Talk:Martin Luther/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Introduction / Jews

The part in the introduction regarding Luther and the Jews leaves the reader with perhaps an inappropriate impression regarding Luther if they do not bother to read on. I suggest perhaps providing more context. Peyna 22:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The editors who work for the Lutheran church objected to any more of that being added to the intro, so we reached those two sentences as a compromise. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Why is the page protected? It seems to me like for the most part things have been settling down and any edit wars had ceased fire. Peyna 01:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection was requested because the page was being reverted by AOL IPs and sockpuppet accounts, but the admin who did it chose full instead. A calming down period wouldn't be a bad thing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it would appear I started editing this article at a bad time, since even regular edits were instantly rejected with hostility from random parties. =] Peyna 01:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I think most or all of it was the same person, a known troublemaker. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Jossi has changed it to semi-protection. Thanks, Jossi. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it is safe to drop the semi-protection? Peyna 02:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Material for the section "Luther and anti-semistism"

As I am looking after this article as an admin, I do not want to start editing the article, so I will place comments in talk, and editors involved may use the material, if pertinent. This, from Brustein, William I, Roots of Hate: Anti-Semitism in Europe before the Holocaust, p.64, Cambridge University Press, 2003, ISBN 0-5217-7478-0

"German Protestant theologizing did not refrain from occasional assaults on Judaism. Luther had undoubtedly supplied the German Protestant Church with ample explosives. Conway states that attacks on Jewish materialism and intellectualism became commonplace in Protestant sermons during the Weimar era and that the Protestant press frequently caricatured the Jews as corrupt and degenerate and accused them of seeking to destroy traditional Christian morality within Germany. (1) Conway implies, moreover, that both German Protestant and German Catholic anti-Semitism during the Weimar era derived not solely from religious but also from racist sources. (2) The German Protestant Church demonstrated a stronger preference than the German Catholic Church for Hitler's Nazi Party. (3) Among the most ardent clerical supporters of the Nazi Party was Joachim Hossenfelder, founder of the fervently antiSemitic German Christian Church in 1932. The German Christian Church referred to its followers as “the storm troopers of Jesus Christ.” (4)The darkest chapter in the contemporary history of both German Churches vis-à-vis the issue of anti-Semitism is the relative silence on the part of Protestant and Catholic leadership towards the Nazi treatment of German Jews."

(1) J. S. Conway, National Socialism and the Christian Churches during the Weimar Republic in P. D. Stachura, (ed.), The Nazi Machtergreifung (London, 1983), pp.140-41.

(2) Ibid (Conway).

(3) Eric Johnson, Nazi Terror: The Gestapo, Jews, and Ordinary Germans (New York, 1999), pp.223–24.

(4) Ibid., p.223.

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Also from this book, page 63:

"During the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther had turned against the Jews and preached a virulent anti-Semitism that highlighted Jewry's irredeemable corruption"

There is also a very interesting article by Graham Noble, published in the journal History Review in 2002, in which Luter antisemitic views are compared with those of the Nazis. Excerpts follows:

"'What shall we Christians do with these rejected and condemned people, the Jews?' This rhetorical question, posed in 1543 by the great Protestant reformer Martin Luther, he answered in the most blood-chilling manner. Their synagogues should be burned to the ground; their houses destroyed; their prayer books seized; their rabbis forbidden to teach on pain of death. They should be prevented from travelling in the countryside and their wealth confiscated. The young and strong should be forced to do menial work in order to prevent them `feasting and farting ... and blasphemously boasting of their lordship over Christians'. Luther went on to call for their expulsion from Germany: `We should toss out these rogues by the seat of their pants'. He even recommended, for a number of them, an even more terrifying fate. The authorities, he urged, must act like a good physician and cut out the gangrene by slaying three thousand, `lest the whole people perish'."

[...]

"Four centuries later, the Nazis found, in the existence of an anti-Semite at the heart of German history, a propaganda opportunity not to be missed. Writing in Mein Kampf, Hitler named Luther amongst the great historical `protagonists' whom he most admired. These are men who `fight for their ideas and ideals despite the fact that they receive no recognition at the hands of their contemporaries ... whose memory will be enshrined in the hearts of future generations'."

[...]

"The anti-Semitic pogrom, known as Kristallnacht (November 1938), the night on which Jews were dragged from their beds and beaten and the synagogues of Germany, in echo of Luther's words, went up in flames, was said by a Nazi Bishop, Martin Sasse of Thuringia, to have coincided happily with Luther's birthday. He praised Luther as `the greatest anti-Semite of his time'."

[...]

"Martin Luther offered in his writings a historical and intellectual justification for the Holocaust, which the Nazis took pains to exploit."

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The section is pretty long already, perhaps this might be better integrated into Martin Luther and the Jews? Peyna 03:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever works. I will not do it as I want to remain uninvolved so that I can assist with dispure resolutions, if needed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the specific topic, nor the history of the disputes involved to really do much with this part of this article; I know it has been a hot topic for quite some time. I'm just here to offer any insight I can. Peyna 03:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

That's very helpful material, Jossi, thank you for finding it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Folks interested in this topic may also want to look at "The Seduction of Culture in German History" by Wolf Lepinies, which Princeton University Press has just brought out. Barnes & Nobles had it in the "New Histories" section. Sam 13:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of the LCMS statement on Luther

I request that editors please stop removing the sentence mentioning the 1983 statement by the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod. It looks like a petty insult toward those of us who are members of the LCMS. The LCMS is the most prominent member of a world-wide confederation of Lutheran Church bodies, who are faithful to the Lutheran standards. The ELCA, though it is larger than the LCMS, has not made it a practice to follow what might be considered authentic Lutheranism. By their associations with other Protestant church bodies they have compromised what might be considered distinctively Lutheran teachings. That doesn't mean that I am advocating leaving them out of this section. I am just saying: leave the LCMS statement in. This statement came before the ELCA statement, and it is important in this context.--Drboisclair 03:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

