostage by typo terrorists. --StanZegel (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)"

Doright 06:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Slim, you may not be aware that the person who invited you in to this matter is an editor (a sockpuppet for a banned editor, I believe) who has made a career out of insulting others in this area and insists upon his way at all times. He has a POV to push and insists upon it in inappropriate places. I think you would be best advised to read through all the talk pages before further involvement. You may conclude you are being used. --StanZegel (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

---

the item below was added anonymously by User:Doright:

Here is a nice example of the Luther "consensus" building thatStanZegel refers to. It is copied from here.[[20]]

"Yes, it is a problem, and I think the best way to deal with these high school kids with such bad attitudes is to ignore and not respond to them. Perhaps in a few years they may acquire some maturity, but in the meanwhile they are not worth the time to explain why their edits are reverted and their baiting is ignored. We all have more valuable things to do than allow ourselves to be held hostage by typo terrorists. --StanZegel (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)"

=== see related Luther censorship issue and more ad hominem attacks here === [[21]]Doright 08:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The only one that is making ad hominem attacks here is one virtually anonymous qui est benefactor? drboisclair 08:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

English Language Translations

• Luther, Martin. On the Jews and Their Lies, 1543, Translated by Martin H. Bertram. Found in the hard cover edition of "Luther's Works," Volume 47, pages 137-306, published by Fortress Press/Philadelphia. Complete text plus includes footnotes that may be of significant scholarly interest. [22]
• Luther, Martin. On the Jews and Their Lies, 1543, Translated by Martin H. Bertram. The Internet Medieval Sourcebook. Complete text. [23]

These editors repeatly delete links to these important sources

StanZegel says "sockpuppet for a banned editor"

This certainly cannot be what wikipedia is about: ad hominem attacks of "sockpuppet for a banned editor?" Of course no evidence accompanies this slander. It is a shameful display. Please stick to the merits of the argument. First I'm labeled a Jew with a vendetta against Luther, now I'm labeled a sock puppet. These bullying tactics are highly corrosive.Doright 08:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

However, since you raise the issue of a POV agenda, I offer the below gems.

I agree that the Jews should learn Christian charity: forgiveness and not consuming hatred. Yes, insults may have been given, injustices may been done, but that happens to everybody. Get over it! Get on with life! Competitive Victimhood is so unbecoming. --StanZegel (talk) 10:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

copied from drboisclair 10:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC) on :[[24]]

Perhaps what should be done is get rid of Against the Jews and their Lies while leaving the historical notice that it was mean and ill-tempered. No one knows the vicious blasphemy that prompted Luther's book. I guess Luther over reacted because He was a deeply religious man. The Jews must learn to forgive. There was an interesting play in the 60s called something like The Man in the Glass Booth about the trial of a Holocaust perpetrator. The man was not a Nazi or a Holocaust perpetrator at all: he had one of those concentration camp numbers tatooed on his arm. He was a Jew, who was consumed with his hatred.

I believe that we should keep the title page of Against the Jews and their Lies out of the article.

Dave, as I look more into this, and read the summary of the 1543 pamphlet, I cannot help but see the parallels in those recommended actions in context with those done against the Palastinians since 1948. I guess it matters whose ox is being gored. --StanZegel (talk) 11:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

You are so right about this. It had even been discussed in Israel about deporting all of the Palestinians out of the region. I remember my professor Dr. Erich Kiehl, who spent many years in the Holy Land, who said that the Israelis should not have been simply given the land of others, namely the Palestinians. Both must seek to coexist. Thank you for your even temperedness and editorial genius. drboisclair 11:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

copied from --CTSWyneken 02:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC) on [[25]]

It is proving very difficult, since I'm the sole Lutheran voice here at the moment.

copied from --CTSWyneken on [[26]]

Thanks for the Luther Page Revert

copied from [[27]] Admin tells Drboisclair Do not turn this into a Jewish versus Lutheran thing. What matters is Wikipedia policies and our compliance with them: NOR, NPOV, and accurate articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC) A couple more gems:

there is a difference between antisemitism and antijudaism: the arabs, too, are semites.--StanZegel (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

As pointed out by other editors Anti-Semitism comprises prejudice not only against Jewish people but also against other "Semites" like the Arabs. IMHO, drboisclair 17:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC))

I believe that all are entitled to their POV. But, bad behavior like slander, stalking and reverting edits without comment and censorship does not make for good scholarship.Doright 08:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This page is for the discussion of material that should be in this article not to level charges. Exception should be taken to this blatant ad hominem attack. Please, stop it. drboisclair 09:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No Lutherans here

I was concerned about a statement from someone above about editing as a Lutheran. I hope that we stick to Jimbo's philosophy that: "We don't act in Wikipedia as a Democrat, a Republican, a pro-Lifer, a pro-Choicer, or whatever. Here we are Wikipedians" and "For me, when I enter Wikipedia, I try to leave my personal politics at the door. I try to leave my personal opinions about religion, etc. at the door. Here, I am a Wikipedian. And this inspires in me a feeling of serious quiet thoughtful reflection ... Outside, I may be an advocate. But here, I am a Wikipedian." [28]

It means we stick to policy, use good sources, quote them when the point is a contentious one, write in an encyclopedic, educated tone, and don't introduce our own arguments or opinions. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

If there is something wrong with the quote, say what is wrong with it. Do not simply revert. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Please supply the quote. BTW, there are also no Catholics or Jews or Moslems or Hindus here either. drboisclair 09:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It's the quote you keep deleting. Because of your absurd reverting, I've not been able to continue improving the article, which is in need of it. Also, there is some problem with the references. In the Luther and the Jews section, none of the references seem to point anywhere, so I've used Harvard referencing to add the latest material. I'll be re-inserting that quote tomorrow. You have no right to keep on deleting properly referenced material without saying exactly what your objection is. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you get into the process of finding a consensus and leave 'your' soap box at the door of this website. drboisclair 09:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Say exactly what is wrong with the quote. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

As Jayjg has pointed out there needs to be balance. There is a subarticle for these quotations. This is supposed to be a summary. Why don't we agree to revert this back to the paragraph that was agreed upon for over two months of negotiations, and put your quotations into the sub article? You are conducting yourself in an uncivil manner. drboisclair 09:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree there needs to be balance, but there is none in this article. The material on Luther and the Jews is left to the very end, one tiny paragraph, with the rest shunted off to a sub-article, and no proper summary of it here. That won't do. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect to you, whom I take to be a senior Wikipedian with a large edit count. Are you not aware of the fact that we have gone through this before? These quotations introduce a skew here. If they remain—I will not violate the 3 reversion rule—then, quotations from the opposing side will have to be put in here, making it longer still. All this despite the fact that we have a subarticle Martin Luther and the Jews. Why don't we put your new article here on the discussion page for discussion and put back what was agreed to. I appeal to your sense of fairness here. drboisclair 10:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop putting in what is in no encyclopedia

SlimVirgin, you have not been a part of the process of editing this article, so please propose your emendation before putting it here. You are not checking your soap box at the door by putting it in here without proposing it. Please show some civility in not being the tool of the virtually anonymous. drboisclair 09:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The need for neutrality flag

Since persons are trying to insert their POV into this article. I think that the neutrality flag needs to be put up. This is absolutely outrageous that educated people cannot conduct themselves in a more civil manner. drboisclair 09:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there aren't as many educated people here as you think. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we are all middle aged children at play, and rudely putting things in without consultation. drboisclair 09:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Please read our policies. You have no right to delete properly cited, relevant quotes. For the fourth time, please say exactly what is wrong with the quote, and kindly review WP:OWN. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Ms. Slim Virgin, I have not reverted anything for the fourth time. You are unilaterally taking upon yourself the revision of this article, which has been the painstaking process of three to four months. It has been agreed by the editors, who have worked on this above that nothing would be added to this article without an OK. Yes, you are within your rights to put in quoted material. Why don't you put them into the subarticle? As far as I am concerned there is nothing wrong with the quotations. I am sure that you are accurate and within your rights, but I deplore your incivility. drboisclair 09:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say you had reverted four times; I said I had asked the same question four times, and you have at last answered it, confirming that there is nothing wrong with the quote. Thank you. I also deplore your incivility, so that's two points we agree on, which is progress at least. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