That material may be more suitable for the article Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, or Lutheranism. This article is an article about Martin Luther, the person, and his impact on religion and society. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the article covers it well enough, so long as we have one example from any Lutheran body, it doesn't matter which, so long as it points out that probably all the other Lutheran bodies have done the same. Peyna 03:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It isn't fair to have one and not the other. It is about Luther, so it belongs here. Perhaps the article can be further shortened by simply deleting all statements on it. --Drboisclair 03:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Besides the first sentence says: "Lutheran Church bodies. So, leave it in. It isn't that long.--Drboisclair 04:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think the article is fine either way. (Although, if we wanted to be "balanced" and include a statement from every Lutheran body in the world, it would certainly overwhelm the article). I was merely pointing out that the whole point of including ANY statement was solely illustrative of the idea that Lutheran Churches have made PR statements regarding Luther and the Jews. Therefore, so long as we have one statement, we're fine. It doesn't matter which group it comes from. Peyna 04:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering the length of this section, and that more may be put into it, it would serve the length problem to simply remove the paragraph altogether. I think that if you have one in there you should have both. Thank you for your comments.--Drboisclair 04:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the point of having two statements from the U.S., as though it's the only country in the world that matters. Would it not make more sense to have one from the States and one from Germany? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I should clarify: I think we only need one. But if we must have two, the second should be from another country, and Germany makes most sense. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The editor who removed the statement on the Missouri Synod may not have been aware that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Missouri Synod are by far the two largest Lutheran denominations in the US. The fact several editors insist that Luther's influence on antisemitism be discussed indicates that the subject is of some importance, as is the fact that the two synods did see fot to issue a statement on the subject. We should be then be fair and include a statement to the effect that the two largest Lutheran denominations in the US have repudiated Luther's stance on the Jews. Dr Zak 05:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The level of detail is another issue. Dr Zak 05:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

A statement from a non-US Lutheran body would be a good idea too.--Drboisclair 05:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I stand down from insisting on this. Statements from Lutheran bodies from different countries would balance it. I think that the sense of the group is to streamline here.--Drboisclair 05:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the paragraph quoting both organizations as Drboisclair had it is fine. It's so much more succinct than it used to be. These two Lutheran organizations are the largest and are quite distinct, and would be the equivalent of documenting statements from a Jewish perspective by both the RCA and the URJ. I initially thought the ELCA should be listed before the LCMS since the ELCA is twice the size of the LCMS, but since the LCMS made the first statement, chronologically listing it is fine too. Sheesh, all these acronyms. Now I know my ABCs. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 18:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, if there's a statement from a Lutheran body in Germany, that would be relevant to add, it's true the statements don't need to be so USA-centric. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

In this statement here [1] (see page 3) issued by the EKD the issue is discussed within the wider theological context of the covenant of God with Israel and the controversy of proselytizing Jews. Dr Zak 00:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Drboisclair claims that his church, the LCMS, is "faithful to the Lutheran standards" and that the much larger ELCA "has not made it a practice to follow what might be considered authentic Lutheranism." Member of the ELCA would claim the reverse. "Holier Than Thou" much? Edison 05:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The point is, both statements need to stay. The two church bodies teach very different things. As long as this section is to stay at this length, both need to remain. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 12:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment on GA nomination

This is on the whole a very impressive article; while I'm going to refrain from passing or failing it, I'd like to make a few comments on the section on Martin Luther and the Jews. The section has the look a compromise that has been hammered out in the face of controversy (as indeed, I gather, it has). Unfortunately, in many places it reads as simply being a categorised list of the views of scholars, rather than as a synthesis of secondary works on the subject. Citing fully and remaining entirely NPOV are obviously the foremost goals, but the style of the section really suffers from it. I don't think the article will be GA-worthy until this section is improved. MLilburne 13:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I've reinstated a small portion of the previous discussion on the anti-Semitism section, so as to give the above post some perspective. I'd suggest that editors not archive and thereby blank out the discussion page without discussing first.

MLilburne -- as you can see from the discussion -- and you can go through previous archives to find more -- this is a contentious subject that has been a source of much back-and-forth. I think the section as currently written is balanced, complete, is a departure from the generally hagiographic tone of the rest of the article, and is quite good as is.--Mantanmoreland 14:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. The whole section has difficulities to resolve because passions run very high on this subject. The controversy over this section is indeed long and has be revised repeatedly since before I arrived on the scene here over three years ago. I suspect every time it is touched we will generate more archives full of discussion. So, beyond reference checking and improvement, I'd prefer to work on other areas of the article and leave this one be until the rest of the article is polished. There is work to do in a variety of placed. Then perhaps a some sort of outside eval would help -- even a peer review, a biography review team or an RfC.

For now, if you or another reviewer feels the section does not meet GA standards, please feel free to fail the nom for now. In either case, I'd appreciate, and others would too, I'm sure, any other suggestions you would have for the article. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 15:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

For user Mantanmoreland: Would you do us the favor, and cite the first specific example of "hagiographic" tone you find in the article. While I haven't had much time recently to work on this article, nor is fall likely to get any better, I will be able to go at an issue at a time. Thanks! --CTSWyneken^(talk) 15:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I see you've called in reinforcements! [2][3][4][5][6] Why don't I hear from these folks and then, if I have some time, I'll spend a lot of time banging my head against a brick wall, as so many other editors have done in the past when they've suggested or even hinted at changes unfavorable to Luther. OK? Let's go, guys! Looking forward to hearing what you have to say -- I mean that.--Mantanmoreland 16:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that it would be helpful if you would cite a few examples of "hagiographic language" as you see it. I do not find any there in this article. I would imagine that you would find the Encarta article on Luther "hagiographic" since it reads the same as this one. Please do not characterize the article until you have read over it and pick out phrases or sentences that you feel are "hagiographic." One wonders if you would like it to be "demon-igraphic."--Drboisclair 22:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, Drboisclair steps up to the plate, and knocks one over the foul line marked "how dare you criticize the article." A_Musing, I think you're next.--Mantanmoreland 23:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from incivility here: Maybe we are faced with the phenomenon that Martin Luther is an important historical figure. For such people even stating the simple facts about them sounds "hagiographic." I think that "hagiography" has the character of slanting the truth in order to make a case for sainthood to the specific congregation of the Vatican. It would have to say that Luther performed or performs miracles. As far as I can see nothing like that is in the article. Whether people like it or not, Luther is one of the most famous people in history. Like Jesus Christ very much has been written about him, and these are the simple facts whether we like them or not.--Drboisclair 23:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No need to repeat yourself. Waiting for others to pitch in, Drboisclair. I may have a few hours to devote to a pointless discussion, but I want to hear from the rest of the reinforcements Rev. Smith alerted. --Mantanmoreland 23:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop calling me "rev." You do not know whether or not I am a "rev." It should be emphasized here that all of us are anonymous. I think that your comments here are disparaging.--Drboisclair 23:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is it disparaging to refer to you as a Lutheran clergyman? You are the source of that information. I know Reverend Smith is Reverend Smith because he identifies himself as such, as did Rev. McCain when he was still with us. I've removed the "rev" comments, however, if you don't like 'em. OK? --Mantanmoreland 23:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate that. I think that we need to respect each other's anonymity. That is our privilege on this website. --Drboisclair 23:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is certainly true, and I meant no anonymity transgression. Re the "hagiographic" thing -- just to bring this pointless discussion to a close, my point is simple -- which is that discussing this subject further is pointless, just as it has been in the past. In my view the entire article, except for the Jewish section, reads like a Lutheran church tract. I've attempted to rewrite the first section to address that issue, and was reverted and I am not going to bang my head against the wall as I said.--Mantanmoreland 23:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's move on. We've got some good ideas from Gimmetrow below. I suspect others will drop by to provide some suggestions as well. If you want to help, Mantanmoreland, make suggestions of your own, work to execute some of the ones below or comment on them. If you choose instead to make users an issue, please do no expect me to respond. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 23:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If your aim is to "not make users an issue," then don't begin posts with "For user Mantanmoreland:" It's called "practicing what you preach."--Mantanmoreland 23:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Some stylistic points