As I would like to think of myself as a gentleman, I apologize for any incivility. It is good that seasoned Wikipedians get into the process of making this online resource the prodigy that it is. Your help is appreciated, but perhaps you could work with us rather than against us. Respectfully, drboisclair 10:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted and thank you. I would very much prefer to work with you than against you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The Need for Arbitration Here

As we have come to the brink of an edit war here. It may be time to appeal for a judgment from the arbitration board. Facts are like stones: they can be maneuvered into whatever configuration one wants. That is the case here through the building talents of a virtually anonymous benefactor. I quote the immortal Bard: "The evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones." Julius Caesar, Act 3, scene 2. drboisclair 10:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The arbitration committee will almost certainly not hear this just yet, because other steps in dispute resolution have yet to be tried. Could someone either briefly outline here the main points of contention, or refer me to which section of which talk page best explains them? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I was one of the editors working on the compromise text and I hoped that after weeks (or months?) of arduous disputes and series of disappointments we worked it out and established more/less good working relations. If the compromise is not satisfactory from encyclopedic standpoint, perhaps it is partly my fault. The Johnson's, MacCulloch's and some other quotes were moved out of here into a subarticle, see #It is more dreary than I thought. BTW, SlimVirgin is a very reputable WPian, (don't take this as a personal attack), even though we do not always agree. Please let me know how/whether I can help. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The relevant discussion is in #ML & the Jews redux and below. Roughly, the main points (as I see them) are overzealous accusals of ML in antisemitism/genocide on one hand and whitewash/denial on the other. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Our earlier discussions can be found at Talk:Martin Luther and the Jews#2005. FYI, I just archived old 2003 talks into Talk:Martin Luther and the Jews/Archive 1. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 12:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Humus, Thank you for weighing in on this matter. I disagree that you are at fault here. You have been eminently fair and cooperative. This is what I wanted to add too: The work on revision began when we started over on this talk page. The debate about the paragraph in question begain with the subtopic above: ML & the Jews redux. Jayjg was instrumental in formulating a balanced compromise, and the editors involved began work on Martin Luther and the Jews, having settled the wording of the section in the Martin Luther article. Disagreement erupted within the last month when User:Doright came onboard and posted above, I guess, Admin warning unheeded Censorship Continues--that post is unsigned. A new article was written by Mr. Doright On the Jews and Their Lies, and there has been dispute about that article as well. This latest is about this matter of "to blame for not killing them." This is an accurate quotation, but IMHO it should be a part of Martin Luther and the Jews and On the Jews and Their Lies. The reason for excluding it here is for balance sake. When User:Jayjg assisted in the writing of the introduction of Martin Luther and the Jews he pointed out that there should be balance pro and con throughout these articles. As it stands now in this subsection of the Martin Luther article there is no balance. I hope that this is a helpful summary. drboisclair 11:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Slim: there is a disagreement in the scholarly community concerning the meaning of Luther's words which user Doright has chosen to insert into our finely crafted text. Please read the section above "Where does Luther's statement that all Jews should be murdered go in the article?" Where documentation to that effect is listed. At least one scholar, on the other hand, believes that Luther intended genocide as a last resort. He is a respected scholar of antisemitism. At least several others, experts in the life, work and Rheotric of Luther, maintain he intended nothing of the sort. They hasten to add what Luther did intend was quite deplorable, but in no way comaparable to what the Nazis intended to do.