These points are just stylistic, and should be unrelated to content disputes. This article is very long; it should probably try to meet FA guidelines. A few items:

• I find the "see also" parts in the lead distracting. The TOC follows immediately; are they really necessary? Does the MOS say anything about this?

Agreed Please record comments and discussion in section below. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 19:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• "kind of abtract way"? Why not just "abstract way"?

Changed to "this way." Does that work? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 19:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• "Indulgence controversy" seems repetitive of "95 Theses" and October 31.

Moved some detail to the 95 Theses article, added it as the "main article." I'm going to take a look at a few standard encyclopedias on the topic and see what they say. We can then match the level of detail present in these in our own article. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 15:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Reversible woodcut image is very annoying: can't turn the screen ;)

Trying to replace with commons image of Leo X. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 19:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to replace it. I was just suggesting that you also provide a version that is already flipped (easy enough, it's a public domain image) so that it's convenient for computer-reading. Gimmetrow 19:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I got it done, but I can always go back. Flipping this image and providing both would be easy. I like color images better myself, but will go with the flow. Any preferences? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• There are a number of 1-2 sentence paragraphs, eg, "Prelude on the Babylonian Captivity". Please try to reduce the quantity of "with regard to" phrases, too.

Let's Rewrite: I think a few of the sections need rewording. The "Prelude" is one of them. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 16:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• There are a lot of wikiboxes in the see also section. per WP:GTL, these links should be in External Links; considering the quantity perhaps you could use {{sisterlinks}} or some variation.

Done Hey, that's a really nice template... --CTSWyneken^(talk) 23:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think the resulting See Also section will look unbalanced (all to the left); I have handled this in other places by making the See Also section 2-column.

Done: What do you think? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of the column templates; I've converted this so you can see how it looks. Gimmetrow 20:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That works much nicer. I'm glad you dropped by. That's a new technique on me. Elegant. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 16:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• The references and bibliography sections are very long; you might consider making them smaller.

Comment: We've been spurred on by fact tags to note to the level of a journal article, so I don't think we can loose many of the notes. I've seen note sections done in two columns, however. That might help, but I'm not sure how that's done with inline coding. I'll look around. We could pare down the bibliography some. I'm not sure if list pages for bibliography fits wikipedia, but that would be another way to go. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I meant smaller font, not fewer of them. This is optional and some editors dislike it, but I've put in the tags so you can see how it looks. Gimmetrow 20:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. We've reacted pretty negatively to the small notes. My old eyes don't like them, but another user helped me adjust my stylesheet. But I always wonder about visitors. I'll not fight it on way or another, though. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Remove the div tags from the references/bibliography if you don't like it; easy to change. Gimmetrow 21:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

done--CTSWyneken^(talk) 16:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Good job with the footnoting; I fixed the few I saw before punctuation. Gimmetrow 16:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I and others have been working at it. I'm not quite satisified, mostly because I do not like cited or quoted in notes. I've been dinking at them as I've gotten a hold of the sources mentioned.--CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Some good thoughts. I'll wade into some of these. Anyone like to help? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 16:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

See also in the lead

Does anyone mind if I delete them? I think Gimme is right -- they are distracting. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 19:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Do it. Peyna 22:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 16:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Another comment on that section

Perhaps this comment may be useless given all the previous history, but I would like to try to give a neutral editor's solution. Currently the section dwells too long on the subject giving both views of the issue, a veritable swordfight of quoting sources. My suggestion is to keep the first three paragraphs and the last paragraph as is. The middle three paragraphs would be removed and replaced with a list of sources in a footnote attached to the last sentence of the third paragraph. The footnote would list sources on both views minimizing the quotation of sources, e.g. "For more information on view A see Berenbaum 8-9, Noble 1-2,... For more information on view B see Bainton 297, Wallman,...". I use view A and view B, but the experts here can come up with the appropriate description of each view. This improves readability and if anyone wants to find arguments on one side or other, they can look up the sources. Some might feel that this downplays the importance of this section, but I would counter that there are already two complete and very good articles from where this section is supposed to be derived. Just my thoughts and hope it helps. RelHistBuff 08:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Sometime in the future, I'll come back to it. For now, I, for one, am not going near the subject with a ten foot pole until the rest of the article is in shape, not even to comment on the proposal until that time. I'm really tired of it occupying all of our time here. It needs much attention, but I would prefer to approach it last and with a substantial team of outsiders even then. In the meantime, do you have other suggestions? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it is wise to put it off until the rest is done. By the way, I agree that all the "See ... below" in the lead section should be removed. It's redundant as the lead section is supposed to be a summary of "what's below". Once I dig a bit deeper in the article (and its history), I'll try to help out. RelHistBuff 15:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree -- the rest of the article needs a total rewrite, to give it a neutral tone not currently present. The current tone is far too reverential. The "Luther and anti-Semitism" section does indeed have a neutral tone sorely lacking in the rest of the article, and I don't think that gutting it would improve that. --Mantanmoreland 16:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

See my comments in Comment on GA nomination. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 16:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

When you said "sometime in the future" I suppose you meant two hours? ;) --Mantanmoreland 16:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposing two new "main articles"

I'd like to create two new pages: List of Books by Martin Luther and List of Books about Martin Luther. I would copy all of the bibliography and external links to these pages. I would list them as main articles and then reduce the bibliography to a few, general titles and links. Does that sound like a plan? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 16:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Just my thoughts, but one of the reasons articles have the references and bibliography together is supposedly to allow a reader to print only those two sections, and look things up. (Not that many readers do that, sadly.) A separate bibliography would allow it to become detached from the article, and could end up including many books not actually used for this article, so a "list of books about Luther" seems to me a bad idea. On the other hand, "books by Luther" are not used substantially in this article, and in any event are historical and fixed in number. That list could be separated out with fewer problems, although if page numbers mattered it would still be nice to list a specific edition here for the works actually used. Gimmetrow 23:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

My idea would be to keep key biographies in the list. They could include all of the cited works, if we chose. Since Luther is the second most written about figure in history (I'm told), that would keep the booklist limited in size. The other think to consider is using the formal citing scheme we do here, all of the information for the items cited appears in full the first time its cited. The booklist, in this case is really redundant. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 23:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The bibliography is hardly out of proportion to the size of the article. I don't see the point.--Mantanmoreland 00:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This is in response to the observation that it was long. If others agree that it is reasonable length, I'm content to leave it as is. I do think it would help the reader to have a much shorter list here, though. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

If the rest of the article is ever cut substantially in size, the bibliography too can be reduced. Gimmetrow is correct that keeping on the page is more reader-friendly.--Mantanmoreland 13:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Trouble Verifying Source

In our note 78, two sources are cited, one is the Catholic Encyclopedia, the other an article. I cannot find the journal, much less the article. In skimming the Catholic Encyclopedia to remove the problem by citing it directly, I do not find where the data in article is from in that publication. Perhaps it would be better to cite another source making the same point. Does anyone want to do this or mind if I take a look for a new supporting work? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 21:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is at http://www.sspx.ca/Angelus/1985_March/Christ_Among_Us.htm - I've added the link to the ref. Actually what is cited is the article, not the Catholic Encyclopedia (which is cited as a source within the article). I fixed.--Mantanmoreland 21:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that you mention it -- this is an area that requires some balance and is not adequately treated in the article. I added in a paragraph from the cited text -- noting clearly that it is a Catholic perspective. We have Jewish and, of course, Lutheran viewpoints in this article but none from the Cathollic POV. I think this is OK since it is specifically labeled as a Catholic perspective.--Mantanmoreland 21:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I will look at it. Of course other perspectives are welcome, as long as everyone knows where the info comes from. It will strengthen the article. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 00:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The quote is fine. The basic view is one just about all scholars agree on, although most do not use superlatives to describe it. I'd prefer to undo the cited in and cite the Catholic Encyclopedia directly. It's better scholarly practice, where possible, (and it sometimes isn't) to remove indirect quotations. Is that OK with you? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 00:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind changing the citation and reference as long as the text remains as it is.--Mantanmoreland 00:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI, sspx.ca is a rather extreme Catholic source. While the Catholic Encyclopedia is a bit dated, it might be better to quote from the article directly. This part could be quoted directly. Gimmetrow 00:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless it is in full consonance with the parting benediction the invalid gave from his wagon, to his assembled friends on his homeward journey: "May the Lord fill you with His blessings and with hatred of the pope", and the verbatim sentiments chalked on the wall of his chamber, the night before his death....

There is nothing "extreme" about this source and the quote is labeled as a Catholic source. Given the dearth of Catholic POV in the article I think it is sorely needed. --Mantanmoreland 00:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

SSPX.ca is not a mainstream Catholic source. Are you saying it is? Gimmetrow 00:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm just saying the article is not at all extreme. Do you have a problem with the quoted passage? That's the subject of this discussion. I don't think using the quote endorses the society. --Mantanmoreland 01:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

In academic writing, would you use "fringe professor X" for a reference when "mainstream professor Y" says much the same thing? Generally not, as it undermines the credibility of the reference, unless your point is to contrast X and Y. Gimmetrow 01:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come now. This is a good quote, not extreme, that is on very much on-point. I suppose one could add "conservative" Catholic viewpoint, or some other such qualifier. --Mantanmoreland 02:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a qualifier would help. Given the source, one could legimately ask if it is a common criticism. Also part of the citation isn't clear; what does "2 (N.D.) No. 3" mean? (Web page gives March 1985; Vol VIII No. 3) And a cite tag seems missing around Catholic Encyclopedia. Gimmetrow 03:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

When the moment presents itself, I will try to reference the exact source of this quote. The point it makes (understand this comes from a Luther scholar), that Luther wrote very nasty attacks on the papacy and those that supported it, is universally accepted. There are quite a few sources, and I would be happy to leave the quotation in, have it paraphrased or another put it's place.

My immediate reaction to the source is that indirect citation is not a desireable practice and that a book review is not really an article with all the academic rigor that goes with it. If someone wants to find another source for the point, I don't mind that either. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 09:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The quotation from the Angelus book review does not appear in the Catholic Encyclopedia edition that is online. I'll see if I can find a library that still has a copy of the cited edition and ask them if the quote is there. If someone would like to find a quote or paraphrase another source that says the same thing, let me know. That certainly would be less work.

--CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No, the Angelus book review is not in the Catholic Encyclopedia. It quotes the Catholic Encyclopedia. I think there's been a misunderstanding here. The link & citation are directly to the book review.--Mantanmoreland 12:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry my observation is not clear. Please let me know if this makes more sense. The quotation in our article is, according to the book review, from a specific edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia. We correctly cite it as a "cited in," or to put it another way, we are quoting somebody who is quoting somebody else. I went to the online version of the Catholic Encyclopedia, hoping we could cite it directly and take the book review out of the note. That is perferrable in scholarly practice and eliminates the debate above entirely. So, what I'm saying is I will ask a library with the specific edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia cited in Angelus to check for the quote, and, if its there, to send a complete reference. If someone else wants to use a different source, that might be easier to work with all around. If not, no problem. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 13:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

OK.Mantanmoreland 14:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The section is gone now, but I gave a text above which could be quoted directly from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Gimmetrow 07:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph on the papacy

This reference to Luther's later polemic against the pope does not belong in the section on Luther's "excommunication":

In 1545, Luther wrote a pamphlet entitled, Against the Papacy Established by the Devil, and during his life became known for attacks on the papacy.

As one conservative Catholic commentator observed:

Perhaps no one in history abhorred the Church and all she stands for more than Martin Luther. His diatribes against the papacy and the structure of the Church in general are well known. Popes, bishops, and cardinals are referred to as "Roman sodom." One of Luther's pamphlets is entitled "Against the Papacy Established by the Devil" (1545). He once blessed a group of followers, saying: "May the Lord fill you with His blessings and with hatred of the Pope."