The problem with placing this quote in the summary here is that quotes that demonstrate that a substantial number of scholars do not believe Luther intended to advocate the genocide of the Jewish people would need to be added. Since emotions of all parties run high on this subject, it is likely that the section will grow to a full-fledged article. It will limit the amount of time our editors have to work on the balance of the Luther article, the Luther and the Jews article and the "On the Jews and Their Lies," Not to mention, other articles. I therefore contend we should retain the previously negotiated summary and intro as is. --CTSWyneken 12:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Humus, thanks for directing me to the relevant discussions. CTS, can you (without too much trouble for yourself) direct me to the best scholarly sources regarding what Luther is believed to have meant? As I see it, we do not imply that he intended genocide. We simply quote him, and leave it to others to judge what he meant, because in truth no-one knows what he meant. And that is the problem with paraphrasing him. If scholarly opinion is to be added, it could surely be done in a paragraph. It's clearly an important quote, and it would seem obtuse to leave it out simply because there is disagreement about its meaning. It's particularly worrying that it's being deleted from this article on the grounds of space, and from the other article (which is about Luther and the Jews) on the grounds of balance. This gives the appearance of editors wanting to keep it out of Wikipedia at any cost. All we do here is report what other people say. We don't insert our own opinions, we don't omit material because we don't like it, or because scholarly sources don't like it. We simply say A said X, and B said Y, trying to use the most reputable sources we can, and then we leave it up to the reader. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

As a compromise I would propose that it might remain in Martin Luther and the Jews but be omitted here for brevity. I have quoted Luther in extenso in the introduction to place the quotation in its proper context. Some editors may wish to pare it down if necessary. I agree that quoting is good, but isn't it the hallmark of encyclopedias to sumarize, condense, and simplify. I agree that we cannot omit things because we disagree with them. drboisclair 13:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Things can be pared down where there is agreement, but when there's disagreement, quoting is better. Does anyone happen to know whether the original German of the full quote Dr supplied is online anywhere? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

There is none that I know of. Here is another translation of parts of it [29]. drboisclair 13:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I'd be interested to know what the original was for: "There is no other explanation for this than the one cited earlier from Moses_namely, that God has struck them with 'madness and blindness and confusion of mind.' So we are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them."

"We are at fault in not slaying them" is odd English, and in "so we are even at fault": it's not clear what "even" means. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I have the Weimarer Ausgabe in front of me. This is the whole paragraph in question in German: "Nicht anders ists, denn wie droben gesagt aus Mose, das sie Gott mit wahnsinn, blindheit und rasendem hertzen geschlagen hat. So ists auch unser schuld, das wir das grosse unschüldige Blut, so sie an unserm Herrn und den Christen bey dreyhundert jaren nach zerstoerung Jerusalem, und bis daher, an Kindern vergossen (welchs noch aus jren augen und haut scheinet) nicht rechen, sie nicht todschlahen, Sondern fur alle jren mord, fluchen, lestern, liegen, schenden frey bey uns sitzen lassen, jre Schule, heuser, leib und gut schützen und schirmen, damit wir sie faul und sicher machen und helffen, das sie getrost unser geld und gut uns aussaugen, dazu unser spotten, uns anspeien, ob sie zuletzt kündten unser mechtig werden, Und fur solche grosse Sünde uns alle todschlahen, alles gut nemen, wie sie teglich bitten und hoffen. Sage du nu, ob sie nicht grosse ursach haben, uns verfluchte Goijm feind zu sein, uns zu fluchen und unser endlich, gruendlich, ewig verderben zu suchen." This is 16th Century German as different from 21st Century German as our English is different from Shakespeare. That is the reason for some of the irregularities. The German behind "so we are even at fault" is "So ists auch unser schuld" "sie nich todschlahen" is "not slaying them". The modern German word for slaying would be todschlagen. This quotation is WA 53,522,lines 7-19. The translation is somewhat accurate. drboisclair 14:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Slim, for being willing to talk about this issue. Please understand the touchy nature of our editors here. For some of us, this is the fourth time we've taken up this discussion on wikipedia. For me, I've had to revisit this topic about every three months for the twelve years I've been putting the works of Martin Luther on the 'net. We thought we had a good comprimise in place with the help of fine editors Jayg, Humus, and to some extent, drboisclair and I think also slrubenstein. All of us found a way, after emotional exchanges, to come to a text we can all live with. Now we're back again at. As time permits, I will begin again with you on this one.