I guess that if a section is added we should also have comments from Roman Catholic sources who were more understanding of Luther's polemic. The response of Rome in persecuting Lutherans and Protestants should maybe be given reference to. Eck, Cochlaeus, Emser and others were just as unsavory as Luther ever was.--Drboisclair 05:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The last part, about the pamphlet and blessing, could be in the "health and death" section. Gimmetrow 08:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This section is strongly a POV. Luther did not abhor the Church as he understood it.--Drboisclair 05:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

A WP:NPOV article can, and usually does, contain sourced WP:POV statements. This article is rather lacking in criticism of Luther, except in the anti-semitism section if it survives. Gimmetrow 08:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

That is correct, and this is an example of the kind of obstacle course that editors must surmount every time there are efforts to introduce balance to this article by adding material critical of Luther. --Mantanmoreland 13:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

We certainly can and should include viewpoints critical of Luther in the article. The question is how. One way is to mention at the point of excommunication the harsh polemics going both ways. Another is to take up the polemics together in the final section, along with his attacks on the Turks and Anabaptists. I'd prefer to move more to summary style and away from direct quotations where possible.

David has put his finger on the problem with this particular quotation. It offers the Catholic point of view that Luther attacked the church, while from Luther's and the Lutheran POV, he was attacking the Pope and those who supported him. Luther and his supporters believed it was the Pope who left Luther and the Church, not the other way around. Naturally, that can be fixed with a counter quote, but then the whole thing grows more.

In the end, either approach is fine by me, as long as all views are represented and properly cited. I would rather us try to achieve something close to the size and tone of the Encarta article on Luther, but it appears we're fated to something closer to a journal article.

--CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

No, the question isn't "how." It is an issue of editors refusing to allow material critical of Luther, and coming up with any kind of excuse toward that end. This is why the tone of the article is so uncritical and unbalanced (or as I put it, "hagiographic" -- choose your own term).

I agree with Gimmetrow, and further there are I believe no statements of Catholic position whatever. A little balance is sorely needed. I think the current paragraph is fine and also I can't think of a better place in the article. However, I will give it another look.--Mantanmoreland 12:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted. We were in the middle of discussing the sourcing of this statement and an editor comes along and blanks out the entire content. That kind of edit warring must stop.--Mantanmoreland 13:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a reminder that NPOV does not mean "equal time." Or in other words, there is no rule that for every "good thing" said about Luther we have to have a correlating "bad thing" said about Luther. The balance should be done in accordance with the prevalence of that POV. Fringe POV's probably don't even need to be included. If it's a POV held by a very small minority, it doesn't need that much space, unless it is an extremely vocal minority, but it still shouldn't be given more than its share of time. The article is about Martin Luther, and so the focus should be on him. Peyna 13:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely not. But here we have an article that is totally uncritical of Luther outside of the anti-Semitism section. I think we should give some leeway to critical comment, to provide a sorely needed balance. The problem that has beset this article is that every time there is an effort to provide some balance, some excuse is always provided to either water it down or omit entirely. This has been the pattern it has become quite wearisome as well as predictable. One characteristic (to which I alluded further up) of this is a tendency to argue to death every such insertion of negative criticism, which tends to discourage efforts to provide balance and also to wear out editors except for those professionally involved with Luther.

What I'm saying here is not new. It has been pointed out a number of times in the past by a number of editors.--Mantanmoreland 14:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not see a problem with including points of view critical of Luther. I wonder how many times I have to say that? In fact, the text immediately above the quotation does that to some extent already: "In 1545, Luther wrote a pamphlet entitled, Against the Papacy Established by the Devil, and during his life became known for attacks on the papacy." In fact, this statement can be intensified. Luther was know for his acidic, venomous, vulgar and invictive filled attacks. A statement like that is almost universally stated by scholarship. This, in fact, went both ways. The question with the Catholic Encyclopedia quote is whether it really adds anything. If not, certainly something else can be found, critical of this facet of Luther, that does.

So, I guess, what I'd ask is if this quote adds anything, and, if it does, does the point fit better under the excommunication section or the later life section? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes that statement -- "In 1545, Luther wrote a pamphlet entitled, Against the Papacy Established by the Devil, and during his life became known for attacks on the papacy" -- is indeed supproted by scholarship. But it was removed in the edit a few hours ago, not just the paragraph that followed. This is unfortunately not an isolated instance.--Mantanmoreland 15:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I think quote helps to explain the Catholic Church's perspective of Luther. Perhaps a section regarding the Catholic Church and Luther would be appropriate, wherein the past and present of their opinions of him and Lutherans can be more fully developed. Peyna 15:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

When then let's keep the quote in, then. I don't see the point of adding another section, which will just become another battleground. Besides, the article is too long as it is.--Mantanmoreland 15:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the article is too long. Something should be put in subarticles. Perhaps an article just on the Confessions, or a general article on "Books written by Martin Luther" with timeline and descriptions? Or an article on his "early life"? The Catholic Encyclopedia article is a dated, but mainstream criticism of Luther, and includes a number of ideas only barely hinted at here. For instance, why did he really join the Augustinians? How did monastic life fit him? If someone read only this article, one might think Luther was the second St. Paul, had a great religious conversion, and reformed the church. That is a POV, but it's not the only one. Gimmetrow 16:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I am removing the quote that sticks out like a sore thumb in a section that deals with the 1520s not the 1540s. Please work something up in here and make a separate section for it. It does not go where an editor has placed it.--Drboisclair 16:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It could go in the end section about his failing health and death. Gimmetrow 16:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it needs to be balanced with a counter quotation even from a Roman Catholic commentator or scholar that presents a balancing POV. Dr. Zak would know of such I can look too. It might be helpful to review the context from the New Catholic Encyclopedia to see if the quotation is not taken out of context.--Drboisclair 16:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

So, every negative comment about Luther needs a corresponding positive comment? I don't think you understand WP:NPOV. Should we do the reverse as well? The article would become a joke. Peyna 11:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the point here is that this particular quotation does not present either a prevailing view these days, even among Catholics. As far as negative v. positive comments, there are plenty of observations that go both ways in Luther studies. What we should be doing is chronicling the facets of Luther's life, positive and negative, and where there is substantial disagreement, present both sides of those arguments. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 12:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Peyna but I thought this issue was settled. The quote in question was moved to a new section [7], and in fact I just seconds ago posted a comment thanking Drboisclair for his good faith in handling the matter.--Mantanmoreland 12:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the issue is settled, too. I'm just responding in general to Peyna's comment. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 13:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Verification Report

I've skimmed through the Luther article in the 1913 ed. of the Catholic Encyclopedia without any lucj in finding the quotation. If anyone else has access, please scan it. Thanks! --CTSWyneken^(talk) 13:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I provided a quote above. I guess I'll repeat it again. From CE. Gimmetrow 14:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless it is in full consonance with the parting benediction the invalid gave from his wagon, to his assembled friends on his homeward journey: "May the Lord fill you with His blessings and with hatred of the pope", and the verbatim sentiments chalked on the wall of his chamber, the night before his death....

It was while in this agony of body and torture of mind, that his unsurpassable and irreproducible coarseness attained its culminating point of virtuosity in his anti-Semitic and antipapal pamphlets. "Against the Jews and their Lies" was followed in quick succession by his even more frenzied fusillade "On the Schem Hamphoras" (1542) and "Against the Papacy established by the Devil" (1545). Here, especially in the latter, all coherent thought and utterance is buried in a torrential deluge of vituperation "for which no pen, much less a printing press have ever been found" (Menzel, op. cit., II, 352).... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gimmetrow (talk • contribs) .

That's helpful, but it is not the one I'm looking for. I apologize for not being clear. I'm trying to find the Catholic Encyclopedia paragraph cited in the Angelus book review. It reads as follows:

"Perhaps no one in history abhorred the Church and all she stands for more than Martin Luther. His diatribes against the papacy and the structure of the Church in general are well known. Popes, bishops, and cardinals are referred to as "Roman sodom." One of Luther's pamphlets is entitled "Against the Papacy Established by the Devil" (1545). He once blessed a group of followers, saying: "May the Lord fill you with His blessings and with hatred of the Pope."

What I'm trying to do is remove "cited in" references where possible. At the moment, the cited in must remain because I cannot verify the source of the Angelus book review's quotation. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the only part it is quoting is the part about the blessing and the "swamp of heresies". The rest is the book review itself. If you want "balancing" quotes, the same review has some of them too. Gimmetrow 14:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. Thanks! I thought the whole quote was from the Catholic Encyclopedia. We should refer only to the review, then. As far as the paragraph itself goes, I'll not contest it as a Catholic view of Luther's polemics, although I think there are better quotations and sources available for that viewpoint. The biggest issue is not having wikipedia say that Luther attacked the church, since Luther did not believe he was doing anything of that kind at all. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 15:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

New Subsection: Luther, the Papacy, and the Council of Trent

The polemic "Against the Roman Papacy" along with "On the Councils and the Church" were written in the context of the calling of the Council of Trent. The section could be labeled "The Later Luther and the papacy" or "The aged Luther's final anti-papal polemic"--Drboisclair 17:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added a new section. The title may need to be tweaked, but I put in the sourced material that user:Mantanmoreland wishes to add to the article. --Drboisclair 17:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, but it needs an introductory sentence which I added.--Mantanmoreland 17:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Good, we can also add more material. We don't have anything on Luther's Smalcald Articles (1537), so this would be the appropriate section. I have added where one can find an English translation of On the Roman Papacy... Luther's Works 41:259-376 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by drboisclair (talk • contribs) .

Suggestions for the whole article

I'd like to work on a few article-wide things. Some have been mentioned recently by other editors, too. Can we collect them here?

1 -- Moving a lot of detail into subarticles. I'd like to focus on summary (see Wikipedia:Summary style). Let's work on ones with existing main articles first (with the exception of the Martin Luther and antisemitism issue. That should be absolutely last)

2 -- Paraphrasing and/or replacing the remaining Schaff text. It was added for that very purpose, but distractions have kept us from it.

3 -- Finish checking references, removing the cited ins if possible.

4 -- Read encyclopedia articles on Luther, looking for what they include and don't. We should be able to get some ideas this way. Encarta's [Martin Luther] is openly accessible. Others are easy to get to at a variety of libraries.

Anything else? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 17:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the best way to proceed here IMHO, and I would add that we should begin anew to avoid suspecting the worst of our fellow editors. More can be accomplished when we work co-operatively. I for one would like to make a fresh start here.--Drboisclair 21:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree in principle and I appreciate your good faith in retaining (after first reverting) the paragraph. --Mantanmoreland 12:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Intro section

I have no desire to minimize the characterization of Luther's anti-Semitism, however, the wording presented in the intro seems crafted for an emotional reaction, rather than as a neutral overview. It is rare that such specific details (such as the fact that Luther espoused burning down synagogues) or specific quotes are presented in the intro, without some type of context at least. It would be more appropriate and better writing style to write something more summarized for the intro such as:
Luther is also known for his writing about the Jews, much of it virulently anti-Semitic.[9] These views were widely publicized[10] by the Nazis in Germany in 1933–45.[11]
That gives them an introduction to Luther's anti-Semitism, which is layed out more fully (with quotes and specific details) in the appropriate section. Otherwise, the last paragraph of the intro seems more designed to titillate than introduce. Kaldari 01:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. There has been quite a bit of emotion around this issue, and, frankly, I'd like to avoid getting back into it until we've worked out the rest of the article. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 01:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You are certaintly under no obligation to discuss the issue if you don't want to. Perhaps other people would like to weigh in, however. Would anyone object to me making the change described above? Personally I think it would be a substantial improvement to the intro without really changing the character of what is said, i.e. my objection is not so much the content as the style. Kaldari 01:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The current version is a compromise. Let's leave it be.--Mantanmoreland 23:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed post from banned user. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Please, let's keep the discussion civil. Kaldari 00:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kaldari, normally it would indeed be better to summarize that Luther is also known for his anti-Semitic writing, or words to that effect, but some editors objected to anti-Semitism being referred to in the introduction, and so instead we simply repeat some of the less extreme things that Luther said about Jews (yes, there was worse than that). It was the best compromise we could come up with. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: some of the editors here believe that encouraging people to burn down synagoges is less extreme than being anti-Semitic? What, pray tell, do these editors think "anti-Semitic" means? Kaldari 02:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've spent the last couple hours going through the archives and edit history to get an understanding of what led to the current stalemate. Unfortunately, it seems most of the debate was unproductive bickering, so it took much longer than I expected. It also seems that most (if not all) of the editors participating in the debate have some kind of conflict of interest. Regardless I will assume good faith and present my findings:

1. The current wording of the last paragraph of the introduction was written by SlimVirgin on April 26, 2006, citing accusations that the article was slanted to a pro-Lutheran POV.
2. Several editors disagreed with SlimVirgin's edit and presented various alternate proposals. All of the alternate proposals presented were relatively minimizing of Luther's anti-Semitism, e.g. "The Nazis justified their genocide by citing Martin Luther's venomous words and recommendations for harsh treatment of the Jews."
3. These alternate suggestions were firmly opposed by SlimVirgin and others.
4. By July, the debate had devolved into tedious arguments about policy, civility, and conflicts of interest.
5. By mid-July the (rather toxic) debate on the intro had been largely abondonded in favor of debate on the larger section concerning Luther's anti-Semitism.