Please feel free to verify my identity. If you'd like, I'll email you from your talk page my phone number at work and/or the number of our business office. I'd also be happy to email to you titles of my publications, so that you can check them.

I'd also be happy to help with the references. I've been compelled by this discussion to do quite a bit of reading on the subject and have a fair bit on its way to me via interlibrary loan. On the side of Luther scholarship, the most respected biography is Martin Brecht's three volume Martin Luther The most respected, accessible, one-volume biography is the venerable Here I Stand by Roland Bainton. (full details in the article bibliography) The leading expert in Luther's polemical works (Including the ones under discussion in the Martin Luther and the Jews article is Mark Edward's Luther's Last Battles Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1983)

Please note that size is a consideration for me in this article. I did quite a bit of research into what print encyclopedias have done with this topic ( see Talk:Martin_Luther#Luther_and_the_Jews_in_Encyclopedias and other summaries of sub-articles have done. Talk:Martin_Luther#Survey_of_articles_with_summaries_of_sub-articles The size consideration does not come into play in the sub-article, which I hope will cover every scholarly viewpoint on the subject. If it would help, I would be happy to summarize what I believe all scholars agree about on this topic (at least in this stage of my research) and what they say where they disagree. --CTSWyneken 15:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for supplying the German. I'm having difficulty parsing it, so I'll take a closer look later. If this issue keeps coming up, it's perhaps a sign that the current compromise isn't right. I really don't see the harm in quoting him, and size isn't that much of an issue, particularly as that section in the current version is so short. Summarizing the current scholarship on the issue sounds like a lot of work for you, and I don't want to put you to a huge amount of trouble, though it would be very interesting and helpful.

Can you say exactly why you don't want the quote to be included, and what you think people will read into it that arguably isn't there? Whether Luther was advocating genocide or random acts of murder is somewhat beside the point. Assuming the translation is accurate, he was clearly intending to incite a mob to do whatever mobs do. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The Antisemitism issue has been resolved

The red flag having been raised again I would like to urge its removal becaue we have worked this out. I would appeal for arbitration. It is sad that when one novice Wikipedian does not get his way, everything should be disrupted. drboisclair 14:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The Modern German of the passage

Dear SlimVirgin, this is the modern German version of the paragraph in question taken from the St. Louis Edition of Luther's Works, Vol. 20, column 1989, no. 296:

Nicht anders ist's, denn wir droben gesagt aus Mose, daß sie GOtt mit Wahnsinn, Blindheit und rasendem Herzen geschlagen hat: so ist auch unser Schuld, daß wir das große unschuldige Blut, so sie an unserm HErrn und den Christen bei dreihundert Jahren nach Zerstörung Jerusalem, und bis daher an Kindern vergossen (welches noch aus ihren Augen und Haut scheint), nicht rächen, sie nicht todtschlagen, sondern für alle ihren Mord, Fluchen, Lästern, Lügen, Schänden frei bei uns sitzen lassen, ihre Schule, Häuser, Leib und Gut schützen und schirmen, damit wir sie faul und sicher machen und helfen, daß sie getrost unser Geld und Gut uns aussaugen, dazu unser spotten, uns anspeien, ob sie zuletzt könnten unser mächtig werden, und für solche große Sünde uns alle todtschlagen, alles Gut nehmen, wie sie täglich bitten und hoffen. Sage nun du, ob sie nicht große Ursach haben, uns verfluchten Gojim feind zu sein, uns zu fluchen, und unser endlich, gründlich ewig Verderben zu suchen?

That may be easier to parse and translate. With respect, drboisclair 16:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)