So it doesn't appear there was ever any real concensus on the wording of the intro. Slim wrote it, no one offered anything better, and the issue was eventually dropped. I don't buy Slim's argument that the current version is more acceptable to the Lutheran editors since it doesn't use the term "anti-Semitic". The most vocal opponents of Slim's wording were the same editors who objected to the use of the term "anti-Semitic" elsewhere in the article. Indeed, this seems to be a false concession on Slim's part, as the current wording is clearly more damning of Luther than calling his writing anti-Semitic. I seriously doubt there are any Lutheran editors who would prefer Slim's version to mine. Regardless, it seems quite obvious to me that use of the term "anti-Semitic" is appropriate and it would also be consistant with the wording used elsewhere in the article. It also seems to me that unlike the other suggestions offered to replace Slim's wording, my version would not be evasive or minimizing of Luther's anti-Semitism. It clearly states what is presented in the article without being sensational or soft-footed. I contend that my suggestion is, in fact, the first truly neutral version proposed. Does anyone have an argument against it, other than "this has already been settled"? Kaldari 01:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, the two sentences.......

Luther is also known for his writings about the Jews, in which he proposed that their homes be destroyed, synagogues and schools burned, money confiscated, and rights and liberties curtailed. These views were given "full publicity" by the Nazis in Germany in 1933–45.

These two sentences have become dogma on this page. Locked in concrete. Never to change. Even the weird little quote "full publicity" stands as a tripwire. What does it mean? Who knows? But it stands there in the intro as a talisman. It contains some deep, hidden meaning, that is lost to me. But I guess it means something, to somebody. And so it has stayed, along with the rest of the statement, in toto. Anyone who dares to make any change to the "two sentences" is stepping "through the looking glass", in my opinion. And Alice's Wonderland is someplace I, for one, have chosen not to return. Mytwocents 17:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

As you know from the history of this article, at some point or other every word, letter and punctuation point was at some time a subject of heated discussion. The current wording is sort of the default version, the one that appears to be least objectionable. I once attempted to redo it two-three months ago and was instantly reverted.--Mantanmoreland 18:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Size of references text

It is standard practice to reduce the size of long lists of References using the references-small class. For example, of the 26 articles promoted to Featured Article status this month, all but one used this convention (the one that didn't had only 11 references). If you need the text to be "easy on the eyes" you can always increase the font size in your browser. Kaldari 02:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That has been discussed here. The problem: most visitors of wikipedia do not know how to adjust either the browser or their wiki account's font sizes. Instead, they will find it very difficult to read. We can certainly reopen the discussion, but the last decision here was to leave it large. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 10:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Reading the guidelines pages I don't see anything suggesting any particular size be used; therefore, I suggest we maintain the status quo. Peyna 12:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It is mentioned under Style recommendations on the Footnotes page. Regardless, it is not required one way or another. Personally, I think it improves the layout of the article, as you don't have to scroll through pages and pages of citations. Also, it matches the convention of many other reference works. However, if this issue has already been decided, I will let it be, as it is quite minor. You may be asked to revisit the issue, however, if you apply as a featured article candidate. Kaldari 14:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Luther and the bigamy of Philip of Hesse

Hi CTS. The fact that there is little of no mention at all of the Philip of Hesse affair by the various encyclopedias you cited strikes me as, well, a rather curious omission indeed! But I do see you point. Still, I think that some mention of the affair ought be included in the Luther article, not for the sake of disparaging Luther, but rather, for the sake of historical completeness. However, I would prefer not to make any major changes to article myself. Rather, I would much prefer to leave that task to you, Drboisclair, and the other good editors of the Luther page. And besides, it may just be that having the link from the Luther article to the Phillip of Hesse article is all that is really needed anyway, since that article does discuss ( and fairly I think ) the affair, and it in turn links to the polygamy article, which gives still further info ( some of which I myself added ). In any event, I certainly do not want to belabor the issue! Now if I come up with any other comments or suggestions which I think might be helpful for improving this article, I’ll drop back by here with them. Take care now, and thanks for the gentlemanly response to my edit summary comment Delta x 23:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

A fresh editor is always welcome. This issue might bring balance to the article. My only suggestion would be to be brief, as this is already a lengthy article.--Mantanmoreland 23:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

(comment from banned user deleted)

I personally feel that trolls like you are worse for the Wikipedia than slightly ignorant editors. Peyna 01:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Best to ignore them, Peyna.

On the topic itself, there is no reason we could not include mention of the incident. As Mantanmoreland has pointed out, it should not be long. My point in mentioning that it does not come up in most encyclopedia entries is that, if we are looking to be concise, then they can provide a model. There is a lot of detail we have here that normally does not make it into these entries. FA standards would suggest that such detail is better off in subarticles.

My time is tight at the moment, so I cannot give it the research needed to properly write it. But others are welcome to add a sentence or two -- referenced of course. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 03:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The irony about Ptmccain's interjection above is that I once removed an edit adding stuff about Martin Luther's "constipation," thinking it was vandalism, and in fact it wasn't and was retained. Anyway, I think adding something about the bigamy thing might have merit, if kept short, and I see no problem with Delta x taking a crack at it.--Mantanmoreland 16:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland: Please do not jump to conclusions as to who an anonymous editor is. You could be just as easily wrong as right. It is in fact irrelevant, since the obnoxious comment will be treated as such, no matter who wrote it. So, please just ignore such incivilities. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 17:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a reasonable assumption based on the IP and the text. Actually the remark should not be ignored, but deleted as both a personal attack and as an edit by a sockpuppet of a banned editor. If it continues, we will have to get this talk page semi-protected.--Mantanmoreland 17:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I you want to delete the comment, go ahead. To me, its a worthless waste of time to engage with shadows. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 18:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, deleted it is.--Mantanmoreland 18:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry folks. Didn’t mean to cause a shoot-out here at the O.K.Corral ! As for suggestion that I myself add something to the article on Philip’s bigamy, thanks for the vote Mantanmoreland, but I have to say no thanks. I really think that I ought to pass on this one. As anyone can see from my contribs., I’ve already added a fair amount of critical/controversial info. (but with solid documentation I believe) with regard to the reformation/reformers. Don’t want to appear to be “gunning” for them (or anyone else for that matter!). Besides, I ‘m well aware of the fact that there is plenty of blame to go around to all parties involved in that unfortunate chapter of church history! This is not to say however, that I dont think there should now be no mention of the Philips affair. I do. But briefly, tactfully. So how about you Mantanmoreland, do you want to give it a shot (no pun). If not, maybe it would be best if we all just let this suggestion fall by the wayside. Delta x 20:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

First I should tell you that this is polite and tender compared to some of the battles we fight on this page! Hate to sound like Tom Sawyer and the white fence but I think you should do this. Seriously. We also could use another editor. Don't worry, if there is a problem it will be fixed. It was your idea you should run with it.--Mantanmoreland 20:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If this is considered "polite and tender," I might do well to keep a flak jacket handy! But seriously Mantamoreland, while I do appreciate your vote of confidence, I would still prefer not to add anything to the article regarding the Philip of Hesse affair, at least not at this time. Maybe, maybe later. As an interim compromise, how about my simply adding a link to polygamy in the See also section. Yes? Delta x 23:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

A link to polygamy? Just that? I don't follow.--Mantanmoreland 01:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems straightforward enough to me. Whats not to follow? 1. The article already has a link to Philip of Hesse, where the bigamy incident is discussed. 2. A link to polygamy would provide yet another article where, again, the incident is discussed. And as I pointed out above, just having one link to an article which refereces the matter is probably sufficient, though perhaps not ideal. So again, let me emphasize that, at present, I myself am not particularly inclined to add anything more on the subject than what I already have added here ( paragraph 2 ). Just know that I have my reasons for this, some of which I've already stated. But if you or anyone else wishes to work in a few lines on the subject in the Luther article, I say, go for it! Delta x 03:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The link by itself without context does not tell the reader much. They shouldn't have to fish through the polygamy article to find the connection. Peyna 03:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if you link to the Christianity section of polygamy, the Hesse reference is buried in there. Perhaps it should just be lifted out of that article? --Mantanmoreland 12:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that's an idea! Or perhaps just adding a footnote to the first paragraph in the section on Luther's health, final years, last days and death. Something like this (its rough but you get the idea):

"Throughout his years as a reformer, Luther was often ill. He suffered from a variety of ailments, including constipation, hemorrhoids, heart congestion, fainting spells, dizziness and roaring in the ears. From 1531-1546 Luther experienced a series of more severe health problems, including ringing in the ears, and, in 1536-1537, Luther began to experience kidney and bladder stones, which caused him particular agony during the rest of his life. He also suffered from arthritis, and experienced a ruptured ear drum due to an inner ear infection." Delta x 18:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No response. Dead silence. Was it something I said? Well anyway, the above was just a suggestion. I'm still open to discussion on this topic. But perhaps it might be best just to leave this discussion for the moment and revisit it a little later. In the meantime, as time permits, I'll try to make a few notes on the subject. And then perhaps later, when I'm in a better frame of mind ( been under little stress lately ), I'll be more inclined to add couple of lines to the body of the article, unless of course someone else does it first. Sound OK? Delta x 22:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Silence in this case is the equivalent of "why, sure, go ahead!" On my part, life is very busy preparing for the return of several hundred grad students. 8-) I have time to do a little here and there, but not much more for a few weeks. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 22:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry CTS, just didn't understand. OK then, I'll just go ahead and insert the footnote as above. It's certainly brief! And then at least there will be a reference to the incident and, if later, it's deemed that something more substantial should be added, that too can be done. By the way, dont work to hard! Delta x 23:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Or you can do it in the text. Whatever.--Mantanmoreland 00:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Didn't see your comment Mantamoreland. But I guess as you now know, it's already a fait accompli! However, it can always be changed. After all, nothing is written in stone here at Wikipedia (thank goodness!). Delta x 01:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled about introducing substantive issues via a footnote. Can always be reverted tho.--Mantanmoreland 02:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Well you did say above that "if there is a problem it will be fixed." And I assume that what you meant by that statement was that after I've edited the article in such a way I as deemed appropriate, others would, if need be, make changes to my edit in such a way as they deemed appropriate, since this is supposed to be a collaborative effort. This is how things are supposed to work here is it not? So now the ball is in your court. I've done my part as best I could. And since you are clearly dissatisfied with my efforts, please feel free to revert, modify, incorporate text into the body of the article, or to make whatever other changes you might deem appropriate. Delta x 03:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you did the absolutely right thing here, so please don't take that as a knock or anything like that.--Mantanmoreland 12:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

No offense taken. Delta x 15:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes and columns

What do you all think of this bold redesign? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 22:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you see the footnotes in two columns? I don't. Gimmetrow 22:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I do, it may be browser specific. Peyna 22:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm using a fairly standard browser (not IE) and see a single column with larger margins than normal. Perhaps this div code shouldn't spread across wikipedia unless it works more generally. Gimmetrow 23:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Beats me, I'm using Mozilla 1.5.0.6. Peyna 00:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... this was a Jesus article trick. Maybe it's not universal. Back to the drawing board. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 02:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've got a browser that displays this now. I find the multi-line notes are a little difficult to read in two column. Most articles that do two-column seem to be using small-text footnotes, and mostly have very short pure citations, so it's no big deal. There is a class, <div class="references-2column">, but it includes 90% font resizing. Also, I should mention that the column templates I suggested for the see also section are only used in a very tiny handful of articles. I liked them because they are based on CSS codes, and include a min-width so they collapse to a single column in small windows. Gimmetrow 22:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If you wish, I have no objection to removing them. It was an attempt at shrinking the page, something we're doing the old fashioned way at the moment. I do like them in the see also section, so I'd recommend keeping them there. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 01:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

For me, this is just about the aesthetics of the layout. I rather like 2-column for See Also sections over about 10 links so the text doesn't look left-leaning. I'm just saying that the column templates are pretty rarely used. In this case, because you don't actually care about control of the columns, you could do the same thing with the CSS-style as used in the References section.

On the References, if an article had mostly pure citations (short) and listed them in one column, it would look left-leaning like a one-column See Also. This aesthetic is not an issue if there are a number of longer notes to give the appearance of balance to the text, as here. Gimmetrow 01:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)